jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Some reading -

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm
http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/5-pros-and-5-cons-of-using-a-tripod/
http://www.lightstalking.com/tripod-heads/

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

So far no one has explained to me just what their $300 tripod does that the $45 Slik doesn't do. It is stable and it is lightweight. NO lightweight tripod would be particularly safe for a heavy long telephoto lens, but if I want something to carry simply for shooting some long exposures or some HDR shots, it works just fine, thank you very much. If I use it for my heavy telephoto I keep my strap around my neck, as I would with ANY lightweight tripod. It did not sound like the person asking this question was a professional who wanted to plunk down very serious cash for a tripod.

And by the way - my Honda runs just as good as your BMW, it is built better, and will probably last longer.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

There are literally 100's of tripods to choose from.
I posted a ProMaster tripod in the BUY/SELL Forum. It's a good tripod at I think, a fair price. Take a look. If you're interested, send me a PM and we can talk further.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Check out this by Thom Hogan:

http://bythom.com/support.htm

teesquare Loc: USA

I am not anti Slik...I have owned a few of the cheapies. And still have some of the carbon fiber ones - several hundred dollar units...So, it is not my intent to argue with you or defend my comments - rather offer a bit more of my reasoning/thoughts earlier in this thread. I too - do not understand the need for the "esoteric" priced tripods...

But - for travel, I love the Sirui T-025X. It is lighter, more compact, and more rigid. Why? How? Unfortunately - I am not a tripod engineer. But, in a side by side comparison - it just is. The included ball head is highly under-priced as compared to most on the market. It really is a good one. And - their weight support numbers are very realistic. ( Tho I never load a tripod more than 1/2 of the "tested" weights - just a habit from years of disappointment :wink: )
And - the BEST part...this little Sirui is available everyday for less than $250.......

SHLeM52 Loc: Jacksonville, FL

I agree with you sb. I've had a Slik tripod I've been using since the 80s. I replace the standard head with arca swiss type ball head and it's even better than before. Not everyone has the deep pockets to afford the high $$ tripod, so we make do knowing the limitations of what we have.

teesquare Loc: USA

I think of a tripod as an accessory that not everyone has the same need for. SO, there are many - at ALL price levels to choose from. No need to bash someone for their choice of tripod - or camera. But - we do see that tendency on UHH -sadly.
I don't think I can justify the very high end tripods, but those that make their money from landscapes, or weddings - can certainly justify not leaving anything to chance. They operate on a different scale than most of us.

Not better - or worse, just different. Ain't choices great?

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

I've done my time with less than satisfactory tripods. I am looking at two now, the Gitzo 3 series and the RRS 3 series. They both are carbon fiber and do not have a center column.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

My suggestion is to go with RRS, It's expensive but worth it. Yes
I own a TVC 34L and I bot the center column.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

It may not be possible to have a single tripod depending on what you are doing. So I'll share the components and leave it to you to decide what to do.

As mentioned by others, tripods can generally be had in several flavours. There are wooden ones and steel ones in various sizes all of them heavy but also very solid. There are aluminum ones that tend to be inexpensive and a lot lighter for travelling. And there's carbon fibre which is very light but also expensive. Some tripods have legs that only lock in one position when open. That's fine unless you want to get closer to the ground. In that case look for legs that release and take you lower by spreading out. These are also more practical when you need support on the side of a mountain where there isn't a flat area to place the tripod.

Decide on the three legs based on weight and physical size according to what you need.

Some tripods have only plastic caps on the end for feet. That's ok and tends not to damage floors and stuff. Others have adjustable rubber feet with an integrated spike. These are good for floors and also for standing up on soil and mud. Some can be had only with spikes, and a few have what look like landing pads used by the moon mission. The landing pads are useful when working close to the ground but they don't compare well with spikes when it comes to securing the tripod firmly. Many tripod brands actually have feet as accessories so you can select the tripod and then add the feet.

Tripods come with or without a centre post. Some posts are raised with a crank which is a nice touch but can slow you down when you have to make fast adjustments. Others go up and down freely and lock with a single thumb screw. They are faster to adjust. The main problem with the centre posts is that you can't get close to the ground for macro work. The workaround is a tripod that has a centre post that can be adjusted parallel to the ground. That allows you to go right down.

Some centre posts have a hook on the bottom end onto which you can hang a grocery bag full of sand or rocks to increase the stability of the tripod. These aren't essential, you can always rig something up but if it happens to come with a hook that's a bonus.

Some posts also allow you to mount the camera upside down which is another way to get close to the ground. Some tripods also allow you to detach a leg and use it as a monopod, another useful accessory sometimes.

Centre posts are also a mixed blessing. They are incredibly handy for quickly adjusting camera height. However the higher you take the post the more unstable your tripod becomes. A post that is full extended will likely also impart a but of shake to the camera whereas a camera mounted directly on top of the tripod not using a post is the most stable platform.

The number of stages is important too. Most have two or three stages for achieving full height, others as many as five or six. The more sections, the shorter the tripod is in use. The less sections the faster it is to set up and also adjust for height.

Finally, look at weight capacity. Calculate the weight of your camera and the longest lens you'll ever own and pick a tripod that can handle at least twice that weight. In addition it's handy to be able to add another five pounds in the form of a rock or sand to increase stability.

So those are your tripod choices. The second question to consider is the head on the tripod. These tend to come in three flavours. The first is a three way head that allows you to adjust the position of the camera on all three axes. This is ideal if you're doing architecture, stuff like that, where you may have to position the camera at an odd angle. However, this head is the most time consuming to set up as a rule so it's not handy for situations where you have to respond quickly.

The second flavour is the pan head. With a single lever you can move the camera on a horizontal axis to track wild life and birds, that kind of thing. Since it's a single handle it's easy to adjust the camera position and lock it when needed. The only problem with the pan head is that you can't work in three dimensions without messing about making adjustments which costs time again.

The third flavour of head is the ball head. This is simply a ball that is released with a single screw. The more expensive ones have a second screw that adjusts the friction on the ball so that it's easier to control making changes. What's nice about these heads, and I own several, is that you can make instant positional changes with a single knob. At the same time if you have to make fine adjustments that ball head can be a pain in the butt.

Within the different heads are additional features like a squeezable handle that releases everything allowing the camera to be repositioned quickly. These accessories actually work and they do have an adjustment for ensuring a firm lock.

Important on the head as well is a quick release plate. This allows you to remove the camera if you suddenly have to do a hand held shot. All of my tripods have release plates and most have the same one so that I can also quickly switch from one head to another.

There is also a specialized head for panoramas. With this head you can position your lens to the optical centre and then rotate the camera in a controlled predictable fashion to do a panorama. The only problem with that head is that it's expensive and of limited use, basically it's for panoramas. Within this category too you can get one for a normal horizontal panorama, or one that allows you to photograph a scene in a spherical manner.

Heads have to have the same weight capacities as the legs except that they don't have to hold up a grocery bag attached for additional stability.

So those are your head choices.

Height is simple, you should be able to raise the camera to eye level. If you sometimes do things up high a longer tripod is desirable but then you add weight and you need a step ladder to use it. A shorter one is ok too but now you're stooped over or on your knees to take a picture which isn't always a good idea.

One final consideration, for stills any of the above are desirable. If you're into video however, you need to get yourself a pan head that is designed for video and ideally is fluid filled. That allows you to move the camera about without any vibrations or stickiness. Many tripod heads do not offer that smoothness, that's why heads were developed specifically for video. Alas they tend to be quite expensive too.

For myself, I have a very tall heavy tripod that I use high up. I have a very short one that stands on a table and has limited weight capacity. I've got a sixteen inch (folded length) tripod I travel with that also converts to a monopod. I have a general one that I use for events and stuff like that. And then there are many others that I use for specialized things. It's the medium and the general one that get the most use and are appreciated the most. Both also have ball heads.

The really tall one has a three way head. I have a couple of heavy tripods for video too with a pan head on each to track birds and other wildlife.

In terms of budget, I would not consider a serious tripod under a hundred dollars. In fact my cut off including a head is around two hundred dollars minimum. Tripods are like glass. There's cheap glass but all you get from it are questionable pictures. There's expensive glass that gives you awesome results. And there's medium priced glass that's ok for most people and does a relatively good job.

You don't have to buy the best tripod unless you really need the stability and functionality it provides but I'd recommend staying away from the really cheap ones too. They are not stable enough to provide you a solid platform for slow exposures. A compromise might be between a hundred and two hundred dollars.

I hope I've not bewildered you too much but I thought it would be helpful to understand your tripod options. This way you can go into a camera store now and try what's there and make a more informed decision. Good Luck!!

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I shoot a lot on beaches, or in the water...I would not trust a $45 tripod in the water with the surf hitting it. My manfrotto and acratech ball head are easy to clean afterwards.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Please be more specific in the title of your posts. I thought you were calling me!

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

I started with a $45 tripod which was never real stable. It fell apart about a year later. I then went to Christian Photo in Des Moines and talked to the sales person who asked me about the type of photography I do and how I use a tripod. He then demonstrated a couple of choices after which I bought a very stable and easily configured, very adjustable Manfrotto tripod and ball head. If I remember correctly the two items set me back about $350 total. My Canon T3i is comparable to your D3300 so it would be stable enough for you too but it isn't lightweight. I've heard it before when referring to tripods: light, solid or cheap, pick any two.

Walt

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I read many threads here before buying a new tripod. It was not a major investment as some think it needs to be. I ended up getting a $65 Dolica off Amazon that works just fine for me, and I use it primarily for astrophotography. Granted, that is usually with a very wide lens, but that very wide lens and a very long shutter. I have yet to experience any blur from camera movement even in fairly strong wind gusts.

I thought, after picking up a three-pound pro zoom, that my year-old pod would no longer be good enough. I've used that lens on the tripod sparingly, as I use that lens primarily on a monopod in daylight, but I have shot a bit at night on the Dolica with no trouble - but of course, at 400mm I use a much, much faster shutter. It's sturdy enough for that, but I don't know if the weight might eventually cause the ball head to creep.

I will say that I never extend the center column, which is generally the Achilles heel of a tripod. Mine is a 68" tripod, so for my 5'10" frame it's a little bit low without the column extended, but with my camera's articulating screen it's not an issue.

I know first-hand that a $65 tripod will work in many situations as well as an expensive, bragging-rights Italian one will.

Copfer Loc: Gillette, Wyoming

I recently bought a RSS series 3 TVC33-LR package. Pricey, but the quality pics I am getting is incredible! I have a pro master tripod that I've used for a few years and it was good and served its purpose, but the sturdiness of the RSS is proving to me you get what you pay for!