Tripod suggestions for Nikon D7000

<p>Hi,<br>

Went to watch the meteor showers last night and felt a strong need for a tripod.<br>

I am a beginner in photography who would need some recommendations for a good/stable tripod for a Nikon D7000. I will mostly be using it with the kit lens(18-55mm) with the max weight being 18.7 oz. (580 g) of the 55-300mm*f/4.5-5.6) Nikkor VR lens.<br>

I did quite a bit of reading online but the tripods I came across were not of my height. I am 6' tall so would like a tripod about the same(max) height. Mainly will be using it for low-light photography and landscape photography. I have seen a few good ones from Gitzo but damn I am working on a limited budget(~100-150$).<br>

<br />Mostly I am looking to make sure that the tripod is stable and can comfortably support the weight of the lens.<br>

Can someone suggest a few good ones to check out?<br>

<br />Thanks</p>

<p>Nitesh - after years of using inexpensive tripods, I finally got a used Gitzo 3 years ago, and it is built like a tank, so, when you're financially able, give it a shot. In the meantime, whatever you get, you may want to increase stability of the tripod by hanging a gallon jug filled with sand, water or whatever, from the base of the center post. On my lesser tripod I tie a length of cord theu the handle of a gallon jug (an empty plastic milk botle) and loop the other end around the center post. It works great, and when I'm done, if I have to carry it very far, I can just pour the water out making it much lighter to carry. The best thing you can do in selecting a tripod in the short run is to actually visit a dealer and try out several, as most have a variety of features which vary in usefulness. Personally I don't like the ones which have a geared center post, and I like 3 sectioned legs....the thicker the better. You should also conbsider, when finances allow, geting a good solid tripod head. Flimsy ones don't adequately provide much support or flexibility for a heavy rig with a long lens...big ones are heavy but quite easy to adjust.</p>

<p>Your budget constraints need to be disclosed. Also the tripod head is as important as the legs.<br>

I haven't shopped for tripods lately. A good set of legs and head will set you back $200 roughly.<br>

As mentioned in the previous post Gitzo's are good unless you plan to do panning then skip them as the top mount can/will twist during the pan. Been there, had it happen. I like Gitzo heads especially the low profile ball heads, you can probably get one from KEH used in very good condition for less than $100.</p>

<p>Manfrotto are generally good, look for older models in good condition.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nitesh, if you have not done so already, I suggest to have a look at the Accessories forum of this site: <a href="/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/">http://www.photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/</a>. Plenty of posts on the issue of tripod and head selection. </p>

<p>What it all comes down to is this: a good tripod/head combo is expensive - figure about as much as you paid for your entire camera system. Quality has its price. The main choice that influences cost is the tripod leg material: aluminum vs carbon fiber. The former usually cost half (or less) of the latter - the "price" you are paying is that aluminum tripods are heavier (and have some other disadvantages too). As a rough guide, figure that carbon fiber tripods start at $400, then double that amount to cover the head. </p>

<p>The "mistake" many are making (I did too) is to purchase something smaller, less expensive first. Realizing its shortcomings, one upgrades. Then it's a new camera, heavier lenses, more demanding applications (a tripod can do fine indoors but be next to useless outdoors with just a little wind blowing) - another upgrade. In the end, one spends more on those upgrades than had one done the right thing from the get go - buying right the first time. As already mentioned, looking for a used tripod and head is a good way to stretch one's budget.</p>

<p>Nitesh,<br>

Stephen, Charles, and Dieter said it pretty well. I think it is foolish to save on the tripod. Over the past 35 years I have used three tripods consistently: in high school I bought the best tripod I could afford at that time, an aluminum Cullman tripod, which served me well for almost 20 years. It is now holding up a solar telescope in my school. After the Cullman became to wobbly with age, I bought a Gitzo carbonfiber tripod and a RSS ballhead. That is my go-to tripod. It was expensive and took me a while to afford. Two years ago I purchased a lighter Gitzo / RSS ballhead for backpacking. These are the tripods I am using. Over the decades I have also purchased or borrowed numerous cheaper tripods. None of them lasted long or was pleasant to work with. One of them, bought as an emergency solution on a trip to Asia, I ditched after two weeks. In hindsight they were wasted money. So, no matter your budget: I rather save up a bit longer and by something better.<br>

Christoph</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am 6' tall so would like a tripod about the same(max) height.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many will do that (assuming you mean to get a camera to your eye-level (don't forget to include the height of the tripod head and camera); not all that many will get their base plate up to 6') - but you may want to focus on the ones that can reach it without the center column extended. For stability reasons, a tripod without center column is best - but it takes a bit more effort to get to a certain height (you need to adjust three legs rather than simply raise or lower the center column); it also has a much bigger footprint. Generally, I use the shortest center column possible (often sold separately) - it has it's pluses if one needs to get low to the ground (and it also prevents me from raising the center column to much). Personally, I stay away from those gimmicky center columns that can be adjusted to different angles. </p>

<p>The next thing to consider is how to attach the camera to the tripod. The gold standard is the Arca-Swiss dove-tail plate and clamp arrangement - which will significantly add to the cost. Getting a (camera-specific or not) L-plate is the best solution - and also the most expensive one. You can easily move the camera from landscape to portrait orientation without having to adjust the tripod head one bit.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Getting something sturdy at six feet will require a good tripod. I bought my basic aluminum 3 sectioned Gitzo with basic tilt pan head in 1972 and it is still as good as new despite lots of banging around. For years I mounted a 4x5 calumet camera on it, as well as numerous medium format cameras such as Pentax 6x7, Maymia twin lens, Bronica and many Nikons. It looks like the current of this tripod is around $500 on sale (check out Optics Planet: http://www.opticsplanet.com/gitzo-series-3-aluminum-tripod-3-section.html). You'd have to get a head too, and there are lots of options for that. It will last and be stable.</p>

<p>Thanks guys for your suggestions! I totally understand the importance of spending a little more and getting the right tripod at the very beginning. I think I will look for a used aluminum one to stretch my budget for now. And sometime in future, I hope to save enough to get myself a sturdier carbon fiber one based on my need.</p>

<p>I'm using a 50 year old tripod and still love it. Beat up, but sturdy as a rock. It is not light. Not quite as heavy as a studio tripod, but I did use it in the studio at times on those rare occasions I shot 35 in the studio. Tripods need to first be sturdy and the suggestion of hanging weight off the tripod is a great one. It does two things, it not only adds inertia, but it also dampens vibrations. Large stores may have used tripods that you could find. If on a budget, that is where I would look. As others have pointed out the head you have on the tripod needs to match your use of it. If not on a budget there are no better tripods than Really Right Stuff, but they aren't cheep. However, if you are like me and can get fifty years of use out of it, the cost per year goes way down.</p>

<p>Cameras come and go, but the right tripod is a lifetime investment. I've owned perhaps a dozen tripods over the past 65 years, but for 42 years have mostly used original Tiltall tripods for cameras up to 5x7. They cost under $100 online. The permanently attached 3-axis head saves the expense and potential loss of stability of aftermarket heads. With the legs fully extended, the platform is only 57 inches from the ground. However, the center column gives another 12 inches, and is rigidly clamped with a collet instead of the less solid side screw. Tiltall uses a standard 1/4 inch tripod screw. A quick detach system can be mounted if one wants to sacrifice the advantages of the original camera mounting system. I have no experience with the currently imported Tiltall products.</p>

<p>I had great success with Manfrotto, but the <a href="http://www.dolica.com/tripods/">Dolica</a> line works very well for inexpensive tripod with a ball head. I bought this <a href="http://www.dolica.com/tripods/gx650b204-65-professional-aluminum-tripod-with-upgraded-ball-head">one</a> and it's very versatile, light and good for hiking. Price went down too, it's only $65. I bought their monopod too. </p>

<p>Considering your height, a tripod to consider is the old Manfrotto 055DB - it's not light, not small but it reaches 6ft eye-level without extending the centre column (I've got one, and I'm 6'2"). The current versions are all smaller, so for this one you'd have to search second hand. It's aluminium, 3 segment legs.<br /> For me, these legs work fine - and I use it with heavier gear. Stays fine and stable in pretty bad weather conditions too. It was often sold together with the 804RC2 head, which is quite OK, though it cannot take as much load as the legs can - but it should cope with your current gear, and you can always exchange the head later on in case you prefer a ballhead (like many do - but good ballheads do exceed your current budget).</p>

<p>Great suggestions guys!<br>

After some more research I was wondering which head(ball/pan) is apt for shooting landscapes? I am not much into sports photography and so I believe pan head is not something I should be looking for. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, if its a modular tripod, I can always replace a ball head with a pan head if needed..correct?</p>

<p>https://www.keh.com/347267/tripods-gitzo-ball-head-g1276<br /> https://www.keh.com/357991/tripods-bogen-manfrotto-3011-chr-22-67<br /> https://www.keh.com/347723/tripods-gitzo-g2220-explorer-25-64-3-section-alumn</p>

 

<p>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NRFYX62?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00<br>

I have one of these. It does not quite go 6" but they have taller Pods that will.<br>

It holds an SLR with a 200mm lens with no trouble. It certainly pans.....but this is not the Pod you would want for following a race car, or tracking a running animal. <br>

A Magnesium alloy...it is "better" than Aluminum, but not as "good" as Carbon Fiber. This particular model was made for somebody who moves around a lot.....on foot, bike, or car... and needs a steady Pod that will hold a cameras still while you work the cable.....and then be quickly compressed and stowed away.<br>

It also doubles as a Mono-pod which is nice.<br>

good luck</p>

<p>I bought this <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IQ7PT5A?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00">Manfroto (amazon link) </a> <$300 US and I am very happy with it for the price. It includes a manfroto 498RC2 ballhead. I'm 6' 1"" tall and no issues with height. Its folds up, but I would not want to pack it around. Its a good car tripod. Very solid. Its exactly what I needed, a solid, good tripod with ball head that doesn't break the bank from a brand name manufacture. I suspect there are higher quality ball heads and someday I might replace it, but its not junk either. Its better than anything I have ever had before.</p>

Check out the new tripods from induro. I believe they begin with ct in the model names. I know they make one for tall

people. These two sites have good info on tripods of various sizes and designs and both have tripod buying guides.

Outdoorphotogear.com and naturescapes.net store.

 

Joe smith

<blockquote>

<p>What it all comes down to is this: a good tripod/head combo is expensive - figure about as much as you paid for your entire camera system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Wow, $6K for a tripod! That sucker better be sturdy.</p>

<p>Hey Greg, is your camera gear worth $6,000?? Cool!</p>

<p>I just picked up a Manfrotto/Bogen #144 (long discontinued) in as-new condition for £27 (~ $45 US) at a car boot sale. It was the predecessor to the #055 and came with a Manfrotto video head - sturdy but pan tilt only. I'd have no qualms about mounting in excess of 2Kg of camera and lens on top of it. So it's perfectly possible to get a decent tripod without spending more than the cost of the camera kit on it.</p>

<p>Used #055 legs and basic head go for a little more than my bargain-price 144, but you should be able to pick up something decent for under your $150 budget Nitesh. A basic 3-way pan/tilt/swivel head is often more sturdy and stable than a similarly priced ball-head. And doesn't run the risk of the whole camera and lens dropping onto the tripod legs with the release of a single screw! I've always found that a pan/tilt/swivel head allows more precise aiming of the camera than a ball-head, since each axis can be lined up individually, rather than having a floppy camera and lens to point and hold still while you tighten the head down. I'd recommend one for landscape use over a ball-head any day.</p>

<p>Try to avoid heads that need a QR plate as well. They're an unnecessary (and cumbersome) item if you only have one camera body and lens, and will cost more than a direct-screw head.</p>

<p>Whoa, whoa, whoa. Rodeo, I respect your photographic expertise but I have to hear more about why you favor a direct-screw head. Sure, it is simple and effective but also time consuming. Personally, I do not like repeated threading and unthreading with that kind of tripod head. I prefer an arca swiss system with dedicated body plate (the dedicated plate from RRS helps to minimize the cumbersome aspect of most universal plates). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wow, $6K for a tripod! That sucker better be sturdy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP has a D7000, 18-55, and 55-300 lens - that's not anywhere near $6K. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Try to avoid heads that need a QR plate as well. They're an unnecessary (and cumbersome) item</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wish every camera body came with an L-plate designed into it and every lens with a tripod collar should have a dove-tailed lens foot. The Arca-Swiss dove-tail clamp and plate design is the only QR I would recommend - it's really too bad that there are now similar but incompatible designs on the market. The worst QR I ever had where Manfrotto's - I had a pan head and a ball head - and they had different QR plates (square and hexagonal). Talk about cumbersome! And unsafe!</p>

<p>Chip, an Arca-type plate and the head to accept it could easily cost more than the OP's budget. That RRS plate on its own cost over 180 bucks. And despite RRS's claims, it adds weight and bulk to a DX camera that makes handling more awkward. While Manfrotto's own QR gizmos are horrible little things that stick out of the camera base like an overgrown wart.</p>

<p>It seems that the OP won't be using a tripod very frequently, so wear on the tripod bush is a non-issue. Plus it takes very little time to screw a camera onto a head. I've <em>never</em> felt the need for having a QR plate permanently strapped to a camera, and it seems a recent phenomenon that QR plates are deemed to be a permanent fixture. I could see the point when 36 exposure film demanded a quick camera change, but with digital it's really overkill and an indulgence for amateur use.</p>

<p>Some calcification and info. Manfrotto use to be Bogen and both names were used during the transaction.<br>

I at one time had a Bogen 3021 or 3221, don't remember, that I bought and used with my Nikon 35mm. Very sturdy tripod. I even made some gallery quality images with a Graphic View II atop it. I wanted something better for the 4x5 so I bought a used Gitzo then a 2nd Gitzo that was taller. Both Gitzo's had 1 1/2 inch top leg sections. </p>

<p>Life happened and I sold many of my cameras, film scanners, printers,strobes, light stands, and the Gitzos. things changed again and I bought a $60 Induro on clearance sell for $30. I afraid to take it outside with a light camera on top in the afternoon sea breeze that gust up to 15mph daily. One will be hard pressed to get a gallery quality image of any format or type in any outdoor condition. I have 2 Manfrotto monpods that are rock solid. I have two Gitzo low profile ball heads similar to the one I linked to in my previous post. The ball heads are easy to use and control provided you do not over load them. I have a Bogen 108 ball head that is a piece of ___. After I bought a Cambo legend I bought a Berlebach Report. Once I put the Cambo on it I bought a short column and a leveling base for it. I should be able to get a gallery quality image off that set up during a 6.0 earthquake.</p>

<p>The Manfrotto 055 is the new version of the Bogen 3021 or 3221.</p>

<p>On the Arca plate front, bear in mind that an Arca-compatible clamp is a relatively simple shape. The lever style may require some engineering, but I'm not aware of anything wrong with my cheap Triopo clamp from eBay (other cheap manufacturers are available); likewise, there are cheap Arca-compatible plates, even if I prefer to use a dedicated L-plate on my camera. They're worth it so you don't have to replace all the plates when you switch to a different head - this is my main objection to Manfrottos.<br />

<br />

Thee Manfrotto 055 series used to be the go-to option for decent support, although they're trying to price themselves out of the market for some reason. I have a 055CXPro3 (version before the recent redesign), which is reasonably, but not perfectly, solid - and appreciably more so than the aluminium version. I often recommend a Velbon REXi L, which is the travel tripod I use, but I can't say it'll be rock solid at 6', because that would be stretching the central column. (I have a RRS TVC-34L, which will easily get above 6', but not in a sensible budget.) If you're looking at specs, bear in mind that the head and camera body take up several inches, and it's useful to be able to look over the tripod (partly for timing, partly to see the controls on the top of the camera), so being a little short isn't catastrophic - although it's sometimes nice to have reach so you can point the camera comfortably at the sky, or put the tripod below you on a hill and still shoot horizontally.<br />

<br />

There is a lot of advice on buying one tripod that will definitely hold your gear - but Nitesh's kit really isn't that demanding on a tripod unless you're going down the really spindly route. Much as I'd love to recommend a Really Right Stuff or Gitzo (or, sit down for the prices, a Sachtler) tripod, I'd expect anything by a specialist manufacturer (i.e. not the first pick in a department store) will hold up pretty well. Used is quite possibly your friend.<br />

<br />

I'd make the head decision separately from the tripod - what feels right is personal. While it's not rock solid with a 3kg lens on it, I liked the ergonomics of my Giottos more than that of the Manfrotto equivalent; YMMV. (My go-to Triopo recommendation is probably inappropriate here - you need ergonomics more than capacity.) I'd not waste time lusting after the high-end heads (Arca Z1, RRS BH-55, etc.) which will hold way more than you need and just weigh down your tripod. Just get what feels comfortable, and swap the clamp for an Arca-compatible one if you need to. (Giottos do have an Arca-compatible clamp line; so, kind of, do some recent Manfrottos.) Good luck, and don't forget that weighing down the tripod and treating it gently (remote shutter release, blocking it from wind, mirror up...) can make up for a lot of instability.<br />

<br />

Greg: A <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/382498-REG/Sachtler_1262_DV_12SB_Carbon_Fiber_Tripod.html">Sachtler DV 12SB</a> then? Yes, it'll be sturdy. I'll stick to the ~$2000 of tripod/head (TVC-34L, d4) that I can put together, thanks. I'm sure I'll start to worry when I get that 400mm f/2.8...</p>