mats nilson photography

I use the kind of tripod that is used for geodetic surveys and mapping and swear by it! Not only is it absolutely rock steady (has to be for accurate surveys) it is also extremly flexible (from ground level to something like 65"/165 cm) and rather inexpensive at around $150. To get an idea of what I mean, look up <a href="http://www.benmeadows.com/store/product_group.asp?dept_id=2747&parent_id=556">Ben Meadows.</a> Its only drawback, possibly, is that it doesn't fold very short and that it's somewhat heavy. But then, it isn't wobbly either! After all, steadiness is what tripods are about, not primarily portability :-) You will have to do some simple engineering to attach a photographic ball head to it, namely getting the right size screw (3/8"-16 UNC) and a large washer, but that's all.

I agree completely with mr Resor. The longer the focal length used and the larger the aperture, the softer any given transition will appear. Also, in my opinion, the over-use in the late Galen Rowells images is not one of too hard a transition but of too high density. But that is of course a matter of taste. I sure wish I had pictures like his in my portfolio...

How about this alternative? Don't throw away your money on costly, though excellent, tripods. I have bought the kind of tripod that is used for geodetic surveys for the equivalent of $80 (in Sweden). It is heavy (=stable) and indestructible, goes from 0 to 170 cm and all legs move independently. Since the tripod was that cheap, I could afford to invest in an Arca-Swiss monoball instead. The only possible draw-back is that it doesn't get shorter than one metre when collapsed, but on the other hand - portability invariably comes at the expence of stability. (One source of similar tripods that I know of in the US: http://www.benmeadows.com)