Tripod for D800

<p>Tripods are a lot like telephoto lenses in the "pick two of the three" strategy. For tripods this goes, "You can have a solid tripod, a lightweight tripod, and an inexpensive tripod. But, you can only have two of those three." For studio use, where weight isn't important, I would go with a used Bogen/Manfrotto 3021. These are reasonably solid, plentiful on ebay, and cheap. For studio use I can't imagine not having an L-plate. I actually bought one of those before I even received my D800E.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish I had the rrs head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joseph, you are not missing anything. I've been there. So I bought the top-of-the-line RRS BH-55 PCL ballhead. Excited to receive it. Used it. Didn't like it that much. Sold it to the next yearner in line. Sure it looks beautiful but, for my purposes, compared to my trusty, steady, lightweight Markins M20, it's bulky, heavy, klutzy.</p>

<p>Mary, I have to disagree with you about the RRS BH-55 ballhead. It depends on what is clamped to that BH-55. When I am walking through a wooded area with a 600mm f/4 lens and body over my shoulder, I can't imagine having anything else holding on to my gear. I never worry that the BH-55 will fail because it is rock solid when used with a RRS Arca Swiss style lens foot or plate. It is bulky and heavy as you say, but necessary as far as I'm concerned. Now if you are talking about using it with a D5300 and kit lens then I would agree it is overkill. But that is why RRS makes smaller ballheads.</p>

<p>An anecdotal contribution from me:<br />During my 2013 holiday in France I decided to 'travel light' (in terms of camera gear) and brought my Manfrotto 055PRO-B with lighter Manfrotto balhead. It proved to be just unsuitable for use with a D800 and 105 micro lens. Vibration-prone, wobbly, etcetera.<br />So now I am back to the only acceptable solution when it comes to tripods: my (ancient) Gitzo 500-something heavy tripod, with heavy Manfrotto ballhead. Otherwise, I might as well take <em>NO</em> tripod at all.</p>

<p>I am always rather amused by these all or nothing responses. Of course a lighter, cheaper tripod will be better than trying to hold something at 1/4 or 1/8th sec. The "buy once use forever philosophy" is akin to the idea that only f2.8 zooms are worth having because they are the "professional choice", even thought they are a pain to carry around all day. The OP doesn't use a tripod much and he doesn't want to spend much. It seems to me he can't go wrong with $45, its got to be better than...nothing. I have always disliked twist lock legs as seen on Gitzos myself.</p>

<p>I have found that whether or not I'm using a tripod, I use a beanbag as a vibration damper... it is surprising what a difference this inexpensive (or homemade) addition can make. Beanbags can be a good substitute for a tripod if you are in a setting where you can use an available object to set the camera on. A remote release is also an important bit of the equation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I am walking through a wooded area with a 600mm f/4 lens and body over my shoulder, I can't imagine having anything else holding on to my gear. I never worry that the BH-55 will fail because it is rock solid when used with a RRS Arca Swiss style lens foot or plate. It is bulky and heavy as you say, but necessary as far as I'm concerned. Now if you are talking about using it with a D5300 and kit lens then I would agree it is overkill. But that is why RRS makes smaller ballheads.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To each his/her own. If it makes you feel safer, go for it. I had clamped a 600mm on the Markins M20 for several hours shooting birds and it was rock solid as well, though I had not tried it in a variety of situations, such as hanging the tripod over my shoulder with the 600mm dangling. The lens was not mine, and I didn't want to give anyone a heart attack.</p>

<p>I just googled and found this link: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=34206">Markins M20 or RRS BH-55?</a> at Luminous Landscape. One of the comments also referred to the [even-lighter] M10. Someone mentioned hanging the 4x5 cameras over the shoulder. Good read.</p>

<p>I just replaced an aging Arca-Swiss B1 head with an RRS BH-55. While the BH-55 is bulky, it is also about an inch shorter than the Arca. It's a nice fit on top of a Gitzo GT-3540, and the Arca now resides on an older Gitzo G-1230.</p>

<p>The BH-55 has an effective tension control, unlike the smaller RRS heads. While not as easy to use as the one-knob Arca, it was a quick transition. Good tension control lets you position the camera with two hands for better control, before locking it down.</p>

<p>The Arca and its current tripod outlived several cameras, starting with a Nikon F3, with no end in sight. It just tends to bind from time to time, and the clamp looks like it's been to Kosovo and back (it has, touched up with a triangular file). I use a tripod unless it's completely impractical to do so.</p>

<p>Conspicuously, Gary hasn't posted since he pointed out that a previous suggestion was "way too expensive".<br />

<br />

I usually don't use a lens filter. If I was going on safari, I'd probably take a UV filter to protect the front of the lens from dust. If I thought I'd never use it again, I doubt I'd spend a lot of money on a top-of-the-line filter, no matter how expensive the lens behind it. Gary is talking about a tripod for occasional use. Pointing out that he's spent a lot of money on something completely different that he does use a lot (camera and lens) is not informative when deciding whether it's worth spending a lot of money on the tripod.<br />

<br />

Is what he's looking at useless? No. Is it the best you could get? No. Is it a good deal for the money? Probably. I'm sure we can help him, but "buy a $1000 tripod or go away" really sounds as though we're just telling him to go away, at this point. While I don't disagree with a lot of what has been said for someone looking for a good tripod, does everyone feel they're really tailoring their answers to the audience?</p>

<p>Whenever I post a question here I realize that I am going to get a plethora of answers possibly going in many different directions. That is exactly what I am looking for, to draw on the experience and opinions of all the members. In the end I have to sift through all of the responses and make my own decision. I never post a question just looking for everyone to agree with the direction I am leaning. That is what is so great about this forum, the ability to get help from people all over the globe with the same love of photography as myself.</p>

<p>I've had a 2 series Gitzo 1228 blown over without the camera at the beach/rocks before. For someone who doesn't use it much outside I wouldn't bother spending mega bucks on it. Same to someone who might be doing a roudn the world trip staying at backpacker hostels or those that just shoot handheld. I am not a studio guy hobbyist maybe for studio lit work, might be pretty cumbersome to intereact with your subject person while constantly adjusting your tripod all the time ..... I would get something non carbon might be heavier though .. that can hold his 1.5kg lens. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>does everyone feel they're really tailoring their answers to the audience?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the OP has a D800 and a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>The D800 used to be $3000 once upon a time. Currently, used ones are around $1500. That lens is about $2400. Together, we are still taking about a set up that is close to $4000 currently.</p>

<p>A $45 tripod + head is about 1% of the cost of the OP's camera and lens. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to suggest that he spends a little more to have better support. By no means I am suggesting some $1000 tripod to him. I have the Gitzo 1325 since 1999. To me, a Gitzo series 3 tripod is an overkill for a 70-200mm/f2.8 zoom. I have a few Series 3 and 5 tripods because I routinely use 300mm/f2.8 and larger lenses on them. I am also a bit over 6' tall so that those tripods match up better with my height.</p>

<p>If one has no bigger lens than a 70-200mm/f2.8, I would say a Gitzo series 2 or equivalent is sufficient. And a tripod budget around 10% of the camera + lens cost, i.e. maybe roughly $400, is not too unreasonable.</p>

<p>We all would like to save money, but quite a few of us have learned the same lesson: trying to save money on tripod frequently leads to getting something insufficient and you'll end up upgrading, perhaps several times. Sometimes saving money leads to spending more and more.</p>

<p>Sorry to sound cantankerous - I'm sure the answers provided here will be helpful to many readers, and maybe even to Gary, and I'm not denying it's good advice. I certainly agree with Shun that spending 10% of the cost of the camera and lens on decent support seems entirely reasonable - <em>if</em> I was expecting t make much use of the tripod. But Gary prefaced his request by saying that he doesn't want to spend "a lot of money", and he's already rejected the kind of expenditure that was suggested for a more substantial system. Having been bitten by this problem myself, if anything I'd argue that spending $400 can be worse, because when I eventually decided I needed to spend more money on a serious system (when I later bought a bigger lens) I'd thrown more money at the partial solution. Not that, obviously, this is always a valid argument.</p>

<p>I'm as sympathetic as anyone to the merits of a high-end support system, but I also think that a very low-end system is better than hand-holding - hence my photo with the ZipShot. I'd be very surprised if - with the constraint that they won't be used in extreme conditions - the legs actually collapsed under a 70-200, although they may place some constraints on shutter speed to avoid vibration. If anything, I might be more worried about whether the head can hold the lens at an awkward angle - but I own a cheap Giottos head that kept my 150-500 steady, and while I'd not recommend it for a big supertele prime, I'd hope that Manfrotto head wouldn't be much worse. I'll be interested if people know otherwise, if only for the sake of the next person looking at cheap Manfrotto heads.</p>