Does a D800 need a heavier tripod than a D7000

[dan_south]

<p>Nikon started the conversation when they added a "you should use a tripod with this camera" section to their D800 announcement literature.</p>

<p>No issues. Tripods are useful devices, and sturdy, expensive ones are particularly useful.</p>

<p>Recently, the discuss seems to have morphed from "do I need one?" to "how heavy does it have to be?".</p>

<p>I saw a recent write-up on the D800 where the tester claimed that he saw a difference in clarity when he used a heavier tripod. But no details were provided. What type of surface was the tripod on? Soft, hard, sand, concrete? Was wind blowing? Was extra weight added to the tripod? What focal length? What head?</p>

<p>I own one of the heaviest Gitzo legs ever created. I also own some more mid-sized Gitzo legs. I use RRS and Kirk ball heads with custom QR plats and L-plates. The who'll system is very rigid.</p>

<p>Even when shooting 4x5 I have not been able to measure a visible difference between my heaviest and lightest Gitzo legs.</p>

<p>So, I began to wonder. The D7000 must have a similar pixel density to the D800. Did Nikon announce the D7000 with an article about tripod usage? Maybe they did, but I don't recall hearing about it. Why would the D800 be more demanding than a D7000 for pixel to pixel sharpness? And why would one need a tripod that can support 55 pounds (25 kilograms) for a camera that doesn't weight two pounds?</p>

<p>Am I not understanding some technological aspect that makes D800 pixels more sensitive than other pixels? Or has the D800 ushered in a wave of tripod hysteria?\\</p>

<p>Happy Cinco de Mayo by the way!</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The difficulty here is not about the pixel density but total pixel count. Let's say you're making a particular image with the D7000 and a 200mm lens. To make the same picture you use a 300mm lens on the D800 (matching the content of the image and vantage point). Now, you can see where the difficulty comes from. You are recording a 36 MP image with a 300mm instead of a 16MP image on a 200mm. The D800+300mm has more surface area for wind to grab, it has a larger mirror and larger shutter causing more vibrations. And of course, you're aiming to record a pixel-sharp 36MP image instead of just 16MP.</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>I think a lot of people have no clue about tripod sturdiness, but they assume bigger and heavier is better. Well, it is, but then I don't NEED to use a 2x4 for swatting flies, even though it can deliver a more forceful "punch". Some support weight characteristics, likewise can be misleading, as they tend to exaggerate the amount of weight which can be physically supported, but not necessarily be held sturdy. Your comments about providing details to claims is right on the button....how far were the tripod legs spread, what linkages do they have at that spread, is there a center post and was it raised, was the head on the tripod erect or tilted, and more and more. So, the dialogue taking place is probably healthy, but I wouldn't accept outlandish claims as being relevant to many peoples' circumstances. Sort of like over promoting the latest and greatest feature to sell more cameras, when its impact may, in fact, be marginal on IQ.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Tripod hysteria. Pretty much the same principle as 30 years ago. To ensure sharp landscapes, portraits, and architecture a good tripod has always been recommended. I bought my second tripod, about 25 years ago, and made sure it would be up to snuff for medium format, 4x5, and 400/2.8 lenses, just in case. Well I ended up using it for all those things, and now use it for shifting/stitching images from my 5D II. </p>

<p>If you have a tripod for 4x5 it will no doubt be just fine. I too have considered one of the new fangled ultralightweight ones and those that are well made and rigid would be fine, even with a D800. </p>

[errol young]

<p>Tripod, tripod. I don't need no stinkin' tripod!<br>

Except when I shoot Santa in the mall. </p>

[lwg]

<p>My experience has been that the lightweight carbon fiber tripods work very well for 4x5 cameras as long as there is no wind. There is very little vibration in tripping the 4x5 shutter, compared to the mirror movement. Also, since the film size is bigger in 4x5 small movements are not as noticeable.<br>

I had thought that experience would carry forward to a DSLR like the D7000. However that hasn't been my experience unless you use mirror lockup. I have found that with macro shots without mirror lockup are less sharp than with, even using a cable release. I don't yet own a heavy duty tripod, so I can't say if it's better with one. It could also be an issue with the tripod head. I haven't tried to determine what components need to be beefed up.<br>

Once the D800 arrives I'll know how much worse it is over the D7000. I suspect it will be the same at the pixel level using the same lens. But to get the same image you won't use the same lens, so there will be differences. I don't know which way things will go.</p>

[stank]

<p><em>Tripod, tripod. I don't need no stinkin' tripod!</em><br /><em> Except when I shoot Santa in the mall.</em><br>

I hope it wasn't in front of the kids... Looks like a year without a Santa Clause.</p>

[iso200]

<p>I think there's a tendency to think more about tripod size than to consider the photographer's technique - quite often failures that are blamed on the tripod should actually be attributed to the person using it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The size of the tripod needed has more to do with the type of load you put on it. For example, I use larger tripods because I use lenses such as the 500mm/f4 and 200-400mm/f4 frequently. The tripod needs to be sturdy with those bigger lenses, especially under some wind. Wind has blown over my tripod once and my D700 + 70-200mm/f2.8 VR hit the ground hard, mainly due to my own negligance. However, with those lenses, I also tend to use faster shutter speeds to stop the motion of animals, such as 1/500 sec, 1/1000 sec. Therefore, I am actually less concerned about vibration from the tripod due to the shutter speeds I use.</p>

<p>However, if you shoot night-time time exposure or 1/2 sec for waterfall landscape, you should be very concerned about vibration.</p>

<p>If you use the D800 inside a studio and you only use studio electronic flashes to illuminate your subjects, vibration is also not a concern due to the flash speed.</p>

<p>In other words, tripod size is not really about the D800 (i.e. the camera itself) per se. It has more to do with how big you lenses are and the type of photography you do.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Also, since the film size is bigger in 4x5 small movements are not as noticeable. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A commonly held belief; and one that's totally erroneous! If a camera is shifted in any direction normal to the lens axis during exposure, the same amount of blur results <em>in the final image</em>, no matter how big or small the taking format. Equally, any rotational or angular movement of the camera during exposure results in an equal blurring of the final image.<br /> How can it be otherwise?<br /> Take the case of shifting a camera exactly normal to the lens axis during exposure. Whatever the amount of shift is, it's as if the subject has moved by that amount instead of the camera. For the example of 1 mm of camera movement: If the subject magnification on a small format is 1:100, the image blur distance will be 0.01 mm. On a larger format with a magnification of only 1:25 the image blurring would be 0.04 mm. So in fact the smaller format actually shows a smaller blur radius. BUT, to get the same sized print we only need to magnify the larger format by a factor of 4 times less than the smaller format. The end result is that the amount of blur in both prints is the same.</p>

<p>If you work out the geometry and magnification that applies to angular (tilt/swing) or rotational camera movement you'll find that the end result is the same, regardless of the format size used. Always provided you enlarge the camera image to the same final viewing size. The only real advantage that a larger camera has, is of having a greater mass and inertia, making it more difficult to shake for the input of the same amount of energy.</p>

<p>The implication of this is that for the same sized final image the D800 will show as much or as little movement blur as any camera with a lower resolution. It's just that the lower resolution will obscure the blur more easily.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I think the biggest problem with any tripod design is that the load sits above its apex. Exasperating the problem is that the camera/lens' point of attachment is not on the axis of its center of mass.</p>

<p>The first problem can be alleviated by mounting a crossbar on the camera mounting plate, then hang the camera on one side of the bar and a balancing weight on the other side; not a very practical solution but it will increase stability.</p>

<p>The second problem can be addressed by using an adapter slide-plate to mount the camera/lens combo on the axis of its center of mass. This will create a uniform gravitational field to cancel the torque force exerted on the (usually front-heavy) camera/lens.</p>

<p>In astronomy, a double fork arm is usually the most stable platform and load-balancing is critical as a first step to minimizing vibration. Various methods can then be applied to damp spurious vibrations to dramatically reduce its settling time - it's not unusual to encounter settling times of several seconds on a flimsy mount and I suspect the principle applies equally to terrestrial photography.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>My answer is "probably no." Your tripod for D 7000 should be OK for your D 800 other things being equal. For landscapes shots, if I owned a D 800, I would take special care to minimize anything that could could cause movement or vibration. I would set mirror lock up or use a self timer delay of 3-5 seconds, set AF independent of the shutter release (back button focusing), turn off VR, and trip the shutter with a cable release. The tripod I would use would be my series 2 Gitzo carbon fiber with as few leg sections open as posible, and the bottom sections opened only as a last resort. Joe Smith</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Many Tripods have hooks for sandbags. As impracticable as lugging a sandbag may be (a wheeled bag or cart is nice) it provides a lot of stability to medium and even light weight tripods. If you ever use tripods.</p>

[dan_south]

Excellent discussion so far! Thanks to all contributors.

 

I appreciate the comments about mirror lockup, shutter delays, and remote release controllers. These are all extremely important

contributors to image sharpness. However, these options can be applied when using just about any tripod.

 

I'd like to keep this discussion focused on the differences between tripods of different sizes and types assuming that all of these other

parameters have already been optimized. We can assume that MLU will be engaged for the sake of this discussion. It would be better to

consider factors that we cannot easily control such as wind and the relative softness of the surface upon which the tripod stands.

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>I was pondering a similar issue recently whilst waiting on my D800 to arrive. I've gotten into the habit of carrying a lightweight carbon fibre by Sherpa with me whilst using a D90. The D90 felt light on the tripod compared to the D800, the extra weight of the D800 actually makes the tripod feel more stable and better grounded. And as others have stated you can attach your camera bag or whatever from the hook under the tripod to really weight it down. Apart from that if using a lightweight tripod try to avoid over extending the centre column or using really long lenses as that will likely give poor results. So far I have zero complaints about any image softness from using a light tripod, I use it with the mirror locked up and then the accessory remote Nikon MC36 to trigger the shutter, which is probably overkill. I could wish for the ability to use an old fashioned cable release for a fraction of the weight and price though.<br>

When I had my Pentax 67II I had a heavy Gitzo carbon fibre tripod for it but would still occasionally use it on lighter tripods like my Benbo Trekker but with very careful technique it was fine. The Pentax 67 cameras were not always that forgiving of light tripods, they kicked like a mule when that big mirror returned to earth. I actually got into the habit of pressing my palm onto the prism after locking the mirror up, that helped keep images that bit sharper. The D800 is a lot more forgiving than that but to get the best out of it, take things a bit slower and treat it more like a medium format camera, taking time to set everything up properly.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>When it is windy I hang a weight from the center of my tripod. I carry small bags that can be filled with sand, rocks or whatever can be found locally. If I don't think I will have local debris to use, I carry a couple of bean bags for the purpose. You need two things to steady a camera -- a sturdy rest and inertia. The tripod can supply only one of them.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have seen people tie a rope to the bottom of the center (column) of the tripod. On the other end of the robe is a loop which they step on to increate pressure/weight on the tripod. Of course the length of the rope has to be adjusted to work with the tripod extended.</p>

[dan_south]

The foot in rope method never seemed like a good idea to me. Standing on one foot and trying to exert constant pressure with the other

leg - but not too much - would seem tricky at best. I can imagine the tripod sinking or tilting on soft surfaces or just wobbling with the

movement of my body. Perhaps a bungee cord would work if you could find one with the right tension.

 

If its windy I'll hold one leg near the top with my arm. This also provides some protection against having the entire assembly topple

over, camer and all.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dan, I have never used the foot on robe method myself, but I have seen people do that. The length of the rope has to be just right so that you are putting some pressure on the button of the tripod while your heel should still be touching the ground. Otherwise, you would be standing mostly on one foot, and that can be tiring after a while. I suppose if the terrain is not even, i.e. you are not standing on a flat surface, the exact length of the rope can be a problem.</p>

<p>Or you can just hang your camera bag off the hook at the buttom of the center (column). I suppose you can use some other bag and just pick up local rocks (assuming that they are easy to find on site) to weight down the tripod.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>As to the length of the rope -- bungy chord is the answer. You just need the tension.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I hate spelling! CORD!</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>A comment about weights and bungy cords;</p>

<p>This works because by applying a downward force on the axis of the tripod's center of mass, the tripod's effective mass is increased because it has nowhere to accelerate as a reaction to the applied force. </p>

<p>The camera should still be very rigidly coupled to the top plate; better still with its center of mass in-line with the tripod's center. </p>

[johne37179]

<p>It should be remembered that you only have to hold it still for a few seconds has, and typically only a fraction of a second. </p>