Inexpensive Durable Tripod (Page 5): You get what you pay for. I suggest searching at Bhphotovideo.com or Adorama .com upwards of $200 for quality.

PhotosBySteve

pkr wrote:

Lightweight and under $100. Amazon has many tripods that look sturdy for this amount, but it's hard to judge their quality or stability. I need a basic tripod for use in botanical gardens, wetlands, and other non-rigorous conditions.

You get what you pay for. I suggest searching at Bhphotovideo.com or Adorama .com upwards of $200 for quality.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

The rule of tripods is there are 3 main qualities in the ideal tripod, Inexpensive, Sturdy, and Lightweight But you can only pick two.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Gene51 wrote:

For anyone recommending a Manfrotto 055, this arti... (show quote)

Thanks for the website link.

davidf_logan Loc: Logan, Utah

I really like this. It is slightly above your price limit but I use it with a Canon 5D Mark iv and a Canon 400 mm f/5.6 lens. It is sturdy, heavy and well made.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1157830-REG/benro_tma28a_mach3_aluminum_series_2.html

Martha Krohn

I have two Polaroid tripods and could not be happier with their size and stability. You can get them on Amazon for less than $50. If you don’t like it, you can always return it.

leftj Loc: Texas

pkr wrote:

Can anyone recommend a good inexpensive stable tripod for my Sony RX10IV?

Doesn’t exist.

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

jeep_daddy wrote:

This tripod: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc... (show quote)

I use a 4 lb tripod Feisol CT-3472) that is totally stable with a 600mm F4 with a 1.4X TC. It's a third of a pound lighter than the mt190xpro3, which is nothing more than a light duty tripod with a load bearing capacity of just over 15 lbs. The Feisol is carbon and has a load capacity of 66 lbs. Mind you, load capacity is about failure when loaded with a camera and lens, and should not be mistaken for stability, which is measured in torsional rigidity. Traded in a Bogen 3051 with a 3047 three way pan/tilt head - because even though it weighed over 16 lbs, it was not stable with a 300mm lens. Kinda contradicts your guidance, doesn't it?

Tripod weight has little to do with stability.

Anyway, here is a pretty decent list of tripods and stability ratings - notice how low the $200 and under tripods score, as well as the Manfrottos - with the exception of the MT055, which is a pretty decent tripod relatively speaking.

https://thecentercolumn.com/rankings/

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The OP's bridge camera with fixed lens weighs less than 2-1/2 lbs. Lots of tripods that cost less than $100 will hold that camera steady with no problem. I just finished recording a hands off 6 minute video with the 7 year old $50 tripod I posted above. Had no drift, no problems. The type of tripod needed for a heavy dslr camera with a 5 to 10 pound lens attached is not required for the OP's bridge camera.

BebuLamar

If you buy used. I bought a Bogen 3035 with the 3047 head for $50 used but in perfect condition. $50 is cheap enough and it's quite sturdy in my opinion. At 18 lbs it's no light weight though.

10MPlayer Loc: California

pkr wrote:

Lightweight and under $100. Amazon has many tripods that look sturdy for this amount, but it's hard to judge their quality or stability. I need a basic tripod for use in botanical gardens, wetlands, and other non-rigorous conditions.

Having bought a couple of lightweight tripods without satisfaction I'm going to say lightweight and sturdy are incompatible terms. If you want a rock solid tripod you need something heavy and dense ... like a rock. Heh! Seriously, you need some mass to hold the camera steady in windy conditions.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

imagemeister wrote:

This head was a "best on test" in a recent british photo mag ...FWIW

Good to know. I took a good friend of mine to Sammy's Camera and helped her pick one out. It had this head on it and I really liked it myself. It's very smooth and I like the way I can adjust the smoothness and resistance. She got the one with the normal QR that Manfortto usually has on most of their heads, but I'm going to get the one with the Arca Swiss system.

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

Bobspez wrote:

The OP's bridge camera with fixed lens weighs less than 2-1/2 lbs. Lots of tripods that cost less than $100 will hold that camera steady with no problem. I just finished recording a hands off 6 minute video with the 7 year old $50 tripod I posted above. Had no drift, no problems. The type of tripod needed for a heavy dslr camera with a 5 to 10 pound lens attached is not required for the OP's bridge camera.

If you understand the relationship between stability (torsional rigidity) and magnification, you'll quickly appreciate that every tripod on the market will counteract gravity and keep a 2.5 lb camera from hitting the ground unexpectedly. But keeping it from vibrating, especially under high magnification situations - like close work at 220mm (equivalent to 600mm) or in macro range - a junk tripod just doesn't cut it. A bridge camera shooting at 1:2 magnification needs EXACTLY the same level of torsional rigidity as a heavy full frame camera at the same magnification - that is just common sense - in fact, since the bridge camera is so light, it may be more prone to vibrating than a heavier camera and lens, which has higher mass and inertia, making it less prone to movement.

I have the same camera the OP has, and yes, it can and does vibrate on light-duty tripods. I get zero vibration on the heavy duty stuff.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

pendennis wrote:

Inexpensive and stable aren't used together when discussing tripods.

First, could you provide a budgetary amount for the tripod? You should also advise whether a good used tripod is in the mix. A good used tripod can be far more effective than a cheap new one.

Most people don't spend enough on tripods, and they always live to regret it. You have a camera which would cost around $1500-1600 to replace. Don't skimp on the tripod.

=====================

Very True.

After the camera expense, next is the lenses and then the tripod... Please give good thought to your choice as to the support system you want for your camera(s).

I have had the same tripod for the last fifteen years. I did get it on sale through B-H, a Gitzo aluminum. I forgot the model number however, it looks like this one on E-Bay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Gitzo-G415-Series-4-Pro-Studex-Tripod-Legs-Aluminum-783/202475808096?hash=item2f247fa560:g:RkkAAOSw4KVbynfQ:rk:48:pf:0

I did put a Manfrotto ball-head on it, and have used it with my Canon cameras (20D to my new 5D Mark VI) Also will support my 4X5 Toyo "Deluxe" and Crown Graphic 4X5 cameras.

A good used one will save your money = Just be sure that it is from not only another photographer but a truthful one - Ask Questions on its use and history.

Going cheap is NOT the best idea. Do your equipment right, and it will serve you well into the future.

=0=

Robinbs Loc: Colorado

I purchased a ProMaster FW23T to use with a Nikon D810 for $100 and it does quit well.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Lots of choices for sturdy and reasonable price, just not lite weight. I use this one, check out their product line and you may find what your looking for. Good solid tripods, just not lite weight. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029080-REG/slik_613_700_sbh_808dq_ball_head.html/?ap=y&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI34WLnarl3gIV9v_jBx0qZQ6vEAQYAiABEgKNXvD_BwE&smp=Y