mr spock Loc: Fairfield CT

Nikkor AFPDX 70-300 Ed vr

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

I thought maybe I could offer some facts, rather than opinions, and tell you what I use for something similar, but your camera/lens combination is lighter than my DX body alone, even without batteries and card. (A little extra weight helps to absorb vibrations.) The closest I have is a 300mm Novoflex lens head on a small Novoflex focusing bellows and a Fujifilm S3 Pro. Stability is no problem with either a Hakuba HG-6230C or Bogen 3021 tripod, and either a Bogen 308 RC ball head or Bogen 3030 pan/tilt head. With your budget you may have to buy used, so I would look into those or something close. The 3021 is heavier duty than the Habuba carbon-fiber, but the latter may be harder to find. Balance should be no problem with your rig, so it certainly won’t take much to actually hold it. Whatever you buy, be sure to get a return policy just in case. Also, check what the user’s manual says about VR on a tripod, you may get by with something lighter. Good luck!

markjay

Get a Gitzo.
You can sometimes get a good one at Walmart

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

No!!!!

repleo Loc: Boston

I think Gitzo rates their tripods by lens focal length. The rating is built into the model number some way. I would think that this is a much more useful guide than load rating unless you are planning on using the tripod as an axle stand. Pity more manufacturers don't do the same.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

We have a couple of Vanguard Tracker 4s here, and they are big and sturdy. They cost $166 and $172. ebay will have good brands at lower than list prices. It's often the head that's the weak point for a big, heavy lens. When you tilt it, the head can't hold that angle. That's where a gimbal comes in handy. The common advice is to get a tripod that will hold twice the weight of your heaviest rig. Good links below.

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm
https://digital-photography-school.com/everything-about-tripods-phil-steele/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIWvjfI_-PA
http://digital-photography-school.com/build-ideal-tripod/
http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/5-pros-and-5-cons-of-using-a-tripod/
http://www.lightstalking.com/tripod-heads/

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

What set me off? The continuous bad information offered as sage advice when it comes to tripods.

If you read RRS's 3 pages on tripod selection it's pretty clear what their position is on load ratings:

"When it comes to selecting a tripod, it’s important to have a means of comparison for the performance and support each can offer. On one hand, this is a simple measurable value – how much weight can the tripod hold up safely without collapsing or failing in some way. But the unseen vibration damping performance is difficult to quantify itself, so we must use other means of comparison. By separating the tripods into size “class” groups, we can use the focal length of the lens as a guideline to make sure a tripod can adequately dampen vibration to allow that lens to resolve detail at full power."

Or did you miss this?

The point is that the traditional method of using load capacity is inadequate because it only speaks to avoiding structural failure, not vibration damping, which is the whole reason why you buy a tripod in the first place. If load capacity where the only thing that was important, the $45 tripod you can get at Walmart would be more than adequate. But in practice, it isn't. Not even close.

RRS is very clear about load capacity and vibration damping:

"Most photographers, however, are using gear that weighs much less than those ratings. Technically the smallest tripod, our TQC-14, could hold a 500 or 600mm lens without collapsing. So why don’t we recommend that combination?

It all comes back to vibration.

MAGNIFICATION GOES BOTH WAYS

The longer the focal length, the more vibration can be apparent (thanks to the magnification of the lens and variables of longer optics), and therefore the higher the demands for eliminating or preventing that vibration. Based on this principle we focus more on results-driven comparison based on the gear that will be supported. Having a load capacity much higher than the weight of the gear gives additional capacity to be used for additional ballast or weight to be mounted on the tripod, which helps with both balance and inertia (preventing vibration)."

Perusing their charts and other information - you will (or not) come to the conclusion that load capacity is meaningless, since even their smallest, lightest travel tripod will support - as is resist gravity - an 8.5 lb load, like a crop camera with a Sigma Sport - total weight of just over 8 lbs. After all, it has a 25 lb load capacity. But if you see that combo in action, you'll quickly see why the beefier tripods are far better with longer lenses. By your measure, the TQC-14 is 2-3 times more than you need. But the OP has a 300mm lens, which on a crop camera has a field of view equal to 450mm. So it doesn't come close to adequately supporting the lens with minimal vibration.

They go on to say:

"Note that the focal lengths listed are independent of physical weight or lens speed (aperture). This means that even though a 300mm/f4 lens might weigh only about as much as a 70-200mm/f2.8, you still have the same magnification factor to deal with in terms of “revealing” vibration within the system. This may be emphasized by the lower mass of the lens as well, since a lighter setup has less overall inertia (resistance to outside vibration). Adding tripod ballast by hanging weight from the built-in hook helps offset that difference."

So, as you can see, tripod selection should not be based on load capacity. Instead, tested performance data based on vibration dampening is far more reliable. Typically, the thicker the top leg and the larger the camera base is, and to a lesser degree how many leg sections, will be a more accurate predictor of what tripod will be adequate.

Lastly, in order to be adequate, the design and construction needs to be "beefy" and by default will have an amazing load capacity, anywhere from 3x-12x more than the camera load. It is not possible to have the vibration damping and not support heavy loads.

So, no - 150% of camera/lens load is a lousy way to select a tripod.

You've been around this forum for a while - this topic has been covered ad nauseam, probably 100s of times. The story remains the same. There are those who advocate using $100 tripods (or less) and those that blindly follow them and waste their money, and those that "get it" and buy the right tripod right off the bat.

My advice is clearly not personal in nature. It is supported by many mfgr sites. On the other hand, even though I asked you for anything that a reputable mfgr or reviewer has written that supports your claim, and you just double down, and somehow try to discredit what I brought to the table and by misinterpreting what is contained in the links I provided.

You and I agree, btw on one point - you don't need a "pro" (whatever that means) tripod to get decent results. And if you read my recommendations, only RRS Gitzo and Induro can really be classified as "Pro" tripods. The others - Sirui, Benro, Feisol, and let's put Nest in there as well - are value priced but very serviceable alternatives. The Walmart/Costco/Sams tripods are indeed - toys and not worth consideration.

I hope this clarifies the rationale behind my recommendations, and hopefully informs the decision the OP is about to make. With any luck, he will avoid the high cost of bad decisions based on bad advice - why should he end up paying $550 to $650 for two tripods, one a $150 mistake, and the other the correct tripod?

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

I agree with you 100%. Better too purchase more tripod/head than you need at this time than to have to purchase another later because you have upgraded to a larger camera and/or longer lens . ( Been there done that).

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

That is very difficult for your budget. You can get good used ones off ebay for that price point. Your 70-300 with VR should be hand hold able without a problem. Here is an example of what is out there.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Manfrotto-190CXPRO3-Carbon-Fiber-Tripod-with-Vanguard-SBH-100-ballhead/232588693022?epid=112203718&hash=item36275dce1e:g:45kAAOSwO9JaKGWt

You could offer the guy $150.00 and see what happens. This is just an example of what is out there.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You are correct. And Induro, while not calling out lens focal lengths, has closely modeled their tripods after Gitzo - right down to their series ratings and how they relate to top tube thickness, which is an accurate predictor of tripod performance. There was a thread on this a while back

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-459681-1.html

The information you mentioned is found in the Gitzo catalog, pp 10-13.

Gitzo 2015 Product Catalog.
Attached file:
(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I did the same. I started off with a beefy tripod - a Feisol CT-3472 - which I used for everything. It cost me $525 back in 2007, when it was first introduced. At the time money was a little tight, but I had just purchased (and returned) a Gitzo Series 3 - an excellent tripod, recommended by many bloggers and on many forum threads as being "all you need" for a long lens. I tried it with a 500mm lens on a crop camera. It vibrated, so I sent it back and got the Feisol, which was the same price as the Series 3 Gitzo, but had thicker legs and correspondingly better stability.

Two years ago I got it's smaller brother, the CT-3442 - same design and build quality but not as beefy. It was $310. While it has a load capacity of 55 lbs and will certainly "support" an 8.5 lb load, such as my 150-600 and D800 - it is far from stable. But I would not expect that it would. The bigger tripod has 37mm diameter top tubes, while the smaller one has 28mm tubes. I just wanted a smaller, lighter tripod that I might use while traveling or backpacking, where I seldom use anything longer than 300mm. The CT-3442 easily fits in a carry on bag for overhead compartment storage on an airplane, and can be strapped to my backpack when I hike, and it only weighs 2.4 lbs.

Tjohn Loc: Inverness, FL formerly Arivaca, AZ

I have found good quality tripods in thrift stores, but that may take months to find. Just a thought.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Jim Bob

You can find a workable tripod in that range given your rig (D3300 and 70-300). It will represent a compromise and will have some limitations. But depending on how you intend to use it you may find it acceptable. Contrary to what some of these guys think, you do not need to spend a thousand or more dollars to get a decent tripod.

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

The allure of a cheap tripod is hard to ignore, on a budget. However, as usual, Gene is spot on with his analysis and support for the argument against the cheaper tripods. For example, I own both the mephoto roadtrip and the Feisol CT-3442. They are both marketed as "travel" tripods, in that they're both 4 section legs with a fairly compact length. (Mr Spock, I know you didn't specify that you're looking for a travel tripod, but I think this illustrates a point.) The mephoto is smaller overall. I have set them both up, side by side. There is absolutely no comparison in stability between the two. The Feisol is far more stable. You pay the price for that in its overall girth, since the top leg tubes and head/camera platform are far thicker. Still, it's incredibly light for its girth, being made of carbon fiber. I'll use the mefoto with my Lumix LX-100 when I'm going for super-compact. My Fuji X-t2, with any of the lenses, goes on the Feisol.

As for price, here's the rub: The mephoto aluminum roadtrip can be had for $128 (after rebate) and it comes with an arca-swiss ball head. The Feisol is $419 without a head or center column.

My advice is to think carefully about what you want your camera and 70-300mm zoom sitting on, when it's zoomed out to 300 mm and there's a steady breeze. If you go cheap, you not only risk more vibration, but also failure of the leg locks, or something else that might not be built so well. You may be schlepping back to the camera shop for a better set of legs or, worse yet, a better set of legs and to repair a damaged lens and/or camera.