Tripod advice

Turbo-G

Turbo-G

Turbo-G

Associate
Joined
6 Jan 2009
Posts
1,191
Hi guys,
Looking to purchase a tripod shortly, as I want to experiment with longer shutter speeds and also improve the sharpness of my landscapes.

As the tripod will only really be used when I'm out and about, I guess size and weight are pretty important to me without wanting to spend too much (less than £150).

I own a D3100 with the 18-55mm, 35mm 1.8 and the 55-200mm, so none of my kit is mega heavy - but saying that it would be good to future proof slightly (although I can't see me going full frame any time in the foreseeable).

I have my eye on the Vanguard Nivelo 245BK following a positive review in both N-Photo magazine and on FroKnowsPhoto.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA-p24fjy1s). It looks easy to use, quite light weight, compresses quite small and fairly well priced.

Does anybody have experience of this tripod, or can recommend an alternate (with regards to size/weight and price).

Thanks in advance.
 
Tripod basics- choose 2 of cheap, light, stable. Tripods that are not stable are useless, thus you have to choose expensive and light carbon fibre or cheaper but heavier solid steel tripods.
Light and cheap are still relative terms. The tripod and head should way 1.5 to 2.0x the weight of your camera +grip + heaviest lens you want to support. Thus ahold argon fibre tripod and a good ball head will still set you back about 2.5-3kgs.

Sadly there is no such thing as a cheap and good tripod. Don't under budget the tripod purchase. If You payd 500gbp for a camera and another 500 on some lenses then expect to pay about 500 again for a good tripod with a good head, and even then you won't get support for big lenses. Tripods last a long time, will outlast any camera and most lenses. Don't waste money by buying cheap once and then buying more expensive later.

Other things to look out for:
try to avoid 4 piece legs, the tripod is only as stable as the weakest link, which is useless the thinnest metal/carbon fiber leg strut. 3 pieces legs are the best for stability, and will allow for a more stable tripod at a cheaperrice point.

Similarly, avoid any kind of center column. The ball head should sit at the apex of the tripod legs and allow the center of mass of the camera and lens to fit as close to the apex as possible. Again avoiding a center column will help give a more stable tripod at a lower price, you also save twice by not needing a center column in the first place.

On longer lenses you will want to mount the lens to the tripod, not the camera. Make sureto buy a ball head system that allows you to by plates to attach to your cameras and lenses. Really right stuff, markins, arca Swiss are all good systems and mostly compatible.

When you see tripods boasting stupid weight limits like 50lbs this is simply e breaking point of the materials, not the stable supporting mass limit. Good manufacturers like Gitzo list a true stability weight, typically 1-5 kgs.

To test tripod stability put your longest lens on fully extended, tap the end of the lens.there shouldn't be any wobble or vibration in the slightest, if there is the tripod is defective or unfit the purpose. 90% of cheap tripods fail at the first hurdle.
 
D.P. said:
Sadly there is no such thing as a cheap and good tripod. Don't under budget the tripod purchase. If You payd 500gbp for a camera and another 500 on some lenses then expect to pay about 500 again for a good tripod with a good head, and even then you won't get support for big lenses. Tripods last a long time, will outlast any camera and most lenses. Don't waste money by buying cheap once and then buying more expensive later.
Click to expand...

Lol really? You are saying to a guy who owns some of the lightest nikon DSLR equipment who has no intention of going full frame, let along anything that weighs over 2kg per item (like exotic tele primes which are over £3k+ each..) to pay £500 on a tripod and head? Thats just insane advice and utterly pointless to the OP. You have a good point with the rest of the post in regards to general information, but there are some products which fit his needs perfectly.

Example = http://www.redsnapperuk.com/camera-accessories/RS_283_And_RHS_12_Ball_Heads.html#nogo for £109.99.

Made from aluminium so its light, but sturdy. Has spiked feet for extra grip on uneven terrain, can be lowered to the point where its nearly sat on the floor which is great for wildlife and macro photography and even comes with a bag which has a shoulder strap (thats very comfy!).

Coupled with this, max rated load the tripod can take is 8kg whilst the ball head can take upto 10kg. You aren't gonna get ANYWHERE near those weights unless you have a fetish for a 600mm prime with a D4 + TC's attached to it...
 
Thanks for the advice guys. I understand that stability is key in a tripod, as that is its primary function, but I also need compact dimensions when in transit.

The red snapper looks very good, especially at the price, but from what I gather is going to be over 700mm in length when folded down, which is still quite big in comparison to the Vanguard.

I just don't want to buy something I'm going to regret either due to stability issues, or on the flip side because of its bulk/weight.

Any other options? I know the Manfrotto 190XPROB is another popular option, but once you add a head it increases in length and weight some what.
 
D.P. said:
Sadly there is no such thing as a cheap and good tripod. Don't under budget the tripod purchase. If You payd 500gbp for a camera and another 500 on some lenses then expect to pay about 500 again for a good tripod with a good head, and even then you won't get support for big lenses. Tripods last a long time, will outlast any camera and most lenses. Don't waste money by buying cheap once and then buying more expensive later.
Click to expand...

Is that the equation for buying tripods?

Same price as the lens or 50% of the camera and lens? :confused:

£500 on a tripod for a £1k set up? £1k get you what? D7000 with a 50/1.8? Or a 650D with a Tamron 17-50?

How did my Manfrotto 055Pro with 141RC coped with a 5Diii with a 24-70/85/70-200? On that formula I would need a £2,000 tripod ! I haven't tried it but i am pretty certain my tripod can hold something like a 500mm prime with ease if need be.

FYI, my Manfrotto cost me £150 eleven years ago, yes, I agree good tripod last longer than most other gear but your formula is just absurd and utterly ridiculous!
 
Last edited:
James J said:
Lol really? You are saying to a guy who owns some of the lightest nikon DSLR equipment who has no intention of going full frame, let along anything that weighs over 2kg per item (like exotic tele primes which are over £3k+ each..) to pay £500 on a tripod and head? Thats just insane advice and utterly pointless to the OP. You have a good point with the rest of the post in regards to general information, but there are some products which fit his needs perfectly.

Example = http://www.redsnapperuk.com/camera-accessories/RS_283_And_RHS_12_Ball_Heads.html#nogo for £109.99.

Made from aluminium so its light, but sturdy. Has spiked feet for extra grip on uneven terrain, can be lowered to the point where its nearly sat on the floor which is great for wildlife and macro photography and even comes with a bag which has a shoulder strap (thats very comfy!).

Coupled with this, max rated load the tripod can take is 8kg whilst the ball head can take upto 10kg. You aren't gonna get ANYWHERE near those weights unless you have a fetish for a 600mm prime with a D4 + TC's attached to it...
Click to expand...

I never told the OP to buy a 500 tripod, I just pointed out that if one has spent significant money on a camera, more money on some lenses, more on batteries and filters, more on software, then a tripod and head should not be skimped on. Yeah, if someone has spent a grand on camera gear then spending a few hundred on a tripod setup which is one of the most critical components is a ball park figure for a tripod and head.

red snapper tripods are really no where near as good as some on here seem to make out. Load it up with 200-300mm lens and watch it wobble, I tested a few red snapper tripods and they were all poir to useless with a 70-200mm 2.8 on them. Not sure which ones I tested and how that compares to the one you linked to but I doubt it stands up to much longer lens use. I don't care what weight it says it can support, that is simply the breaking point. It absolutely will not support 8kg in a functional and flawless way. A 600mm prime and pro body, you are looking at a full Wembly setup on at least a Gitzo 55 series and typcially a wembly sidekick for proper stability and functionality.
Remember, a tripod needs to do much, much, much more than simply sit there holding your gear without crumpling. When you set the composition there should be absolutely zero slop. There should be absolutely no vibration in the slightest, that is the problem with almost every lower end tripod out there. I would love tone proven wrong it I have searched many large camera stores and tested dozens of tripods at many price points to no avail. There are a few that are pretty decent and close to the like of Really Right stuff but about 20-30% cheaper. This choice is akin to choosing between a well reviewed sigma lens or the Nikon/canon alternative, do you choose a sigma 24-70mm or the canon?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Is that the equation for buying tripods?

Same price as the lens or 50% of the camera and lens? :confused:

£500 on a tripod for a £1k set up? £1k get you what? D7000 with a 50/1.8? Or a 650D with a Tamron 17-50?

How did my Manfrotto 055Pro with 141RC coped with a 5Diii with a 24-70/85/70-200? On that formula I would need a £2,000 tripod ! I haven't tried it but i am pretty certain my tripod can hold something like a 500mm prime with ease if need be.

FYI, my Manfrotto cost me £150 eleven years ago, yes, I agree good tripod last longer than most other gear but your formula is just absurd and utterly ridiculous!
Click to expand...



No, it is not an equation at all. I am merely pointing out that for something which is so fundamental to photography and will easily out last several generations of cameras and outlast many lenses you shouldn't be surprised to budget similar amounts of money to a tripod setup as you did on one of your good lenses. Quite obviously one cannot make a general formula with lenses and bodies costing 8k!

I have used a manfrotto 055pro extensively ( my old lab used to own one), it is a decent tripod but it is neither light nor flawless. I tried it with my 70-200mm 2.8 with TC and the support was not great but passable, could never work with a longer heavier setup, but many of the limitations were from the poor head. The operation was also far from smooth and painless when loaded up. Will it support a 500mm prime without breaking, for sure, will it be a pleasure to use and be robust against vibrations, heck no. Not in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
It absolutely will not support 8kg in a functional and flawless way. A 600mm prime and pro body , you are looking at a full Wembly setup on at least a Gitzo 55 series and typcially a wembly sidekick for proper stability and functionality.
Click to expand...

But the OP is clearly not going to putting 8Kg of gear on the tripod and he won't be using a 600mm prime or a pro body.

Maybe you should give advice related to what the OP actually wants rather then some imaginary scenario.
 
ThePirateHulk said:
But the OP is clearly not going to putting 8Kg of gear on the tripod and he won't be using a 600mm prime or a pro body.

Maybe you should give advice related to what the OP actually wants rather then some imaginary scenario.
Click to expand...

I was never the one talking about 600mm lenses, 28kgs but wouldn't properly support 2 kgs.

Besides which, tripod support is more a function of effective focal length than weight, 200mm on a crop body is quite a lot of reach and will amplify any vibrations.

Will try to dig out some research I did a couple of years back on some acceptable lower end tripods.
Edit: I've heard good thing about tharchatech ultimate head for a ball head that doesn't cost a diamond ring, http://acratech.net/product.php?productid=7
 
Last edited:
Where on earth are these vibrations coming from you speak of?

There are a herd of American bufferlos running around I don't know about?

Perhaps you could link us to a few of these £500 tripods you speak of.
 
D.P. said:
and will amplify any vibrations.
Click to expand...

Raymond Lin said:
Where on earth are these vibrations coming from you speak of?
Click to expand...

Raymond, they are coming from the amplifier (Fig. 1), didn't you read his post properly :rolleyes:;)

Fig.1 - A tripod
ecofan6a3amplifier3quar.jpg
 
Raymond Lin said:
Where on earth are these vibrations coming from you speak of?

There are a herd of American bufferlos running around I don't know about?

Perhaps you could link us to a few of these £500 tripods you speak of.
Click to expand...

Mirror slap, wind outside, people walking on the wooden floors inside, finger pressing th shutter button when not using remote. The usual.
 
James J said:
His 18-55 and 55-200 lenses have VR, making vibrations most likely irrelevant anyway even when on the tripod as they each have two mode VR.

Your argument is still aimed at the very highest of users, which pretty much no one on this forum would ever require!
Click to expand...

The VR on those lenses CANNOT BE USED ON A TRIPOD, if Vr is left on there willbe terrible blurring. Even if VR could be used the purpose of a tripod is to remove the need for VR and remove vibrations or camera movement (yes I know some long primes have special VR modes for use on tripods, that is a different issue, and some lenses have a tripod detection which will switch off VR letting the tripod deal with vibrations).


My argument is based on the fundamentals of photography. A tripod is used to stabilize the camera And avoid vibrations or movement, any tripod that fails to do this is useless, whatever camera is attached to the tripod. Just because the OP has smaller and cheaper camera gear doesn't change the ultimate functionality of what a tripod should do. Buying a cheaper car still means buying a car with an engine and 4 wheels that can drive you from place A to B, if the car cannot achieve that because it is missing an engine then it is a useless device even if it is cheap.

Don't under estimate what 200mm f5.6 lens needs on a crop body, that is 300mm effective focal length and the smallest vibrations will easily be visible on today's high resolution sensors. Tripod stability is more about the focal length than the weight it must support, good tripod manufacturers will differentiate their tripods by focal length of lenses rather than weight of lenses. Hence some tripods have a load capacity of 30kgs but couldn't support 200mm properly. light lenses are not always that favorable because they are more prone to vibration, heavier lenses have more dampening.

I'm not saying the OP should spend 500 quid, just that a realistic budget has to be set, a tripod is a critical piece of equipment, and that it is not very easy to find a good one at a low price point that functions as it is supposed to.
 
-Ad- said:
I most likely have a much better understanding than you seeing as I'm an Engineer.

Nice try though, pity it was soo limp.
Click to expand...

Since when has this forum turned to petty insults:rolleyes:

You know nothing about me, my education or career. Engineer means nothing, I work as an engineer and have a PhD, still want to play this game??Or we can agree that it is very easy to amplify vibrations mechanically, like a tuning fork.
 
And what tripod would you recommend as a minimum?

And what tripod and head would you get if say you have the 70-200 to mount on it.

Sod the theory and the science, I like to see some products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom