choosing a tripd

<p>Hello, I am in search of a tripod. Can anyone suggest ? I would be taking it for traveling, so weight is an issue. It has to be sturdy to support a good weight camera, (D600 with a good telephoto zoom)<br>

Also, I am slightly bellow average height (5'4"), so if that is something to be of a matter, please let me know how can I choose a tripod on this criteria.<br>

Budget is also an issue, I understand that I there is no point in looking at tripods costing less than a $100, but how much sense does it make to hope to get a nice one in for bellow $200? Can I trust sellers on ebay? <br>

Thnaks,</p>

Hi Dima, no specific suggestions as regards model numbers, but any of the top flight names would be well made.. carbon fibre if possible? You suggest a d 600 with a good telephoto in use, so maybe a little push over the $200 mark would protect that investment .As mentioned carbon fibre are lighter but could sacrifice stability in difficult weather conditions . A tripod could give many years of service so a few extra bucks now could pay up in months to come.Others will be more helpful perhaps than this little opener

<p>In the $200 or less price range one of the best values in a complete tripod - legset and head - is the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/131427-REG/Slik_615_315_Pro_700DX_Tripod_with.html">Slik Pro 700DX</a>. </p>

<p>I'm 5'11" and the 700DX was the perfect height for me. However I preferred a lighter weight tripod and compromised by combining the legset from the smaller 300DX with a Velbon magnesium ballhead. This forces me to elevate the center column, which compromises rigidity, but I'm not a serious landscape, wildlife or sports shooter so I was willing to accept the compromise in favor of better portability.</p>

<p>At 5'4" you might find the current lineup of slightly smaller, shorter Slik complete tripods suitable for your budget. Slik's tilt/pan heads are very good. However, don't rely too much on their quick release systems - they're convenient but not nearly as secure as pro level quick releases, so don't trust the camera and long lens mounted to the tripod and hoisted across your shoulder.</p>

<p>Regarding ebay, it depends on the vendor. B&H, Adorama and many reliable retailers also have ebay stores. I'd stick with them, even if the prices are slightly higher. Their customer service is excellent.</p>

<p>Take a look at the the fotopro c5i series, I have one works great and is sturdy and can be used as a monopod as well. http://www.fotopro.com/en/?page_id=1056 Several places offer it. </p>

<p>Being shorter is a definite advantage here as there are lots of good, light tripods that you will be able to use without cranking up the center (and less steady) rod.<br>

My tripod use, however, is not at all portable-oriented, so I get great honking "iron" tripods that are steady but not very comfortable to carry around.</p>

<p>The desirable variables are light, steady, tall enough for eye level use without stooping over, and cheap.<br>

It is impossible to achieve <em>all</em> of these, even if you had all of the money in the world. So you have to pick for your own use which desired traits you will have. The more desirable traits, the more costly.</p>

<p>By the way, this is another of these things where individual "comfort" is so <em>personal</em> that it is nearly impossible for somebody to choose a tripod for someone else.</p>

<p>As far as tripod heads go (another key factor as important as a good bow is to a violin), I really recommend the various Manfrotto heads. Again, you have to balance capacity to carry weight, ease of adjustment, and so on. I personally prefer "pistol grip" types, but they are certainly less suitable for really heavy gear.</p>

<p>What will you be using the tripod for, specifically? To make what type of Photographs with what lenses in what locations?</p>

<p>I ask, predicated partly on the content of your previous posts and thereafter allowing for possibility that you have simply 'decided' that a tripod is the best solution to suit your needs, without canvassing other possibilities, for example: a Monopod.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dima,</p>

<p>How far do you plan on carrying this tripod ? Weight in relative. How strong are you and how far do you need to go ? A tripod that feels nice on a 1/4 mile walk may end up feeling like it's made of lead, on an all day hike. With your budget, I don't think you'll be able to get a really light one, made of carbon fiber. However, some of the allow tripods may work out for you. </p>

<p>How much you can put on them and still have it stay very steady, even at ODD ANGLES depends on the head as much as anything. It doesn't matter if the legs can support 25 lbs, if the head is only able to support 4 lbs. So, you have to get the combination right. </p>

<p>I am not of the camp that says you should by a very expensive tripod and head the first time, so you don't have to buy another one, later. That's like saying a beginner should get a Nikon D4 as their first camera. You don't know what features you WANT, until you use one for a while and learn what works and what doesn't. No sense spending lots of money to figure it out. Just don't get a department store tripod, and make sure it will hold your heaviest setup and some angles well. </p>

<p>I have the Slik Pro 500 DX. I used the pan / tilt head for a few years, before upgrading to a much more expensive ball head. It works fine. It feels light enough to me, but at 6 lbs , at the end of a long day, I wish it were lighter. Perhaps, some day, I will get a carbon fiber set of legs and move my ballhead onto it, but until I take a lot more pictures in my day, it does that job well. </p>

<p>With the pan / tilt head, it costs $100 at Adorama or BH Photo. You could get a workable ball head, if the pan / tilt ends up being too slow to set up for another $100, but .... you might want to save up for something better, when you make that upgrade. </p>

 

<p>Wow !!!<br>

Thanks. The mention of a budget was a mere checking if my expectations are realistic. In terms of how long of a hike, this is not for a 1/4 mile hike, but a day hike is very close to what I have in mind. I am well up to carrying a usually loaded hiking backpack. Stretching a budget a little is fine. I am thankful for the names you people tell me, I think will be able to research and compare from here.</p>

<p>Since my original tripod which I bought around 1964 is still my principal tripod I suggest you examin your budget limits over a similar period. For travel you could consider the 'mini-tripod' and check if the top of the range with them will carry the lens with camera attached.* I have the 'junior' of the range and it is good with my MFT but might not be that good for your rig <br>

With image stabilisation I have less need of a tripod and often find if I need a steady support I can usually find something to sit the camera on or hold firmly against. <br>

Since camera shake often comes from how the trigger is pressed I am a firm believer in using the delay release and leaving camera untouched during countdown and exposure. With cameras now having the burst function it is often the case that if you take a short burst the first frame will be NBG but second and third frame will be takers. When using a tripod I always use the ten second delay release and leave the rig untouched and rarely extend the centre column, the best tripods do not have them. At 5'4" this should be a more viable practice for you. A swing or fully articulated LCD is also a boon for me but probably as a DSLR user not available to you.<br>

* balance of the rig is important and if your lens is of any size consider getting a tripod collar for it so you mount the lens on the tripod and the lighter camera hangs on the end ... but the whole is nicely balanced.</p>

<p>Some more options to consider: The Velbon Ultra REXi-L is reasonably light, folds down very small for its height (not as much as the Ultrek range, but they may not be solid enough for you), is reasonably cheap and is surprisingly solid. It also has one of the fastest leg lock designs I've ever used. While I've only given it a few runs so far, I'm happy to put my D800 and all but a supertelephoto on it (for those, I use my TVC-34L, which is much more expensive). For a head for portable use, I use the Triopo RS-3 (+ clamp) that I covered in <a href="http://www.photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/00b5rk">a review thread</a>. I can't vouch for how much "better" it is than the alternatives, but it locks extremely solid and it's indubitably a bargain on price. Unless you find an ebay bargain I suspect you'll be slightly over your $200 limit with that combination, but not by much.<br />

<br />

Whether this is "enough" depends on what you mean by "good telephoto zoom". I wouldn't be nervous about pairing my 70-200 f/2.8 with this combination; I might have started to worry about my 150-500 when I still had it, and I'm not going to risk my 500 f/4 (I trust the head but not the legs with that) - but that lens is better on a gimbal head anyway, and a heavier tripod isn't such an issue when the lens is a few kg on its own. The REXi isn't quite as solid as, say, a Manfrotto 055 series, and I would hesitate to suggest it if you weren't talking about hiking, but it's much, much more portable. And if you do decide to get a big carbon tripod in the future, you'll still have something that folds up small for when you need it.<br />

<br />

I've never used the Sliks that Lex and John suggest, so I can't compare. I would be wary of the ergonomics of a pan/tilt head, though - one advantage of a ball head is that you don't have to get the legs perfectly level (and the REXi's high-speed design isn't best at fine tuning this, for the record). There's nothing inherently wrong with a pan/tilt, but they are slower to use for general-purpose photography. Trade that against being better for video and panoramas. Both heads and legs are very much down to personal preference (although if you get a Triopo off ebay you may have to try it and think about returning it rather than trying to find it in a shop).<br />

<br />

Note that if you want to do macro shots, you might like the trick horizontal column from the Manfrotto range. You'll pay for it in weight or stability (depending on model), though.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and happy shopping.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I would be wary of the ergonomics of a pan/tilt head, though - one advantage of a ball head is that you don't have to get the legs perfectly level..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Slik tilt/pan heads are well designed for the price and can be leveled regardless of the leg positions. The Slik tilt/pan head on the 700DX is easier to use than the once-popular Bogen/Manfrotto Super 3D head. My Bogen/Manfrotto 3026 Super 3D head is rock solid and can be adjusted to level the camera regardless of leg position and terrain. But the Bogen/Manfrotto 3026 could create some painful pinch points if the user wasn't careful - the locking levers didn't intuitively follow the direction in which gravity would take the tilt/pan platform. No such problem with the Slik - the locking levers and tilt directions are intuitive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There's nothing inherently wrong with a pan/tilt, but they are slower to use for general-purpose photography."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on the type of photography you do. A ball head is quicker for moving subjects where it's necessary to frequently unlock, move and relock the head. But most low priced ball heads use only a single locking knob that controls all movements other than panning, defying easy leveling for stationary subjects such as landscapes and buildings. </p>

<p>Any decent, very affordable tilt/pan head from Slik, Manfrotto and several others will be much easier to level for landscapes, etc., because the movements are controlled and locked independently. The legset doesn't need to be perfectly level.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Trade that against being better for video and panoramas."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tilt/pan heads for still photography are not well suited for video. They lack the damping of fluid pan heads. Even the lower priced Slik and Bogen/Manfrotto fluid pan heads are far better suited to video than any still camera tilt/pan head.</p>

<p>I feel Lex and I are about to disagree (even though I greatly respect his opinion), which goes to show how personal choices about tripod heads are. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>The Slik tilt/pan heads are well designed for the price and can be leveled regardless of the leg positions.</blockquote>

 

<p>Any pan/tilt head requires multiple controls to be changed in order to position the head at an arbitrary orientation. If you like aligning the camera one axis at a time, this can be a good thing, though I tend to find it a poor substitute for a gear head such as a Manfrotto 405 or an Arca d4 (for which the amount by which an axis is moved can be precisely controlled; both these heads are expensive, however). If the tripod apex is level, assuming that you don't want to take a photograph at a jaunty angle, it may be possible to leave the "roll" axis horizontal (in the same plane as the tripod base) and just concentrate on tilting the camera up and down, and rotating it left/right. If you're taking multiple shots from the same place, setting up the tripod with a level base saves time. If you're just plunking the tripod down and shooting, having to adjust three controls to compensate for the apex not being level is time-consuming.<br />

<br />

In contrast, with a ball head, you simply unlock the ball, move the camera where you want it to point - with the camera rotating around the ball joint in the head - then lock the ball again. Every time you unlock the head, you can move the camera in any axis - which is good if you <i>want</i> to move it in all axes at once, and bad if you want to keep some of them locked (for example, keeping the camera level). You <i>could</i> unlock all the joints on a pan/tilt head and achieve the same thing, but the trick is to lock them all again without the camera moving off alignment. (The Arca d4m appears to be designed to be used like this; with a plain d4, I do this to get the camera near the correct position, then fine-tune with the gears.)<br />

<br />

This is not a criticism of any particular model of pan/tilt head, it's just a function of how the design works. I'm not suggesting that Dima entirely discount the pan/tilt, but most people seem to end up with a ball head, for a reason. Ball heads are also smaller, with no protruding levers, which may be significant for hiking. Some designs are also awkward for an SLR, since the knobs can stick out where you want to put your neck in order to look through the finder. (I don't suggest that this last is a serious issue, but I have been poked in my Adam's Apple before.)</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>Ball heads are quicker...</blockquote>

Depends on the type of photography you do. A ball head is quicker for moving subjects where it's necessary to frequently unlock, move and relock the head. But most low priced ball heads use only a single locking knob that controls all movements other than panning, defying easy leveling for stationary subjects such as landscapes and buildings.<br />

<br />

Any decent, very affordable tilt/pan head from Slik, Manfrotto and several others will be much easier to level for landscapes, etc., because the movements are controlled and locked independently. The legset doesn't need to be perfectly level.</blockquote>

 

<p>The advantage of a pan/tilt is that the camera will only move in the axis that you're adjusting, which can simplify getting the positioning right. The disadvantage is that adjusting one axis may misalign another axis, requiring repeated hopping between controls. If you are able to align the camera accurately by hand (allowing for some tension in the ball to provide smooth movement) and only require the tripod to hold the camera steady, my assertion is that a ball head will be the better solution. If the camera is too big/heavy/unwieldy to make this easy - for example a 5x4 camera - I would consider a pan/tilt head, but I'd also be looking at a gear head to make precise movements on each axis easier.<br />

<br />

An exception here might be if the camera is extremely small and light, such as a compact or mirrorless system. In these cases, there isn't much leverage on the camera to align it properly on a ball head; the protruding levers of a pan/tilt head may provide better control in this case. I doubt that's going to be an issue with a D600, however, especially if the lens has a tripod collar.</p>

 

<blockquote>Tilt/pan heads for still photography are not well suited for video. They lack the damping of fluid pan heads. Even the lower priced Slik and Bogen/Manfrotto fluid pan heads are far better suited to video than any still camera tilt/pan head.</blockquote>

 

<p>This is true. Nonetheless, with the apex of the tripod levelled, a pan-tilt head can provide a convenient way to take multiple shots from the same location (for panoramas), can be used on flat ground to shoot on the level without needing to readjust the tripod, and - though not as well as a fluid head - <i>can</i> be used to track a subject without accidentally rolling the camera, with the proviso that it will be more prone to "sticking" than a fluid head. Excluding panning, with a ball head - unless you leave the camera flopped into portrait position - any change in direction of the camera removes any constraints on the camera's orientation: lean back to track a subject moving upwards and nothing is stopping the camera from rotating to the side. This is normally a bigger problem for videos than stills, although I can report that it's also a pain for binocular mounts.<br />

<br />

So... the "right tool" for video is a fluid head. The "right tool" for accurate alignment of a camera is a gear head. The "right tool" for panoramas is a nodal panoramic head. The "right tool" for tracking motion with a big lens is a gimbal head. Tilt/pan heads and ball heads are both a compromise compared with any of these. Ball heads are smaller and quicker to set up to an approximate orientation. Tilt/pan heads can offer better control in some cases, and have uses where you want to separate control for different axes, in return for taking longer to position roughly than a ball head. Which is better comes down to whether you can position the camera precisely enough for your needs with a ball head, and whether a tilt/pan is precise enough to help.<br />

<br />

If peer pressure makes a difference, ball heads tend to be the default choice once photographers choose separate heads and legs (tilt/pan heads are typically integrated into cheap tripods because it's easier to make three hinges than a ball joint). Very good ball heads can get expensive (look at the Arca-Swiss Z1), and very cheap ones can struggle to hold a large weight; I suggested the Triopo as an exception which is both cheap and extremely solid, though it's not as refined as the expensive heads.<br />

<br />

Obviously, I'm not taken with tilt/pan heads, but my knowledge of them is mostly limited to what came on a cheap tripod when I started out. I defer to Lex's experience with a decent example of the genre, and simply suggest that Dima try both types in a store before deciding.</p>

<p>Actually Andrew and I agree on the pros and cons of ball heads and tilt/pan heads. We only disagree on personal preference. And, in routine use, I usually prefer a ball head despite the compromises.</p>

<p>I'm emphasizing the Slik 700DX and similar smaller Sliks because it's easier to make an affordable good quality tilt/pan head than a good quality inexpensive ball head. That suits the OP's stated budget</p>

<p>I think the OP needs to remember that over $3000 worth of camera is being screwed to the top of this tripod, so whatever tripod is bought, it has to be strong, stable, and should be as free of vibration transmission as possible. I'd put aside low cost tripods of dubious quality and performance (sub-$100 units). You get what you pay for with tripods and heads.</p>

<p>Dima- you're 5'4" (64")... Let's say your subtract 5" from that, roughly the distance of your eye level to the top of your head. Now we are at 59" from the ground to eye level.</p>

<p>Let's say that your camera has 3" between the bottom surface of the body and they viewfinder. Subtract that from your 59", we are down to 56" Subtract another... at least 3" for the height of a typical ball head, from it's base to the mounting for the camera. We are down to 53". That is 5" taller than the height of the Manfrotto 190XPROB tripod (about $170) without the center column extended upward. In other words, take the height of the 190XPROB (48" without the center column extended) plus 3" of ball head (up to 51"), plus the viewfinder height of your camera (3" or more?), and it gets you up to 54" About 5" shorter than your eye level when you are standing straight up. For a "carry-all-day" travel tripod, can you bear bending downward 5" to see through the viewfinder without extending the center column upward? I bet you can, pretty easily. Or extend the center column up an inch or two, that little extension won't contribute to camera shake like a shorter tripod with a higher center column extension would.</p>

<p>Check the hundreds of customer reviews of the Manfrotto 190XPROB at B&H and Adorama. I own its bigger brother, the 055XPROB. 1.3 pounds heavier with a 56" height (70" with center column extended fully), and at 6' tall the 055 is perfect for me with a ball head and the camera mounted without having to extend the center column. I don't even bend over...</p>

<p>What I like about these XPROB models is that the center column can be flipped to horizontal, and when splaying the legs out flat, you can shoot about 3" above the surface of the ground for that worm's eye view (wildflower and insect photos).</p>

<p>The 190XPROB is a 4-pound tripod (head not included) that can handle 11 pounds of weight and at 22.5" long collapsed (3 section legs) it will fit in suitcases easily, maybe even carry-on for flying if you load it diagonally in your bag. I have no experience with the Slik 700DX and I'm sure it's a worthy tripod to consider, but the Manfrotto 190XPROB is 3 pounds lighter and 7" shorter when collapsed than the Slik, which may be of consideration to you for transport in luggage when traveling. And for carrying all day long.</p>

<p>There are a few 190 model variations. For just over $100 they have the 190XDB, which appears to be the same tripod but instead of flip lever leg locks it uses large-ish thumb screws which you twist to loosen/tighten, and the center column may not flip horizontal. I'd take the flip lever locks of the 190XPROB.</p>

<p>To save another 1.2 pounds of weight, but spending another $130, you could buy the carbon fiber leg version, the 190CXPRO3.</p>

<p>I also own the Manfrotto MT293A4 tripod for is small collapsed size which fits in my motorcycle trunk box. I can't recommend it as your only tripod- its 4 leg sections are so thin and spindly that the tripod is almost too light, which also transmits much more vibration throughout the tripod than the heavier/beefier 190 and 055 series tripods. I wanted the 190XPROB for my motorcycle travel tripod but it wouldn't fit inside my motorcycle luggage.</p>

<p>For ball heads, I'd recommend the Manfrotto 496RC2 (4" tall, you'll lean over less than in my story above) for about $90. I've owned the previous model 486RC2 for many years and it works wonderfully with a mid-size DSLR/lens rig. If you do panning shots and can stretch to about $140, the Manfrotto 498RC2 (5" tall) is the same as the 496RC2 with the ability to pan separately from the omni-directional ball mechanism.</p>

<p>Depending on the head option, my ideas will have you in the $260-$310 category, with many years of solid, dependable service. The price only hurts once, as you found with your camera...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'd put aside low cost tripods of dubious quality and performance (sub-$100 units). You get what you pay for with tripods and heads."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I paid $50 for a good used Bogen/Manfrotto 3001 legset with 3026 Super 3D head. And $25 for a good used Slik 504QF II, including fluid video head. The legset is identical to the Slik 300DX. I ditched the fluid head, and replaced it with a Velbon PH-273 magnesium ball head, which cost more than all of my four tripods combined. But that's because the Velbon head was the only bit I bought new.</p>

<p>Which is why I don't recommend new tripods costing between $200-$300 to folks on the beginner forum who specify budgets of $100-$200. It just isn't a practical alternative when there are plenty of very good and very affordable tripods on the used market. Good tripods don't break easily. They're a safe buy on the used market.</p>

<p>Most folks don't know what kind of tripod they'll really need until they've used *a tripod* for awhile. Maybe what they'll eventually really need is a heavy duty CF or even wooden legset with an Acratech ballhead and proper quick release system, which will cost a helluva lot more than $300. But at least then they'll really only be buying once.</p>

<p>Any tripod and head costing between $200-$300 new is a real compromise *and* a lot of money for that compromise. New tripods and heads in that price range don't offer much more real advantage than one costing between $100-$200, *and* they still won't satisfy demanding wildlife, sports or nature photographers who need proper quick release systems and heavy duty well designed ballheads. It's possibly the worst price range in all of tripod-land. The only tripod I've seen that appeals to me in the $200-$300 range, new, is the Benbo, which is the weirdest damned tripod in the world, but also very flexible and unique.</p>

<p>Lex: I'm glad we agree to disagree. Some day I'll have to have another play with a tilt/pan and see what I'm missing (along with the pistol grip recommended to me elsewhere).<br />

<br />

Steve: In addition to my REXi and my RRS tripod, I have a Manfrotto 055CXPro3. It's reasonably solid, but not much more so than the REXi L. The aluminium version (055XProB) is appreciably more flexible than the carbon variant, and heavier. The 190 series, on the other hand, is much smaller and less stable. The carbon version, which is out of budget here, is impressively light, but any of them are a bit pushed when given a big lens and camera. The 055 series would be fine, but it's heavy (especially the aluminium one), expensive (especially the carbon one) and big. The 055 and 190 were my recommendations for a long time, and they're not bad tripods, but don't dismiss every alternative. Sometimes technology moves on.<br />

<br />

That said, the REXi is a <$200 tripod, not a <$100 one. It's not the most stable thing you can get, but it'll do until you want a $1000 Gitzo or RRS tripod, and its portability makes it useful even then (it's unusual to need a mega tripod <i>all the time</i>). My 055 is now barely used, except when I need the horizontal column for macro shooting.<br />

<br />

I trust Lex has a similar impression of the legs he's using. What you <i>shouldn't</i> do is go into a department store and buy their most expensive tripod legs - but Dima seems to know better than that already.<br />

<br />

Similarly, there are a lot of rubbish heads out there which are cheap. I know, I own at least one. There are also some good, expensive heads. However, since we've ruled out the latter on price, for now, the question becomes what <i>is</i> worth owning in the price category. Lex, correctly, thinks it's easier to make a cheap tilt/pan head than a decent ball head. I point out that the Triopo is an unusual design with more locking power than you'd expect from the price (it'll hold a 500 f/4 easily), and that it shouldn't be dismissed just because it's cheap and not well-known. I keep vouching for this head (I've nothing to do with the company, I just want others to know about a bargain), so I like to temper my comments with a warning about refinement, but honestly it's seemed fine to me. Besides, the last Z1 I played with stripped my fingernail on its QR clamp (and the last Gitzo I played with drew blood when it pinched my fingers). Money helps, but that doesn't make <i>everything</i> cheap a pile of rubbish.<br />

<br />

And if you really want a light way to carry a camera around, I've put my D800 and 14-24 combination on a Tamrac ZipShot before. I did, admittedly, have my neck through the strap, a 10s timer release, and a strenuous effort to block any wind from the set-up...</p>

<blockquote>The only tripod I've seen that appeals to me in the $200-$300 range, new, is the Benbo, which is the weirdest damned tripod in the world, but also very flexible and unique.</blockquote>

 

<p>Other than checking out the REXi (the leg lock system is cool, and more convenient than the Manfrotto NeoTec), I'll just report that a friend of mine has an old Benbo. It's big and heavy (as he discovered when it fell on his foot), and doesn't fold down small. I've tried setting it up, and it took several minutes to work out how to position the legs properly - but I guess it comes with practice. They are, indeed, weird.</p>

<p>That REXi L legset does look interesting. I've been looking for a more convenient legset for my Velbon ballhead. The legset from the 504QF II/300DX is lightweight and sturdy enough, but I'd like something a bit taller with something other than thumbscrew clamps, that doesn't cost over $200.</p>

<p>The P&T heads I have used have usually had a single twisting arm to lock... unless the ballhead is large [ golfball size for any camera/lens of reasonable size ] or maybe very well made [ and expensive] I would be very suspicious of them.<br>

But if you are changing a 3:2 camera from portrait to landscape mode frequently the ballhead is the answer unless you have an L bracket with a pair of quick release holders for each mode. But when it goes over sideways into portrait mode [ without an L bracket ] it is very badly balanced and needs to be very strong to work efficiently.</p>

<p>Sorry if anyone else already had the same response I am going to give you. Choose your tripod carefully. As Thom Hogan (<a href="http://www.bythom.com">www.bythom.com</a>) points out in one of his essays, try to buy the best possible tripod. Otherwise you might end up buying an inexpensve tripod then finding it is inadequate, then you will eventually buy a more expensive, sturdy one. Try to buy the sturdy one in order to avoid buying one that soon becomes obsolete. The other suggestion is to try, if you can, to visit a store that has a variety of tripods. There is nothing like being able to "play" with them before buying one. Here is the tripod I have:<br> http://www.adorama.com/GZGT1542T.html</a><p>It will fit into my carry-on luggage even with the ball head attached. I have a Really Right Stuff ball head and am quite happy with it. I am 5' 1".</p>

<p>For some reason links are glitchy today. I think Diane's link is to a Gitzo GT1542T Series 1 Traveler carbon fiber legset. A very nice one but at over $600 for just the legset, and another $200 or so for the RRS ballhead, this is waaay beyond Dima's estimated budget of $200.</p>

<p>While I'd agree that we should be ready to pay that much money for the tripod that is optimal for *our own* particular usage, a beginner may not yet know what type of photography he/she wishes to pursue. It would be a costly error to spend upward of $1,000 for one person's concept of an ideal tripod when another person may turn out to be more interested in birds in flight and need a gimbal rather than ballhead or tilt/pan head; and another may turn out to prefer macrophotography and need a very low angle tripod like the Benbo or Velbon REXi (per Andrew's suggestion), along with a macro rail. Some photographers may prefer a wooden legset, despite the weight, over a carbon fiber legset that costs the same but is much lighter. Perhaps they'll favor the vaunted vibration resistance of the wooden legs over the convenience of the lighter weight CF set (although CF may in practice be just as resistant to vibration).</p>

<p>That's why over the years I've consistently given the same advice to beginners, which is the same advice I've given in this thread. Just get a good, sturdy, affordable tripod that retails for just under $200, including legset and head. (If you're lucky enough to find them used as I have, so much the better.) There are literally dozens of good, sturdy tripods retailing for $100-$200. I usually recommend something like the Slik 700DX or Manfrotto 3021 and tilt/pan head because I've used them and find them to be good values for under $200. But there are dozens of alternatives.</p>

<p>Even if you eventually need and can justify a much more elaborate and expensive tripod, a good starter tripod in the sub-$200 range won't be wasted. These too will last a lifetime and may still see occasional use. Even my very first decent tripod - a Bogen/Manfrotto 3001 legset with 3026 Super 3D head - still sees occasional use as a stand for holding my 42" reflector and telescoping arm. The hefty 3/8" bolts on the Manfrotto legset ensures a gusting breeze or accident won't shear off the mounting bolt, while the typical 1/4" bolt on other heads may shear or bend. So while I can't remember the last time I used the Bogen/Manfrotto rig as a proper camera tripod (probably in 2003 with a Rolleiflex TLR when I lived on a lakefront), the legset remains useful.</p>

<p>I'm going to start agreeing with Lex. :-) Bear in mind that the best leg set you can afford today may not be the best leg set you can ever afford. I've been reasonably happy with my 055CXPro3, but I bought it before getting a 500mm prime, and it was a weak point for that use. Had I known at the time I was going to go bigger, I'd have settled for a cheaper but still decent leg set (such as the aluminium version of the 055) and had more change left when I went shopping for a TVC-34L. Sure, I could sell my 055, but it's still occasionally useful. Thom's article - and I <i>did</i> go through a significant chunk of his support article's ways to waste money - can be read in two ways: either "buy a very expensive tripod", or "don't buy a moderately expensive tripod". The advantage of buying cheap is that you haven't lost as much when the result isn't everything you need! (By analogy, it's better to buy a Ford and save for a Ferrari than to buy a BMW and be stuck with it while your finances catch up. Of course, this depends how soon you'll be able to get the Ferrari and how long you can live with the Ford. Apologies to the car companies involved - please mentally elaborate with appropriate models to remove any offence.) Of course, as with cars, buying used allows you to dodge most of the depreciation.<br />

<br />

My REXi suggestion is based partly on the fact that it's unusual. Even when you outgrow it as a support in terms of big lenses, it still has a place because of its portability, so the money hasn't been wasted - it'll complement a bigger tripod. I won't claim it's the most solid leg set you can get in its price bracket, though it's much better than you'd expect for the price, weight and number of leg sections - but Dima was talking about circumstances which seem to need portability, and it didn't sound as though a low-end Really Right Stuff tripod was an option.<br />

<br />

JC: Interesting. I've never met a pan/tilt head with a single control point, except for ones that lack a roll axis. Most that can control panning and tilting via a single control can still lock one or the other independently, in my limited experience. As for ball heads, I would agree that a lot of cheap ball heads are not very good. The Triopo I suggested is clearly built to a budget, and I'm not going to claim it's a Z1 in handling - but I'll claim that it's unusually capable of taking a heavy load, and is perhaps unusually worth considering in this range. It's also much lighter than a Z1. It's in my category of "cheap enough to be worth a try"; getting a decent RRS, Arca, Acratech, Burzynski or Markins head is a much more expensive proposition, especially if you don't like it. (And, since this is the beginner forum, I'll clarify your L-plate comment to mention that a tripod collar on a telephoto lens is usually equivalently flexible in terms of switching to portrait.)</p>

<p>Wow !! <br /> The best part about being on this site, is that I can drop a line hinting the question, and then you start talking to each other and I am sort of listening to the conversation of the pros :) <br /> Thanks, I have a lot to think here, its better than a textbook.<br /> Meanwhile, I have found my tripod (that I thought was lost during moving). It's a Velbon CX-570.<br>

Any thoughts on it? it's not that light for a long hikes, but size wise seems acceptable.<br>

I can practice with it, carrying it around town ( NYC is quite an exercise to hike ), and then rethink my budget and the skill to go for an advancements.</p>

 

<p>Your Velbon CX-570 appears to be a fairly common style of entry level lightweight video camera tripod. It would be a pain in the neck to use routinely for still photography. "Fluid" pan heads are very limited, since they're intended for video cameras mounted horizontally/landscape position only. And the spreaders intended to stabilize the legs are a hassle to mess with and often fragile on less expensive tripods. Even the usually good Bogen/Manfrotto tripods with spreaders tended to break with heavy use, although their standard still photography legsets without spreaders were very good.</p>

<p>Since you're in NYC you'll probably want a tripod that's light enough to carry when walking or on the bus or subway, and quick to set up and take down without hindering people on sidewalks, etc. Spreaders are slow. So when you get a new tripod be sure to get just a simple, three leg type, no spreaders.</p>

<p>Also, many inexpensive legsets use thumbscrew clamps - including my Bogen 3001, and the legset from the Slik 300DX. Secure, but slow to use. If possible go for flip-lever locks or twist locks. Much quicker. The main reason I'm interested in the REXi Andrew mentioned is for the quicker setup and takedown. And because I often ride the bus I'd be concerned about the projecting thumbscrew clamps snagging someone's clothing or bag on a crowed bus. Flip lever locks aren't completely flush either and might snag. You can imagine the drama that might ensue if someone thought you were tugging at their clothing or purses on a bus. Twist collar clamps would be the best for avoiding snagging passersby and fellow commuters.</p>

<p>However my favorite cameras and lenses have some form of image stabilization, which reduces the need for a tripod in most of my photo situations. So I rarely need a tripod anyway.</p>

<p>Dima, I'm not wild about your tripod choice. It looks like it's designed more for video. I question how stable it's going to be with a DSLR and 200mm zone on it (especially if you're outdoors with a bit of wind hitting you or doing a longer exposure to blur water or shoot at dusk). I have a Manfrotto 7302YB. It condenses enough to work as carryon luggage (I fly with it all the time) and I definitely take it on distance hikes. I shoot a lot of long exposures with a 200mm or 300mm zoom and it keeps it stable.<br>

Here are a couple of hints:<br>

1. Don't try to save money on a tripod, especially as a hiker. You don't want to haul around something and then discover it won't do what you want it to do. And you don't want a tripod to provide a "little" stability. You want it to hold a big lens and DSLR completely stable so you can expose for 3-5 seconds at times. And if it won't do that, it's a compromise. And a compromise isn't worth carrying around on any hike longer than 15 minutes.<br>

2. If you really can't plunk down $250 for the cheapest of the good tripods, then look at tripod alternatives (bean bags, bungie straps, even a monopod). None are going to duplicate a tripod. But they're all better for a hiker than a bad tripod. I can't emphasize this enough--you're better off hiking with no tripod than taking a mediocre one with you that won't provide rock solid stability.<br>

3. If you're going to be using this to hike with (long hikes, day hikes, serious trekking) than look at how you'll pack it (probably on the outside of your daypack along one side) and see how it carries, how you distribute the weight, will it be stable.<br>

4. If you're going to be hiking and then shooting outside, one of the curses of a lightweight tripod is it's stability (especially in wind). Pay attention to this issue--you don't want to attach your camera, step away to grab a NDF and WHOOSH...your trip blows over and your camera hits some rocks. Or over into the beach sand. On a serious shoot, a pro would use sandbags or jugs of water to weigh the tripod down--you're not going to have those options. And consider what you can do to both stabilize the tripod and also deal with difficult ground to make it stable. Lean your daypack against it? Spikes on the bottom? Bungie it to your water?</p>