Tripod for night shots and hiking questions?

[chrismitchell]

What I have now.  A Slik ball head, A Manfrotto ball head tri pod and a Joby mini tri pod.  The manfrotto is the heaviest, maybe four pounds or so.  The Slick about half that much.  Joby wasn't made for a 2.5 pound camera.   Why does weight matter?  because I go for week long hikes in National Parks.  The first thing that comes to mind is carbon.  Are they solid?  Maybe carbon is best for day time photos at 1/30?  Maybe not?    

 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by chrismitchell
photos didn't post

[chuck909]

Generally, the heavier, the better.   If you are worried about the weight, attach a strap to the tripod.  

[SCL]

Improvise, improvise, improvise. A small tripod roped to a tree or rock, or put on the ground. Or a carbon fibre. or use your tent poles with one threaded for a head, lashed together.

[Jochen_S]

There are solid carbon tripods and of course too flimsy ones too. To save weight you might have to sacrifice height. I really recommend shopping hands on.

[chrismitchell]

"I really recommend shopping hands on."

Thanks gents.

 

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51590378545_5c4a7fb043_b.jpg[/img]

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by chrismitchell
Trying to add a photo, not showing up

[Robin Smith]

The main point of carbon fiber tripods is that they weight less, so it is not a negative in any way. They are very stiff and strong and generally will be considered the premium option.  If it seems to be too light then most people hang their bag on it (most have a hook to allow this). I don't find this necessary. Tripods generally are much less important these days since high ISOs and image stabilisation have arrived. A good table top tripod or similar can be a very portable substitute for a full size tripod, although these are unlikely to work very well with large telephoto lenses. All other things being equal a taller tripod is better, or at least one that can reach your normal eye level. Not a problem if you are a short person, but more of an issue if you are excessively tall.

[AJG]

One other consideration with weight--if the camera is more or less level, a lightweight tripod/head will work a lot better than if the camera is pointed down at a considerable angle.  A heavy camera/lens can cause a lightweight tripod to tip over, if it isn't counterweighted.  When I use my fairly heavy Manfrotto tripod with very heavy geared head and the camera pointed at the floor for the occasional copy job in my studio I place a 10 lb. shot weight over the extended leg to keep it from dumping the camera on the floor. (and the artwork!).  I can empathize about carrying a lot of weight on a hike--my days of hauling a 12 lb. 4x5 and 12 lb. tripod are dwindling.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I agree with Robin. Weight is a big issue when hiking.  Get a good carbon fiber  and make sure it has a hook so you can hang for pack on it for stability if needed.

 

[Neely]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:58 AM, chrismitchell said:

What I have now.  A Slik ball head, A Manfrotto ball head tri pod and a Joby mini tri pod.  The manfrotto is the heaviest, maybe four pounds or so.  The Slick about half that much.  Joby wasn't made for a 2.5 pound camera.   Why does weight matter?  because I go for week long hikes in National Parks.  The first thing that comes to mind is carbon.  Are they solid?  Maybe carbon is best for day time photos at 1/30?  Maybe not?  


One other consideration with weight--if the camera is more or less level, a lightweight tripod/head will work a lot better than if the camera is pointed down at a considerable angle.  A heavy camera/lens can cause a lightweight tripod to tip over, if it isn't counterweighted.  When I use my fairly heavy Manfrotto tripod with very heavy geared head and the camera pointed at the floor for the occasional copy job in my studio I place a 10 lb. shot weight over the extended leg to keep it from dumping the camera on the floor. (and the artwork!).  I can empathize about carrying a lot of weight on a hike--my days of hauling a 12 lb. 4x5 and 12 lb(on top of other stuff like hunting binocular  https://gritroutdoors.com/optics/sport-optics/binoculars/ and/or a spotting scope. tripod are dwindling.  

If you looking to reduce weight while hiking, carbon is go-to. As others mentions just ask manufacturer about extra stability options for it.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Neely
typo

[Gary Naka]

I suggest STUDYING the specs for the tripods.
Many years ago, when I was looking at tripods, I was surprised that the difference in weight between AL and CF tripods was not as much as I was expecting.  Yes CF was lighter, but not by the SIGNIFICANT amount that I was led to expect.

The other item is the HEAD.
My tripod heads vary CONSIDERABLY in weight.
When I expect to carry the tripod for an extended period, I use the LIGHTEST head that I have.  Not my best head, but at least I can carry it.

When I travel, my "travel" tripod is a compromise. 
It is not as tall as my home tripod, nor is it as STURDY.  And it has an integrated head, so I am stuck with that head.  But it works, for me, so far.
I use the camera bag on the tripod technique to add stability.  But just don't overload the tripod.

A tip for the "lighter" tripods, is to make sure that the camera+lens is balanced on the tripod.
If the camera+lens is front heavy, with the camera attached to the tripod, then you have to JAM the elevation lock TIGHT to keep the camera from drooping.  Been there, done that.  Luckily I did not strip the threads on the head.

[tcyin]

I just completed a 13 day trek to the Annapurna region of Nepal and took along a tripod for photos such as the attached.  

Machhapuchhre (fishtail) by moonlight

[Gerald Cafferty]

What's the weight of the camera and lens? If you are using a mirrorless camera most tripods are of over kill. 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Gerald Cafferty

[david_henderson]

Maybe carbon is best for daytime photos at 1/30?

I think the best tripod for daytime photographs at 1/30 with a decent digital camera is none.  Not that I think my pictures will be sharper than using a tripod- but that they will be sharp enough, given lens or in body stabilisation.  And even if you convince yourself that you'd like things a little sharper you can increase ISO or for many shots trade off a little aperture size/depth of field to get a faster shutter speed.

Fifteen years ago I was photographing on medium format film with a tripod on maybe 95% of my exposures and it was pretty much essential.  Today its rare for me to use a tripod unless I want to use a long exposure for  creative effect or because it's very dark.  I always take a tripod on trips but its use is very limited nowadays and I will not walk for miles with a tripod "just in case".  I carry it when I know that the combination of light levels and opportunity for long exposure work is likely to mean I'll need a tripod to get the shot.  Mostly that means the tripod stays in the car, and once in a blue moon I need to go back for it or revisit a location with the tripod.  Pretty rare though and in general I'm delighted not to carry it.  My real questions to you are

How many times on your week long hikes do you actually need to use a tripod?  This is not the same as asking how many times you actually use a tripod.

To what extent can you overcome the need for a tripod by altering camera settings?

Is carbon better?  I think it resists certain types of motion better.  But for me the biggest cause of camera motion is wind playing on the rig especially if on an uneven surface such as grass .  I don't find that CF is any less susceptible to that - in fact what a tripod needs to resist that (to a degree) is actually weight.  The benefit of CF seems to me to be more weight reduction for carrying than anything else.  It's less  cold on icy mornings too.  

[JDMvW]

When it comes to tripods (and pretty much everthing else), Katherine Hepburn said

Katherine Hepburn

You can't have it all-you have to make choices-win here, lose there.