- This topic is empty.
Recommend a good tripod?
-
climberhunt wrote:
Dan,
I’d highly recommend the Manfrotto 458B. Very clever mechanism for extending the legs, just pull the leg and they automatically lock into position, no knobs to twist. To collapse, press the button at the top of the leg and it will collapse. Possible to collapse all three legs at he same time, can go from full height to completely collapsed in under a second. Good and heavy as well, so great for larger cameras. I use a 486RC2 ball head with it, which I believe has a load bearing capability of 8KG.It’s a bit on the expensive side, though, at about €300 for the tripod, and another €80 for the head.
Rgds,
Dave.Have to agree with Dave..this tripod is great and numerous photographers have asked me
what is is as they ca’nt believe how fast it is to extend and close…a bit expensive but I have mine
3 years already and I would’nt swop it for anything…best tripod I ever had and I had a few.Noel.
Hi folks –
I’ve written an article on choosing a tripod that you might find useful.Tripods are the one thing that are consistently undervalued by photographers. Buying a good tripod is one of the major favours you can do for your photography. It should be hard-wearing, rigid, tall enough to use comfortably and reasonably lightweight. Unfortunately, getting all those in a single package means they can be expensive, but the cost is worth it.
Basically, don’t cheap out on this aspect of your photography. If you’re planning to spend the better part of a grand (or more!) on a whizbang new lens or camera body, spend it on the tripod instead. You’ll get better images via that upgrade than you will with the better glass.
As regards heads, I don’t care for the pistol grip style heads. They seem like a great idea in the shop, but in the field they’re just not as good as a high quality regular ball head. The major problem with them is twofold: you need a hand on the grip at all times when repositioning the camera, and there are plenty of occasions where you’d like that hand on the camera instead.
The other thing is that it’s difficult to impossible to make small, fine adjustments to the camera position with them, something that’s important when you’re paying attention to composition, as very small movements make a big impact.
Of those students who come to my workshops with a pistol grip, a large proportion then go on to replace them with a regular ballhead instead.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Peterpetercox wrote:
As regards heads, I don’t care for the pistol grip style heads. They seem like a great idea in the shop, but in the field they’re just not as good as a high quality regular ball head. The major problem with them is twofold: you need a hand on the grip at all times when repositioning the camera, and there are plenty of occasions where you’d like that hand on the camera instead.
The other thing is that it’s difficult to impossible to make small, fine adjustments to the camera position with them, something that’s important when you’re paying attention to composition, as very small movements make a big impact.
Of those students who come to my workshops with a pistol grip, a large proportion then go on to replace them with a regular ballhead instead.With regard to the Slik AMT pistol grip, it is one of the lightest mechanisms that I have ever come across and it locks at the slightest release. It also has a level buit in and a very good rotating plate mechanism for stiching panoramas. The legs are also grooved with quick release clips for extra torsional strength. It can of course be removed from the tripod and replaced with most other heads if someone desires.
I should have them at Photovision next month if anyone wishes to see one.Thanks Peter, that was my thought as well, but I was wondering if I was missing something.
thanks for info guys so a pan and tilt ball head would allow me to pan horizontally without having the vertical postition change, for example when wanting to do a series of of shots to make up a panoramic shot. i did have a manfrotto mini modo for my d40 with one of the wick release pistol grips and any time you wanted to only pan it would drop and you would have to re-align it every time which was a pain so im thinking the Slik grip might be just as annoying. What head is on the manfrotto one you have Sheldon?
A pan and tilt head is different from a ball head. You want a ball head with an independent panning control. The Manfrotto 488RC4 would be the one I’d recommend if you’re on a budget.
Peter
petercox wrote:
The Manfrotto 488RC4 would be the one I’d recommend if you’re on a budget.
Peter
I wouldn’t recommend my one-
the panning action has jammed up, and can’t be freed-legacydan wrote:
thanks for info guys so a pan and tilt ball head would allow me to pan horizontally without having the vertical postition change, for example when wanting to do a series of of shots to make up a panoramic shot.
Not unless it allows you to rotate around the front nodal point of the lens you’re using-
you’ll want an additional head to be able to do that-
Though perhaps the Slik does that, I don’t know it-Of course, if you want a really high quality head, you should look at the ReallyRightStuff BH-55, or the Markins M-10.
Cheers,
PeterJB –
Dedicated panoramic heads are not required for most panoramic photography – I’d only use one if I wanted to make a spherical panorama or if there was something in the immediate foreground. Otherwise the parallax error is not noticeable.For most of the stitched panoramas on my website I didn’t use one.
Cheers,
Peterjb7 wrote:
legacydan wrote:
thanks for info guys so a pan and tilt ball head would allow me to pan horizontally without having the vertical postition change, for example when wanting to do a series of of shots to make up a panoramic shot.
Not unless it allows you to rotate around the front nodal point of the lens you’re using-
you’ll want an additional head to be able to do that-
Though perhaps the Slik does that, I don’t know it-I suppose it depends on how much error you’re willing to put up with-
Using a calibrated head eliminates it entirely-I suppose if you’re only doing infinity work it doesn’t matter,
but as you mentioned, if foreground is involved, a little bit of preparation can save a lot of fudging on the computer later.For pictures reduced for the internet, it won’t matter,
but surely that’s not why people go to the trouble of stitching pictures in the first place…JB –
You’ve restated my points almost exactly, although I don’t know why you mentioned images at reduced sizes. If that was in response to my statement about the images on my website, it’s entirely irrelevant. I sell those images as large prints. That’s the reason they’re up there.Peter
No Peter, I wasn’t referring to your website at all-
Parallax will happen with a standard head, and I’m not restating your point, I’m disagreeing with it-
In my own case, it’s been a long time since I took a picture focussed on infinity-
where something in the foreground would not require some focus spread.I suppose I should have phrased it, ‘if one is only doing infinity work…’
but too many think I’m too far up my own arse as it is, to be using even more artificial language.Apologies for any misunderstanding-
joseph
JB –
No problem. I find for landscape panoramics I generally am working at infinity as the movement of the eye through the image is horizontal. Adding a foreground component I find needlessly complicates the composition and adds a vertical movement which is constricted by the shape of the format (I generally shoot in 3:1).For normal aspect ratios, I’ll very often include a foreground if one presents itself, but then I won’t be stitching.
Thus, for my imagery I find that a panoramic head is unnecessary (except when I’m doing spherical work). Once working at infinity, parallax is all but eliminated – any that remains is so subtle as to not be visible and thus a normal head is ‘good enough’ to get the job done.
Cheers,
PeterI suppose it’s decided by the length of the lens-
The only time I’ve stitched was for a series of pictures on a golf course-
and the foreground was only around two meters away-I wouldn’t have been able to stitch if I hadn’t rotated the camera around the lens,
it just wouldn’t have worked at all.
As it is, the blades of grass on the putting green are all easily distinguishable, and all join up-So in my case, I wouldn’t be able to stitch using a tripod alone-
Since this is a question asked in the beginners section,
I think it’s useful that the distinction is made-
I think it would be unfair to let someone think that stitching off a standard head is not without limitations-joseph
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
