What is it that matters in a tripod that affects the price?

E

EGGO

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
844
I need a new tripod. This one is a bit old and that crank is getting a bit tough to turn. So now a new tripod looks like it's best; however, I'm seeing them in all sorts of price ranges.

I'd like to know what is it that really affects the price that much? Sturdiness? Length? What quality is being upgraded is what I want to know, personally.

Hopefully, the answers here will help me decide what to purchase.
 
Building material is a big one... aluminum, carbon fiber, etc. How much weight it can support. Brand name. Type of leg locks,
 
Go buy yourself a heavy DSLR then stick it on a $30 tripod and you'll quickly understand.

Mostly it's build quality which is going to effect everything from the way it looks, to the amount of sturdyness it displays right down to how long it'll last.
 
The head (which i'm guessing that you will also want) is a large part of the tripod cost in addition to those things previously mentioned. It will dictate how smooth the operation is, as well as how much control you have over pointing/mounting the camera.
 
[TQ] said:
Go buy yourself a heavy DSLR then stick it on a $30 tripod and you'll quickly understand.

Mostly it's build quality which is going to effect everything from the way it looks, to the amount of sturdyness it displays right down to how long it'll last.
Click to expand...

I've been using my Rebel on a wal-mart tripod and it's been working fine. Granted it's not the best, but it works. :D
 
yes, the head, i would almost say, is more important than the legs. Fluid based heads are almost the only way to go :rolleyes:
 
Emberghost said:
I've been using my Rebel on a wal-mart tripod and it's been working fine. Granted it's not the best, but it works. :D
Click to expand...


Dido $40 tripod off amazon i had for my rebel and it was stable, solid, very adjustable to all my needs.
 
but slap a 20D with a grip and some heavy L glass on there and that "stable" tripod aint so stable anymore :p
 
What is the tripod being used for? One for a still camera doesn't need as good of a head as for video - the fluid head may be overkill for photography.
 
unless you decide to do sports photography. a pan head (the type you get on a cheap tripod) will work fine for mostly anything else...but a good ballhead is a must if you ever decide to shoot sports or wildlife from a tripod (sports because you KNOW stuff will be moving, and wildlife because...hey..its wildlife...it moves when it wants to :p)
 
MrGuvernment said:
Dido $40 tripod off amazon i had for my rebel and it was stable, solid, very adjustable to all my needs.
Click to expand...

A plastic camera and i can only imagine a plastic lens isnt going to require very much support.

I'm refering to a magnisum based body with a big fat peice of nice glass
 
4b5eN+EE said:
but slap a 20D with a grip and some heavy L glass on there and that "stable" tripod aint so stable anymore :p
Click to expand...


true - my rebel had a battery grip and i had the 200mm lense, nothing huge but was still good, but now if your tlaking $1000 tele lenses, k, i can see it being a biotchhhhhhhh to keep still :)

guess i will find out when i get my 20D in Oct :)
 
In sports people generally use monopods due to space and portability. They need something that is easy to carry around the field, and will support the weight of their lens, and a monopod fits that just fine. It doesn't matter that it would fall over if they let go, because they (hopefully) won't be doing that. It just has to "carry" their gear for them when they find a spot to stay for a play or two.

Obviously if you want to be able to do longer exposures, you'd want a tripod. But if a monopod is fine for many much heavier things (such as a 400mm f/2.8 on a 1d MarkII), why not a cheap tripod that is strong enough to support a lighter camera?


If it gets the job done in what you shoot, that's good. You may have saved some money.

Unfortunately if it is not up to the task, you'll have to pay twice to replace it... :(


Myself, I have an older and now somewhat loose (although it takes some force to wiggle the leg hindges) tripod. It may have been great in its day, and still looks awesome, but the hindges in the legs are just beginning to allow more movement than they should. For example, it is not nearly as stable as the tripod my telescope is on...but it is good enough for 30 second long exposures at 200mm with my Digital Rebel. I just do a sanity check and pick days for these things when the weather is decent and there isn't a lot of wind.

A lighter/cheaper full-size tripod from a decent company (read: ignore that walmart 10inch retractable "digital" tripod for your SLR - that can hardly handle my Nikon 995 P&S) could probably handle focal-lengths below 50mm more or less indefinately, provided it isn't light enough to fall over during the exposure and doesn't manage to spin the head around 180 degrees during the exposure....
 
dboy said:
What is the tripod being used for? One for a still camera doesn't need as good of a head as for video - the fluid head may be overkill for photography.
Click to expand...
I will agree with you for most of the public as, they never use large lenses. But if you use large heavy lenses and, dont mind carring the weight for nature shots then, the fluid head is needed for good smooth tracking. I have a Slik for my CP995 and, that is fine but, Im picking up a D50 or, D70s next month and, will have the reach out and, see someone lenses to shoot Elk,Mule deer Antelope and, any other creature I come across. Most of the time they will be in motion so, I want as close to zero vibration as possible.
PS-RagE great links I just joined the Nikonians. Thanx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top