Need advice on tripod quality

[katie_chase1]

<p>I'm new to photography and I was looking to buy a tripod. Not an insanely expensive one for now, just a beginner's. I have a Nikon D40 camera (not sure if that matters, honestly) and I was on amazon looking for a good tripod and I came across this one that seemed to be rated pretty well.<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Ravelli-APLT4-61-inch-Weight-Aluminum/dp/B004ZGLM5W/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1396816172&sr=1-5&keywords=tripod<br>

Is this a good tripod to buy/any recommendations? Thanks in advance!!</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>If that is you budget and depending on how often you will be needing a tripod as your skill level increases, then buy it. Get rid of it when it fails or whenever you lose it. You will be out of pocket $30 or so. By that time, you should know what tripod you will need. By the way, I started out with a telescopic flimsy metal tripod from Simpsons - Sears. It cost under $10 back in the day. Of course, the legs failed to lock after a year. I moved on to a more substantial aluminum Velbon. Sold that and moved on to an aluminum Manfrotto to an aluminum Gitzo to a carbon fibre Manfrotto. That was over a 40 year span.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>You always get, what you paid for it.<br /> Ones, a famous photographer said; "the best tripod is the heaviest what ever you able to cary."<br /> It is a relative question. To hold a camera at you eye level, or working well?<br /> Regardless of the camera you mounting on it, the tripod supposed to be a steady, vibration free tripod.<br /> Depend, how big and heavy lens you going to attach to it.<br /> Vibration is the worst thing you can get from a cheep budget tripod.<br /> And many other questions.</p>

<p>As Peter said, I started with a 20 dollar tripod. Then 120, then 300, still not good, then a 500 dollar and ended happily with a working tripod over 1000 dollar. If I'm smart in the first place. I would safe a lots of money baying the best in the first place. You do the math.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>lots of recent threads, but sometimes hard to find:<br>

e.g., http://www.photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/00cTfe </p>

 

[User_6502147]

<p>I was looking for weight support (kg/lbs) on this model....and found nothing. That doesn't sit well with me, since they don't appear to be transparent about it.</p>

<p>Will you be dealing with longer lenses, such as 300mm or longer ? That should answer some of your concerns. I have a photo from CL, that I can't show here (copyright issues), but the guy was selling 8 tripods (all for $20). I'm assuming he hadn't learned his lesson. Yes, people often buy cheap tripod/s and years down the road they realize, that they just take space in their closet/s...and do v. little for them.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that you must purchase expensive support, but it would be good that you can figure out what is the max (lenses, attachments, extra flash, ball head, camera, etc) and try to match that with a tripod. It's better to overshoot this and get a sturdier tripod than "close to lbs limits". I'd suggest that you get a beanbag or a monopod, while you're trying to save for a better support. Also, if you can go to a "brick/mortar store" and see what may work for you.</p>

<p>We all have slightly different tastes, but I tend to go for tripods that only have 3 legs and no middle column. The column destabilizes the tripod to a degree, particularly in top-heavy configuration. Those that are more stable tend to cost more....all relative.</p>

<p>It would be good that you read-up on tripods before you spend any cash.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Nah, that type of tripod is a waste of money at any price. It's impossible to make a decent geared center column and pan head for so little money.</p>

<p>In a new low priced tripod and head, look for a Slik or Manfrotto. Better still, buy a used Bogen/Manfrotto, Slik or other reliable brand. Good tripods don't break easily and they're usually safe buys on the used market. My used Bogen/Manfrotto, Slik and other sturdy tripods cost between $5 and $50, tops, at pawn shops, thrift stores, etc., all a fraction of the original new price. All still work great after lots of use.</p>

[peter_simpson1]

<p>I have both a Slik and a Manfrotto. The Manfrotto is much heavier and much sturdier. The Slik is fine when I'm doing a long walk in to a spot, but I prefer the Manfrotto.<br>

My advice is to buy a Manfrotto. It's a bit more, but worth the extra. But, if you need one now and buy the less expensive Slik, you can still use it as a hiking tripod.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I think there's two arguments that kind of meet in the middle</p>

<p>First is that IMO an inadequate tripod is worse than handholding. Many of us will have started off with a tripod that is just too flimsy to provide solid support and wondered why shots were blurred- I know I did. Stability means good design and a certain amount of weight. The tripod you are looking at on Amazon is plastic and rough. Its as likely to cause you problems as it is to resolve them. It gets lots of positive reviews, but then everything gets positive reviews , from the roughest hotels, the worst restaurants, and the flimsiest tripods. Read the bad reviews too.</p>

<p>Second point is that there is an argument, trotted out here and elsewhere, that if you buy anything but a top-end tripod and head you're wasting your money and run the risk of wasting a fortune on sequentially improving but still inadequate tripods and heads until you end up at the top of the hill which is where you should have gone right at the outset. There are some people whose demands are extreme or become more extreme over time for whom this argument is useful. However for most people their real needs from a tripod and head can be satisfied pretty well at a cost well below the top of the market and whose demands from a tripod and head don't actually get a lot more extreme over time. There are a lot of people like this, and they tend to be ignored by the "top of the range " proponents.</p>

<p>I think that unless you fully expect to use long lenses, something towards the lower end of the Manfrotto range would be about the best compromise between cost and quality, together with one of their smaller to medium ballheads. There are other brands such as Slik that offer broadly comparable products. If you're fairly small then the 190 series might work pretty well, though if you're tall you might prefer a slightly larger model to having to raise the centre column all the time which is bad for stability. If that's stretching the budget too far I'd follow Lex's lead and get a used item rather than settle for inadequate. </p>

<p> </p>

[katie_chase1]

<p>Thank you all so much! Each of your responses have helped me. I appreciate it.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>I'm using a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/MeFoto-A1350Q1R-Roadtrip-Travel-Tripod/dp/B009A17FNU?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957">MeFoto Road Trip tripod</a> with an Olympus E-M5, and something in the MeFoto class (around $200) appears to be <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1264826">as cheap as you can go</a> and still get reasonable support.</p>

<p>I went through the same process you did and went through two cheap plastic tripods before getting this one. </p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>If you want the most stable and vibration free photographs, heed the advice here and go for the bulkiest tripods you can. There is no arguing with physics. However, for travel and general photography, I decided to compromise on the absolute stability for the sake of having a tripod that I would be comfortable carrying along with me, and therefore more likely to have with me when I needed it. I second Tom's recommendation on the MeFoto, I went even smaller with the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=871068&gclid=COvDiK3Vzr0CFaLm7Aod_SwArw&is=REG&Q=&A=details">MeFoto Backpacker</a> series. I used it with a Nikon D300 with a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for long exposure dusk/night shots with neutral density filters, and I am happy with the outcome. The tripod does vibrate when you take your hands off the camera after focusing etc., so you'll need either a remote or a shutter-release delay function for best results. I lent the camera to a niece for her to shoot the northern lights at the arctic circle recently with a Nikon D3200, and she was happy with it as well.</p>

[katie_chase1]

<p>Tom, I'll probably end up doing that as well. I just want something basic to last me maybe the summer and if I'm still serious, I'll upgrade. I just want a basic tripod for portraits and landscapes (I'm going to Colorado this summer). I just have the basic lens on my Nikon D40, so it's not heavy. I just want to make sure my camera doesn't fall off.<br>

Sasvata, thank you for the recommendation, I'll definitely look into it!</p>

[katie_chase1]

<p>Alright, I'm down to three other choices. Any feedback on these?<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-190XPROB-3-Section-Aluminum-Tripod/dp/B000N7VPRW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396892645&sr=8-1&keywords=manfrotto+tripod<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=871068&Q=&is=REG&A=details<br>

http://www.keh.com/camera/Tripods-Complete-Tripods/1/sku-TR414019004260?r=FE#</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I think the main trouble with a tripod like the one shown is not so much that it is cheap, but that the two way head does not give you a level horizon unless you level the legs. If you like a level horizon, a two way head will fight you forever. If you're panning video, you must level the tripod, but for stills, an adjustable horizon on the head will save much aggravation. I'd look for a ball head, or a three-way head. These days there are a lot of Manfrotto and Slik ripoffs available, which are not terribly expensive, but will at least give you a head that levels. For relatively low cost and quality together, check out the Slik DX Pro series. They have a smallish but very well made three way head with a quick disconnect, that operates smoothly.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>For travelling light? The MeFOTO BackPacker Travel Tripod (Red) is my choice.</p>

[john_harper9]

<p>+1 on the MeFOTO BackPacker Travel Tripod (Red). When you acquire heavier gear, you may have to upgrade to a heavier $$$ tripod and head for long lens work, but you can keep the lightweight MeFOTO in your backpack. The heavy tripod left in the car is of no value.</p>

[Rod Sorensen]

<p>In your post with the 3 links, I'd suggest the first. The multi-section travel tripod would be frustrating and unnecessary unless it needs to go in a backpack. I pesonally like tripods without a center column, but the Manfrotto does some cool things which require the center column.</p>

[quick]

<p>i use a stitz tripods,also mini vanguard .stitz tripods are great.</p>

<div></div>

[katie_chase1]

<p>Thanks, everyone! I decided on the MeFOTO BackPacker Travel Tripod. I think it suits me well. I appreciate your input so much!</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Congratulations! Let us know how you liked and disliked your tripod after your trip. Have fun!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>That MeFOTO does look pretty good. Glad I read this thread, I'm looking for a lighter weight tripod as well for my P&S and mirrorless compact.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I would start with some tripods from SLIK. These tripods are not very expensive and they are pretty sturdy too.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p>Katie, I think the tripod you point out looks a bit plasticky - I would go for something a bit more solidly engineered. You don't need something that's so heavy that it's a pain to carry, just one that's reasonably solid.<br>

I don't agree with the silly comment that it's better to handhold than use a lightweight tripod. Even a relatively lightweight tripod is better than no tripod at all - just be sure to use it with care and use mirror lock up, and a cable release.</p>