SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Melon, welcome to the Hog!
I don’t know why tripods cost so much, shop around!
Why don’t you just lift a lot of weights and build your arms up and forget the tripod?
Do you only shoot at night? Being a newbie I don’t imagine you own a 500mm prime lens, so just hand hold it(after you pump the iron). Old people are the tripod companies cash cow!!!
Look into older high quality alloy tripods, they are heavier per size but you can get them for next to nothing and they are just as sturdy.
I use 3 different tripods and none cost over a hundred dollars. I don’t hesitate to put my equipment on it and it cost a wee bit more than your gear!
So what’s your second question??? LoL
Again, welcome
SS

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I have never spent $200 on a tripod and have never bought a flimsy one.

jcboy3

You don't need a $500 tripod for your $1000 camera. Use the same criteria for reasonable on a tripod as you do on the camera. Which means it's a tradeoff with cost as the priority.

FreddB Loc: PA - Delaware County

Look in the members buy/sell - GED has a Bogen 3001 for sale $85

bittermelon

Thanks for all the replies. Just to clarify, I am newbie here, but not newbie photographer. I own 2 tripods, one for $250 but really heavy, can't take it hiking. The other a much lighter one that folds up to about 1 foot long, cost $50. That's the one I use most. I also bought a mono pod from someone who's retiring, for $10. Haven't used it much yet.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

The assumption here is that the only differences between inexpensive and expensive tripods is the brand name. This simply isn’t the case. Most of the more expensive tripods use better quality materials and have better engineered features. Their higher quality is what has given them “brand name” status.

Carbon fiber comes in a number of qualities, with the better quality material being much more expensive to manufacture and fabricate. Anyone who cycles, for instance, will readily attest that a 10x carbon frame will usually be double the price of a 5x frame. The same for tripods. The higher the quality carbon fiber used in making the tripod, the more one should expect to pay. Examine the thickness, number of wraps, leg diameters of a $150 tripod compared to higher priced tripods (take RRS for example) and it will become obvious that the $150 tripod is lacking in overall quality (and thus, not worth a heftier price). When you then start comparing other features (material used in head mount, joints, whether the legs are built to be non-rotational or not, ease/ability to disassemble and clean leg locks, etc.) the price differential is going to climb. There is simply more to it than advertising.

For some people (I’ll include myself here) a tripod is an important and indispensable piece of gear. I’d estimate that I use mine 95% of the time or more. I depend on it to both perform flawlessly and to last. I could eschew higher priced tripods and buy a $150 one, but I would wager that with the amount of use mine gets I would be buying 4 or 5 of them before the more expensive one comes anywhere near needing replacement. Why spend $600-$800 over time to work with equipment inferior to what I got by investing the higher priced tripod in the beginning?

rkberta

Expensive doesn't equal better quality all the time. Have a very expensive Gitzo large ball head I bought around 1976. Still use it but not smooth, or well machined. Took lots of fiddling before it worked as well as another brand for 1/3 the price.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Not that this explains the initial cost, but if you think about it. The tripod I use is from the '60s, with a newer ball head on it. It weighs a ton, and doesn't fold down small, but it works perfectly for me. Because it's outlasted several film cameras, up through 6 digital cameras, and various lenses that quit, or broke, or??? I guess the tripod over a period of time was a better investment than any of the cameras.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

And, partially why its cost is "seemingly" high. Good tripods last. The builder knows that each unit sold is possibly the last one they'll sell to that user. The ROI can be pretty low for these companies.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I would say so, especially on the well built ones. I imagine (from my daughter's experience with $50 tripods) the cheapies are lucky to last a year. At that rate, she would have to spend close to $3000 in cheap ones in the same amount of years that mine has lasted. In today's dollars, I'm not sure what it cost me back then, but it was painful to spend it, so I'm guessing that it wasn't a lot different money wise, than the good ones are today.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

There are an awful lot of people who believe that you 'only get what you pay for'. That 'The more expensive it is' the better it has to be. Manufacturers have known this for generations.

There is a price range of 'That is too cheap'....unless of course it comes from China.

Take your camera and heaviest lens to the shop - stick it on a display tripod and see if it 'wilts' under the weight. If it doesn't and you are strong enough to pick it up 'camera and all' chances are it will be a 'goodun'.

Have fun

Joe Blow

Much of the price difference is hype and the rest is myth.

Vibration reduction is a vastly over rated quality. Whatever causes vibration in an aluminum tripod will also cause vibration in a carbon fiber tripod. That is wind. Your camera / lens will act like a sail regardless of the material. Using a weight underneath and your body will reduce wind vibration.

Heads are largely gimmicks. Gimbals are nice and have their advantages, especially with moving subjects. They though have no rational cost - benefit though. Ball heads are preferred by some, but are also more expensive than their construction suggests. Many are more comfortable with video style handles. Due to popularity these are the least expensive.

The main benefit of carbon fiber is they weigh less than aluminum and can hold more weight. If you use a Canon 1D with an 12 lb 800mm lens in the wilds of Borneo they are a good investment. For a basic 1 1/2 or 2 lb camera with a three pound lens, aluminum will work just fine.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

It isn't really how much weight a tripod can support. How well it can dampen vibrations is far more important. Far more. I can set my heaviest camera and lens on my porch railing and not worry about it being supported. I'll guarantee though that the images will all be rejects because of vibration. Don't purchase a tripod because the hype says it can support your gear. Load bearing is a relatively minor design exercise. Designing the right combination of leg diameter, base size and material etc is far more demanding. and costly.

Arubalou

Amen to that

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Vibration is caused by many things. Not just wind. Carbon fiber is more than a weight saver, Because of its design (counter wrapped fibers) it also dampens vibrations.