latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

At ISO 100, Aperture F 4, Shutter 1 sec., I am pretty convinced that most photographers will not hold their camera steady. When I was in target pistol shooting, the goal was not to have the front bead absolutely still. The goal was to have the least wobble in the front sight and to slowly and gently release the trigger during the least wobble. I do not know of any shooters that do not have some wobble. The best have very little.

I do agree that some photographers can use hand held for certain situations. They can't for ALL situations.

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

A blanket statement that hand held for macro for all situations doesn't make sense. At ISO 100, Aperture F 4, and a shutter of 1 sec. at a 1:1 image, I doubt most photographers could hand hold hold it without some movement. When I was competing in bulls-eye pistol shooting, the goal was not to have the front sight absolutely steady. The goal was to reduce the wobble of the to the least possible and slowly and gently release the trigger during the least wobble. If one attaches a red dot sight to a 1911 model handgun, it will become apparent that holding the sight completely steady on a target is nigh impossible. I know of no competitive bulls-eye shooters that have absolutely no wobble. The best have the least.

I agree that some photographers can take some excellent macro images hand-holding the camera. On the other hand, a lot of macro images require a tripod.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Handheld with additional illumination to allow use of camera sync speed & smaller aperture. It's how I take most all of my macro shots and that's my niche. All manual settings to boot.....

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

When it comes to tripods there are three desirable features, sturdy, light, and inexpensive. You are only allowed to pick two.

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Yep, that about sums it up....

Chefneil

Wow, I had no idea that the choice of tripod would elicit such debate! There seems to be almost as many opinions as Canon vs. Nikon (Canon is the way to go! sic).

Truthfully, I understand macro being hand held is good, I have created good images both ways. And when creating a still life image having the freedom to move around unencumbered is a real good thing. But my “studio” is kinda dark, think garage/basement here, thus making it necessary for slower shutter speeds, so a tripod is a very important piece of equipment. When I frame a scene sometimes I find I want to rise or lower the camera just a little and doing that by extending each leg takes time and the tripod moves, so a center column IS important.

I am pretty comfortable with the criteria I have set out and confident I will find what I am looking for.

Thanks every one for your input, it has helped me to define my needs a little better.

olc

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Steamboat

Probably not what your looking for. But if your strictly looking for a sturdy support for studio only How about a 6'Mono stand?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2727-REG/Arkay_605138_6JRCW_Mono_Stand_Jr.html
It is the perfect addition to any Studio.
Try to find one used.... there is one on ebay for a song....if you live near Pepin, Wisconsin.... its pick up only.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Arkay-6-Camera-Mono-Stand-Local-pick-up-only/252135660399?hash=item3ab474db6f:g:XYUAAOSwgQ9VkHmn

radiojohn

I have two "vintage" Leitz Tiltalls...heavy, built like tanks...no crank! Each was under $10 in thrift stores.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

People have opinions, they also have different needs, so debate is inevitable.

Have you thought about increasing the lighting in your studio? Use indirect lighting or diffused lighting that won't interfere with shadows you like on the subject.

The reason for carbon-fiber is that it does not transmit vibrations that much. The reason for not having a center column is that it adds to the possibility for vibrations. Vibrations can result in a "soft" or even a blurry image. The longer the lens, the more likely it will happen because any shake no matter how small is magnified as it travels down the barrel of the lens. Even pushing the shutter button can be a problem, which is why a wired remote shutter release for a tripod-mounted camera is highly recommended, especially for macro.

If raising or lowering the camera just a little is important, of course adjusting the legs is one way to accomplish that. But unless you are counting on a precise specific angle from which to snap the image, why could you not just raise or lower the lens by tipping the camera? One thing I will do is to frame the scene hand-held first, then make sure the tripod is set to the correct height. Any minor adjustments can be made using the ball head to move the camera around.

When buying a tripod, it is important to buy one what will adjust to the height you need. Some want it just right for their height, but I like having one that when the legs are fully extended, is taller. That way I can take a shot upward and be able to look through the viewfinder without crouching or getting a crick in my neck! Also, if you ever shoot on uneven ground, it may be easier to get a place to put all the feet.

Top of the heap tripods are expensive - ReallyRightStuff, Gitzo, for example - because you are paying for top quality. But there are tripods that are quite good in the $500-$600 range. Feisol is a brand to look at as well as some others that have been suggested. Make sure to take note of what Gene51 has said about what to look for:

Gene51 wrote:
Whenever possible I will do closeup work handheld. However when doing real macro - at or close to 1:1 magnifcation, a good solid tripod is invaluable. The same selection criteria that applies to long lenses used on a tripod serve the macro shooter nicely. After all, it is magnification, not equipment weight, that matters. My advice is to get the beefiest carbon fiber tripod you can justify, with the realization that anything less than a Gitzo or Induro Series 5 or an RRS Series 4 will involve a degree of compromise (on stability and build quality). I am certain you can strike a nice balance between stability and cost if you look for a carbon fiber tripod without a center column that costs in the $500-$600 range - not including the head - and with a leg tube top section diameter no less than 37mm. Benro, Sirui, Feisol, and a few others have offerings in this price range. No need to spend $1000 for a first tier tripod. If you don't own or plan to use a lens at 1:1, you can scale back on the tripod a bit and save a few $$$.

For studio use, nothing beats a camera stand from Calumet or Foba. But they are quite heavy, and cost $2000 or more new. You can find the Calumet for under $1000 if you are patient. I sold one of my Calumet stands a year ago for $1100 with a few accessories.