Outrageous ! I grew up believing that tripods eat badly behaved children - it was only after i turned 70 that i suspected some sort of malfeasance had been committed with the truth !
The tripod required depends on the following criteria: 1. The focal length of the lens 2. The Shutter speed to be used. 3. The camera/lens height required 4. Wind speed I normally use Manfrotto 055 tripods with various Manfrotto heads. The adapters for the tripod heads live on my cameras. I have others for special occasions. I shoot a lot at 1 second and longer. At 1 second and shorter with a 24 to 120mm lens, my cameras with image stabilization allows me to shoot hand held. Get a good tripod and You will have it for a long time, buy a cheap tripod and replace it soon.
I have 3 tripods. A big solid one I use in the studio and my garden for still life, macro and film "scanning". I have a mid-size carbon fibre that I keep in the car and I use when shooting near the road(say up to a 2 or 3-mile hike) and I have a little travel tripod that I take up the hills with me. (I also have a Manfrotto pixie table tripod that comes backpacking!). The biggest compromise with the smaller units is height. The smaller they get the lower they reach, so the travel one only gets to waist level. But the main purpose of a tripod (especially nowadays) is not to hold the camera steady (IBIS does that!) it's to hold the composition steady while you wait for the light/clouds/animals etc to get in place. If these things are fleeting you might only have 5 or 10 seconds to get the shot and you don't want to be trying to recompose a handheld shot, and you don't want to hold a handheld position for the 10-30 minutes or more that might be needed for things to coalesce. But holding a composition steady doesn't require the big heavy tripods of yesteryear, modern lightweight (but still well made!) ones are great.
I personally use a large tripod that has no center column with a leveling bowl. A tripod is just like a lens, everything is a compromise. So use the gear that works for your needs.
Hey Henry, just want to say I just soak up all the energy you give off here every time I watch a video. I have no comments on tripods as it's probably an individual choice for the most part. Thanks a gain for my spirit gift in this video.
I think choosing to use a lighter or heavier tripod comes down to what you're putting on it. If the longest lens you use is 200mm, then something lighter may be all you need. But if you regularly use a much bigger lens, say 500mm or bigger, then a bigger, heavier tripod will likely be beneficial. A 200mm lens is approximately a 4x telescope. A 600mm is 12x, and any camera shake is magnified by 12 times. I usually shoot wildlife and birds with a long lens, and most often use a heavy tripod. And even so I sometimes still have to hang my pack from it to anchor. It's physics. Can't beat mass for gaining stability.
I’ve had many mate. Now I have weeded out the rubbish and stick with two. Manfrotto carbon for my landscape work and a 3 Legged Thing for travel. You do get what you pay for in most cases. I highly recommend a geared head over a ball head, locks the composition in and stays there. Great for fine tuning too. Great vid as always. Keep at it 👍📷
I have found any center column is a disaster in the wind. If you use the pixel shift, your solid tripod is worth it. Get a stone bag as you can add rocks to weigh the tripod in the wind and adds no weight moving. Wide angle is easier to stabilize than a telephoto in the wind. Skinny legs should be avoided just set the tripod lower. A big tripod is great on slopes where the height gives extra perspective and the long legs help level the slope. If you spend a lot on a lens to get tack sharp edge to edge, why not spend a bit on a decent tripod. If it's not windy and you are hiking with a small kit, then light is ok. If you are out in the mountains or at the coast in strong wind leave the travel tripod and handhold or take a big tripod. I have a big gitzo purchased used, and smaller leofoto carbon and a crap mefoto for hiking and indoor. It's noticeably bad in the wind
Worth mentioning that I abandoned carbon tripods years ago because with heavier lenses (telephoto or just wide aperture) the whole arrangement can get very top-heavy and unstable. There are advantages in having a heavier tripod!
Depends on individual shooting preferences I think. I have three tripods, a heavy one, a travel one and a tabletop one. I use the heavy one for astrophotography and seascapes, because it can withstand rushing water better and shifting sands (i use spikes), plus its often breezy, and i like to shoot rushing water at 1/4 second to about 1 second. The travel tripod is nice and compact and light, but sufficiently sturdy for most of my other landscape needs. It's ok in the wind, but not for really long exposures, say 3 seconds plus. The table top tripod is great for close-up and macro photography, e.g. flowers, patterns in rocks and sand and pebbles - it weighs barely anything, and its less tiring (working at ground level is tiring, even if you don't walk very far). Having a van means I can take all three and choose between them.
Replying to myself here........ a big factor with shake comes from the lens/filter holder catching the wind as opposed to the tripod. It's a misconception. Even with a really heavy, sturdy tripod, the wind will catch a longish lens (70-200mm) very easily and mean you're forced to shoot at fairly fast shutter speeds. Heavier tripods also needed if you're supporting a heavy set up. For astrophotography I use a small tracker and a second ballhead, all of which adds to the bulk, and these are exposures of 2-3 minutes. Another way to reduce shake/vibration is to splay the legs and work lower, as it distributes the load better, and low to the ground is less windy than 1.4m up
I’ve used the same Benro travel tripod in the peak of winter for years. I also have a 3.3kg Benro Alu 3 piece but I haven’t used in years. I can shoot handheld down to 1/80th shutter up to 300mm and with my 16-80 I can get handheld shots down to 1/6th of a second. If I genuinely need my tripod because it’s windy, I just hang my pack off the centre column hook and stand in a way to block the wind. Considering I do regular 4 night trips, I don’t find the 3x heavier tripod gives 3x better results so I’d rather save the 60% in weight and increase my enjoyment of the whole experience.
Cheers Henry, it’s Sean in Atlanta! I “learned” photography utilising UA-cam videos, just like yours. And the primary authors of those videos were using Olympus cameras, so that was my first camera. The image stabilisation, as you know, is stellar and probably the very best in the entire camera industry and always has been. So I never purchased a tripod because I didn’t see the need for the landscape/opportunistic photography that I was experimenting with. in fact, to this day I don’t own a tripod nor have plans to get one. I see the need for them if you shoot certain types of images but I don’t need it. I rather like the lightweight of a shoulder bag and that is where I have been and where I will continue to go with my photography. Great food for thought, mate! Sean
Hi mate, yes that's a great point regarding the Oly and their image stabilisation capabilities, it can truly negate the need for a tripod in many circumstances!
I have been taking photographs, man and boy, for over 60 years. I have accumulated 6 or 7 tripods including Linhof, Gitzo and Manfrotto models - and when I am outdoors I never use any of them! YMMV of course.
Amateur perspective: Even though I’ve gradually been moving away from my Olympus to my phone, I still carry a tripod with me when I travel/hike, primary because I’ve found over the years that photos without friends or family in them (including me) don’t hold as much meaning after awhile. Propping one's phone/camera on a rock in order to be a part of the scene just does’t cut it most of the time.
I like to use the tripod as i can then concentrate more on compositions whilst "hands free" and study more on live view while experimenting with settings. Great shots up there Henry and another great image with layers in background. Liked how you showed the different exposures for the final merged image.
I tend to use tripods mainly to support trail cameras and IR floodlights around the farm. They get left out in all weathers and are vulnerable to "walking" so I don't spend much money on them. I think the ground, especially where there is thick vegetation, is often the limiting factor with enough "give" under the feet of the tripod to cause movement in a wind regardless of how sturdy the tripod is. I tend to use a dog-screw to lash the centre of the pod down using the hook but in really strong winds I have had the tripods go over (I also had one pushed over by a tawny owl that seemed to object to the camera pointing at its nest box).
For my landscape photography I'm walking a lot, so light weight and a small pack size are most important to me. A good quality travel tripod is therefore just right for my needs and absolutely sufficient. Thanks for the video!
I have the Swiss Army knife of tripods, K&F Concept £100. I love it, centre column comes out and can be inverted. The column inside the centre column will come up and bend 90 degrees and you can also make a 7 foot mono pod.
I don't always use a tripod, but I often find having a tripod at hand improves some of my images, so I'll take a lighter travel tripod with me rather than than not have a tripod at all. Beyond the stability a tripod adds to a camera, a tripod helps change my attitude towards taking a picture and composition. IF I use a tripod, I don't treat my DSLR like a snapshot camera, I take a bit more time to prepare to take a photograph, which results in me thinking more about everything in front of the camera. Also, if the tripod is supporting the camera, I'm a bit more relaxed, and I often wait a bit longer for something to happen, or for the light to change a bit. Also, depending on the tripod I use, I can set it up higher than my head, or down at my knees more comfortably. this change in POV also elevates some images beyond the snapshot.
The beauty of the 'light/travel' tripods is that you can spread the legs wider, yes it does lower the height but the wider spread gives much more stability even in strong wind conditions. Great videos Henry.
I think the "sturdiness" of a tripod is based on the individuals approach. I am really fussy with my compositions so a sturdy tripod is the perfect platform - for me - from which to be picky take my time. Additionally, the camera I use in the landscape - a Sigma fpL - does not have IBIS, although I know that some of the lenses available to the camera do have IS built in, so therefore I cannot adopt that run and gun type approach.
Sturdiness is never an issue due to the fact that most center columns has a hook at the bottom end to hang your camera bag or a universal sandbag to weigh down the center of gravity, as long as the legs can handle the additional weight. My dilemma in the marketing of tripods is the "real" differences in Carbon fiber vs. aluminum models for carry weight. With everything you are carrying in your bag already, Is the few little ounces or grams savings [which amounts to not much] worth the extra cost of the carbon fiber versions. The key in shopping for tripods is how much weight can it hold and comfortably workable height without extending the center column, which is another discussion on camera shake...
It really depends on the gear you are using on how sturdy of a tripod you need. Some lenses and bodies do not work that great with IS turned on when on a tripod. The Tripod I use most now is a Benbo Trekker. A bit of a weird setup but it works great for what I normally use it for and it can drop pretty much all the way to ground level and is pretty sturdy. For larger / heavier gear a sturdy tripod is a must as smaller tripods will not be able to support / steady the setup properly.
I agree! I've got a couple of travel Manfrotto's, cost about £60 each... they're great. Light, small and cost effective. The only thing you have to be aware of is, as you have pointed out, really windy days.
I had a cheap aluminium tripod and my only complaint was it froze my hands carrying it in the winter. So I bought one of K&F higher end carbon Tripos and it's much better on the hands. As it weighs hardly anything I invested in some long spiked feet for use in woodlands and soft ground. I love it. Even add a gamble sometimes when doing birding. I use my old cheap Amazon tripod to support my flash for indoor still life. So nothing wasted.
Great topic Henry. I've had my carbon fiber Gitzo for about ten years...use it on 85% of my photos. The legs can spread out flat to the ground which is the game-changing attribute a tripod must have for me since I love macro shooting. There's no reason a quality, well-built tripod shouldn't last for years and years, outlasting most other camera gear, so a tripod can be your truly one-time purchase in your photography life! Weight is important enough that if they could make one like my Gitzo that weighed half as much, I'd jump at it. BTW, don't forget about the tripod head. A good one can cost 50% of what the tripod costs!
i travel for wildlife and landscape photography, and i completely agree, a lightweight tripod is sufficient. That's particularly true with most of today's high quality high ISO cameras. crank up the ISO and use one of the several amazing AI noise reduction programs. For wildlife, i use a super lightweight tripod when I'm waiting for the right moment. I use it simply to take the weight off my arms. I steady the camera. its not the tripod being steady. the tripod simply takes the weight for me. for landscapes, you're right, it can be less than ideal in windy conditions, but then again, the wind is blowing the subject too, so you're kind of forced to increase shutter speed, and hence ISO, so who cares if the tripod is flimsy. on the other hand, lowering the tripod can also help. my first move is to not deploy the lowest/thinnest sections of the legs. then the next section. the remaining sections are almost always sturdy enough, although you do lose a bit of altitude. there's always a way.
Personally I have used a few, and I am down to one currently. It is heavy, but I don't take the same hikes you do. I have also been experimenting with a monopod. I have been surprised how well it works, but it will never replace the tripod. When I was using cheap, light tripods, I always had to hang my bag to reduce shaking in the wind. I had rigged up an adjustable rope to ensure my camera bag was sitting on the ground, and could adjust how much weight was on the tripod. Seemed to work, but a good tripod would avoid the extra steps. Really enjoy your channel. No matter the circumstances, you seem to be having fun. Keep up the great work.
Im old school, so I always use spikes on my tripods. I also buy tripods that are high enough, that I can evoid using the weakest/thinnest part of the legs. And last, I never ever use the middle pole, in fact, if I can get rid of it I do. That give me the posibility to lower my tripod down to the ground if I need to. For me a sturdy tripod are more important than weight.
The Z8 has completely changed when I need a tripod now. The f/6.3 lens are so much lighter and the stabilization so much better than my previous gear. I can now shoot most of my shots handheld. However, with that said I still appreciate my super heavy duty Gitzo tripod and my ultra light Gitzo travel pod when I respectively need them. I have to decide which set of lens and which set of legs I will be taking out depending on the requirements of the shoot.
I use a fairly sturdy tripod myself: Rollei Beta II. It's quite a difference between my former K&F tripod and this one, although I still use the K&F tripod for its exceptional height. In strong winds or flowing water the Rollei tripod performs much better. What people tend to forget though: a sturdy tripod requires a more massive ballhead to perform best. The overall investment is quite impressive and so everyone should consider, whether the improved stability is worth it or not.
It depends a lot on the equipment a user has, is it heavy and large or light. Personally, I use Olympus because I can't bear to carry heavy camera equipment anymore, and I always have 6 lenses and 2 cameras with me that weigh a total of 4kg and cover all my needs. and all because of the good stabilizer in the Olympus cameras, I don't need a tripod with me.
I started carrying a travel tripod about 10 years or so ago when I gave my little tripod to my daughter. It was about her size. At 65, it just makes things easier. I do have a very heavy tripod and it is also great. Works great after 40 years, it is in great condition. Just remember use the correct tool for the job at hand.
I usually either carry no tripod when out hiking or a short, lightweight one for the lewer light sunsets and macro shots. Ialso have a full height "travel" tripod. There are two things that can make a difference without carrying extra weight. One is hanging your backpack (or a small bag of stones) from the tripod and the other is the addition of spikes to the legs. I am considering investing in the latter. Looking at the way that you shoved the legs into the pocket, I assume that you do not have spikes on the legs unles they are retractable.
A stone bag always helps with stability and there's usually plenty of stones around. Of course you could try to persuade one of the local cows to assist you...cheers, Henry!
Great point Henry I have fallen into the trap having a lighter pod and a much heavier one for my main work, in 15 or so years I have only had bother with the wind twice both times I had the heavy pod and both times it was still a struggle getting the shot as I was holding down the pod for dear life, you have made me think why am I carrying more weight than I have to, good job my friend
Nobody has lied to me about tripods, but it took three attempts to get the "right one" for me. Started with a inexpensive one I got from my parents. It was my only trippd for years and fine for group shots and other easy stuff, but not super stable with a long tele and definitely too large and heavy for hiking. My next one was expensive, or at least I thought it was expensive at the time. Much smaller packed, much sturdier and generally fine for most tasks. Except for what I really wanted - a tripod that would fit inside a daypack and basically go everywhere I went. So, I got my third tripod, twice as expensive as the second one, but it did what I wanted, light enough (1.3kg), packed small, tall enough in use and sturdy enough even for a 400mm - but probably not in super high winds.
Great as always, Henry. I'm still waiting for a video of Henry with making-ofs or take-outs, in which he films himself setting up his actual video equipment, crossing a small stream (which will then be seen in the productive video clip), coming back again, dismantling his video equipment, crossing the stream, setting up his video equipment again for a different perspective, crossing the stream again, and then coming back again, which will then be seen again in the productive video clip. 😏
For me, I use a 3LT tripod, purchased for the sake of the weight played off against size. The problem with being 6ft4 is I wanted a tripod that I can get up to my height and the 3LT Brian tripod fits me perfectly. The carbon fibre helps with the weight aspect, while the size of it is perfect for my height. I got rid of my old travel tripod from Manfrotto, a BeFree carbon fibre was the height wasn't enough for me even though it was lighter that the 3LT. Its "horses for courses" I think and everyone will always have their own preference for Tripods :)
It's probably more important to have a sturdy tripod if you shoot a lot of long exposures otherwise I would just bump the ISO, reduce the tripod height or maybe just go hand held.
I have a lightweight (not cheap) tripod that lives in our abroad house and a sturdy, much heavier tripod that lives at home in the UK. With the lightweight tripod, I sometimes get camera shake on long exposure shots, but with the heavier, sturdier one, this never ever happens, it is rock solid. Both have sturdy ball heads, so it's not the head causing the movement, it's the full structure of the lighter tripod. So, in my experience over the past decade or so, a sturdier, heavier tripod is definitely better.
My camera system is large and heavy (Fuji GFX) so a travel tripod wouldn't be much use unless it's a very calm day. I take a lot of long exposure shots, often on the coast, or in windy locations. It's a pain carrying a larger & heavier tripod, but less sturdy tripods just don't keep the camera steady enough, which shoes in the final shot.
It's all in the setup of the legs - don't assume they all have to be set to the same length. I hold a small plumb-bob to the center pole on my tripod to make sure the vertical center of the tripod & camera is directly centered between the feet of all 3 legs. That means rarely are all 3 legs pulled to matching lengths. If I have good footing, I set two legs downhill, one leg uphill. If footing's a concern or conditions don't allow (like wobbly rocks, sand or mud), then the tripod's feet have to set where they must. Set up like this, my little Manfrotto aluminum tripod reliably supports my Nikon D7200 in mountainous, windy New Mexico USA.
I've got a nice sturdy aluminium tripod that I end up leaving at home (or in the boot of the car) half the time because it's heavy and cumbersome for any shoot where you have to walk too far. So last week I purchased a Benro tortoise carbon fibre travel tripod and the difference is fantastic. Yesterday I was out for about 5 hours and I didn't notice it was there, it wasn't too windy so I don't know how it will cope with the wind, but my first impression is definitely favourable.
I have a sturdy tripod and I use a geared head most of the time.Photographing Real Estate as I do does not require speed but it does require an accurate, balanced image. Ball heads are too finicky and need more adjustment. I find gears heads work the same way for landscape images as well.
Hi Henry. Due to mobility issues that I have, my everyday tripod is a carbon fibre Three-Legged-Thing "Billy" weighting in at just 1.4 kilos and I have only seldom felt that it wasn't sturdy enough for my Sony A7iii and a 24-70 lens. Admittedly, with a 70-200 lens it's a different story and I'd only use it then in very light wind conditions, and I'd never ever contemplate it for my 200-600. It's all about planning for what you want to achieve and the conditions you are likely to encounter, and all too often big macho beasts will be overkill. PS: I almost always use "Billy" with spike feet, which give me better grip on most surfaces.
And, I couldn't agree more that MPB is "Mint" I have used them for some time now as well as KEH. Both are quality outfits however I do a lot more business with MPB. I've both sold and bought/traded and MPB are brilliant. I'm sounding rather British yet I'm a plain old Sherman myself. Sherman Tank=Yank for your non-Anglo followers LOL!
I started with film cameras and aluminum tripods. Things were a bit heavier back then. Fortunately I was younger and capable of hauling that gear around. These days I'm looking for the lightest gear I can find and still get acceptable image quality.. What I've found is that the gear I use depends on the subject and conditions in which I'll be working. For a while I was looking for a separate smaller kit for travel. That is until I stepped away from my "travel" tripod for a moment to get another view of what I was shooting, and to my horror saw my tripod with camera rise up on two legs and almost tumble over by a gust of wind. These days my travel gear and the gear I use at home are the same kit, although I've reduced weight where I could. My current travel tripod is a Leofoto Ranger with a RRS ballhead which is a smaller version of my main tripod and head which I use at home.
I had a spinal fusion 8 yrs ago so struggle with too much weight on my back. When I take a tripod out I have the K&F Concept A255C2 carbon fibre tripod which only weighs 1.3kg and never had a problem with stability 👍🏼
I have three tripods, varrying from a 1.4KG National Geographic Carbon Fibre Tripod to a tiny little carbon fibre Cullman tripod that only weights 490g and I take on long backpacking trips. For the larger tripods, the most important thing is a good L bracket for the camera. The 2nd most important thing imo is tripod spikes. My Middle '850' gram tripod with aluminium spikes is more stable in the wind than the big one with the default rubber feet. Honestly though, and I recon you experienced this with the OM Systems camera, is these days I think we need tripods less and less. I won't be sad to see the weight and bulk of the tripod disappear from my backpack in all honesty.
I have that exact Benro tripod with one of their geared heads on it - it's perfectly stable and perfect for landscape photography as you can walk miles with it! It's no good having a heavy tripod if you don't go anywhere with it because it's too heavy to carry far!
I've got an aluminum tripod that I bought 25 years ago, it's great but heavy. When I started hiking more with all my gear that old tripod became more weight than I wanted to carry. During Covid I purchased a carbon fiber travel tripod. I haven't noticed my new tripod being any less sturdy than the old aluminum tripod.
Doing a lot of star-timelapse with the camera locked in place for 4 hours and more. Never had an issue with a tripod where I could hang a couple of weights off the central column. A hessian bag and a couple of rocks. I don't take the rocks home. And the best, most sturdy of tripods is as good as the ground you plant it in.
all I could think about was the old age photographers carrying ---- lugging a tripod to hold a 8 x 10 inch view camera , or even a "little" 5 x 4'' . If a tripod doesn't do the job of holding the camera rock steady there is little point of owning it imo and no point carrying up the hill . The longer the lens the more stable required . One trick is to stay closer to the ground where a different picture can be made .
I've been using a P&B 1108 for the last 4 decades. Very solid tripod that weighs 4 pounds. I've looked at the carbon fiber ones I like and they're 3.5 pounds. Considering the P&B has a pan swivel head over the choice of the locking ball joint ( which I don't find to be as reliable over time ), I've yet to justify the money for purchasing a new one. I'd have to replace the head with a pan swivel head anyway. Eventually maybe. I use a much smaller sling bag also, so a half of a pound is nothing extra to worry about carrying. These tripods were made to carry quite a heavy load also as the camera gear was so much heavier back then. Where you definitely don't want a flimsy tripod is in astronomy. Big tubes can catch a small breeze pretty well. Usually the best upgrade on a cheaper telescope is actually a better tripod. Some of the older tripods I have were definitely made for the old instamatic type camera. The legs just slide out and lock with pins. Absolutely crazy and nothing you would ever put a real camera on.
Enjoyed the video as usual Henry. I have started using my trypod more because normally it ends up just being carried around. Great image. Look forward to seeing your next video.
after buying several bad tripods one of which i wrapped around a tree, I bought a Slik tripod and that was 40 years ago and I still use it. It was a very light weight tripod then, It's a beast now had to replace the center column and have been using Bogen heads for the last 25 years still sturdy, versatile and in complete working order. I bought a K F a year ago very sturdy and versatile and weights a little over haft has much has the Sik. And I use the same trick with both if I think they need to be more rigid I hang a weight from the center column a camera bag or whatever handy and neither one has let me down yet. and they both have excellent leg locks.
Leofoto LS324C here. A nice balance between weight, height, stability and price. I find it best with long spikes embedded into the earth where possible.
Great vlog Henry! It's another million dollar question, shall I take my tripod or not, whenever I set out on a hike. I've also had many types over the past 30 years, and weight is the key consideration these days. Good quality travel tripods are the best trade-off between sturdiness and weight. You don't want to restrict your hike because of excess weight!
Thank you for another thought provoking video with beautiful images. I have a big, sturdy Leofoto tripod that I use for astro, especially when I need to add a heavy tracker. I have a Manfrotto 190 4 section tripod I use 90% of the time. It fits in my carry-on when I remove the head, and is OK carrying in my backpack. I have long considered a lighter/smaller tripod, but at 6’5” I simply have not found one tall enough for my liking.
I bought a $20 tripod and apart from the flimsiness of it and the lack of features, the non-standardised plates and sloppy attachments just made it worthless, so then I bought a real one. It's "only" a travel tripod, but it's a nifty bit of kit. The little Heipi that a couple of youtubers reviewed at the kickstarter stage.
I guess my 3legged thing tripod is in between. It’s not a big one you can park a tank on, but it’s beefier than a travel one. If it’s really windy I just don’t extend all the leg sections and keep it lower, that helps me with stability. But it’s also pretty lightweight and reasonably compact
I just bought a new travel tripod for one of the reasons you touched on - stability. My “main” tripod is a solid rock and stable as all heck, but my travel tripod always wiggles a bit and I didn’t really trust it unless I shot with it at its lowest setting. I heard so many good things about it in the past which is why I got one but I never really enjoyed it because of its lack of being as rigid as my main tripod, so I finally bit the bullet and bought a new travel tripod that claims to be ridiculously stable. Here’s to hoping!
For me, it all depends on which lenses I’m using. I’ll use my grave tripod with my 24-70 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8 with my Z5. anything longer and I’ll use my sturdier aluminum, although slightly heavier tripod.
I have a Joby RangePod that I've had several years that I carry when day hiking. Actually, it's the only tripod I own. While not very fancy, it's fairly lightweight and inexpensive. It gets the job done but I do notice some shake in high winds. But, since it's not very windy where I live that's not a huge issue. I really don't feel the need to own a large, heavy and high price tripod. It fits into my minimalist gear philosophy quite well.
I have this exact same tripod, and I absolutely love it, its lightweight but sturdy to use. In windier conditions a tip I use, is to rest my camera bag against the tripod legs to make it a bit more steady; put my camera on timer and then take the shot. Thanks once again for your videos and beautiful pictures, look forward to your next adventure....
Like you, I choose a lightweight tripod for mountain treks. I got a Benro on the recommendation from a youtuber and it turned out to be rubbish. I could see the vibration through the viewfinder - mountains frequently have wind. I gave that tripod away. Stiffness, rather than sturdiness is really important. Now I take a smaller Gitzo which has thinner legs and is shorter, but is stiff.
I see a lot of gear shaming in one form or another. I dont think Henry Turner was gear shaming in this video, so my comments aren't directed at him, but rather, at a trend I've noticed in videos and articles and the accompanying comments. Oddly, tripods seem to be the piece of gear most commonly used to separate the photography "blue bloods" from the riffraff. You'd think it would be cameras and lenses. The one thing I never see addressed while in shame mode is what the needs of the individual are. I hear glib, pithy little sayings like, "pay nice or pay twice." While I agree, on the whole, that you get what you pay for, I also acknowledge that there are other factors that widen the spectrum, factors like budget and frequency/degree of use. A $300+ tripod is undoubtedly going to be better than a $50 tripod. But a $50 tripod might be just fine for an amateur who only uses it maybe once a month on average. It may be every bit as good and reliable as a $300+ tripod, if only being used occasionally, and it may last for several years. The difference in quality is most often how many times you can extend the legs and lock the down, how many times you can splay the legs before the hinges loosen at the top. A $300+ tripod will likely last for thousands of uses and in more extreme conditions, but it doesn't mean it's going to last longer, if you're comparing a pro heavily using a premium tripod to an amateur lightly using a budget tripod. The thing that amuses me is that I see many pros put out a new video every couple of years (and sometimes more often) about the new tripod they absolutely love. So what happened to paying nice to avoid paying twice? I realize that sometimes it's the features that prompt a new purchase, but other times it's because their old one failed them. I realize that that failure probably occurred after thousands of uses. Meanwhile, my $50 tripods that I bought 3-4 years ago are still very sturdy and stable, and I wouldn't hesitate to use them for most things. I have bought better tripods that I can use for anything and everything, and so those newer ones are now my primary tripods, but I still didn't pay as much as $300 for them. Another thing I find interesting, actually amusing, is when I see videos or read comments where the gear snob shows their hand and reveals that budget is a valid concern. They'll say something like, "there's really no added benefit once you get above about $600 or so, so there's no need to buy a $1200 tripod." I guess where I'm going with this is that when I see videos or read articles that aren't just nuts and bolts reviews about a specific tripod (or any piece of gear), but instead are of an opinionated nature about this type or that type, I wonder who they think their audience is. If their audience is pros and veteran amateurs who already know this stuff, then why make the video or write the article? It's probably people seeking information and insight because they don't know. In other words, it's probably a newbie or amateur who probably doesn't have the budget for $300+ tripod, or at least doesn't want to commit that kind of money without something more informative and detailed than a cute catch phrase to pay nice or pay twice. Give specifics. Why and how the weather is a factor in how well the tripod performs. How many uses you can expect out of budget tripod vs a premium tripod. Why load capacity is important. Why certain features, like a removable head or removable feet, are advantageous. Are the parts easily obtainable and replaceable? Armed with this kind of information, the newbies would probably be more receptive to paying a higher price, or at the very least, they now have direction in how to research the gear they want to buy.
I like having a tripod as I think it slows me down a bit and helps me to concentrate a bit more on getting the composition right (or less wrong). I'm loving the Ulanzi Zero Coman one - it's carbon and super light.
I just love how everything has a name its seems so British to me, you describe the landscape as if out of a Tolkien novel. I live right next to a national forest in America and I don't know any of the names of the landmarks.
I live in Northern Norway, question isnt how often do you need a sturdy tripod cos of wind. The question is how often can you get away with a lightweigt tripod cos there is no wind, and it isnt often.
I also have two tripods -- A Bogen / Manfrotto 3211 aluminum model (from the early '90s) with a 3-way Manfrotto 3-way head. It weighs 8 lbs and is nearly 31" long collapsed, i.e., too big / heavy for backpacking. The only minor disadvantage at times is the legs won't splay out wide, so it can't go really low (the next module "up" does though). I also have an Oben AT-3586 aluminum travel tripod with its own brand ball head. The Manfrotto is very sturdy (I bought it for use with 10x70 binoculars) and has two leg sections that extend. The Oben is much lighter but still good in context of what it is. It has four leg sections that extend and it's not as tall as the Manfrotto. But even though I'm 6' 1" it's still plenty good. I think as long as you stay above the "baseline of rubbish" in quality terms and use a tripod within its design context, you'll be good. The Oben certainly isn't a Gitzo (nor did it cost like a Gitzo) but it's fine for what I need and it collapses very small. Occasionally I'd like a little more vertical height, but that's rare. What's more important -- again as long as you're above the rubbish level -- is to use good tripod technique. Maybe one day I'll get a carbon fiber tripod, who knows...
When I need a tripod, I use the The ifootage Gazelle TC-6 for astrophotography and my 150-450. For general usage I have a Ulanzi Zero. The shake reduction thing is a hit and miss. My Pentax K3-III can make thing worse if there is no shake (like on the tripod with no shake) so even on a windy day, if I leave the shake reduction on but I take a shot when the gust subsides, I can occasionally get a little motion blur.
What, with those shutter speeds I'll go handheld :D A tripod must be sturdy enough for many seconds of exposure, which is why I even bother to use a tripod when I do. A monopod is different, but I'll use that more often.
I had a heavy studio tripod (it was stolen) although I never used it outside the studio, but I've been thinking of replacing it with a light travel tripod, but I'm still wondering about it ... probably overthinking it. I've been a photographer for 40-years and never traveled with a tripod. I'm also not uptight about tight focusing or super sharpness, so everything I've ever shot outside has been handheld. And yes, I've used a railing or stump at times to stabilize by camera, and I often sharpen things up in post if I can (or if I want to) but I guess in the end it's all about the expectations of the individual photographer.
Ive just purchased a different tripod. My current one is a Benro AL47 something 2.8kg aluminium tall chunky one(incredibly sturdy). Swapped to a Benro Tortoise columnless #3 carbon fibre tripod, 1.8kg. similar height etc. I will be going out on Sunday to feel the difference... I use a tripod to slow me down. But the main purpose is for focus stacking macro & if I want to get focus front to back in a woodland scene. (Though lately I've just been using higher aperture's handheld, Z8 IBIS is great!!!) Plus anything long exposure.
Another great video, Henry. I lived in Tokyo for 5 yrs (2001-06) and had several thrift stores that I enjoyed visiting. On one trip I found a SLIK aluminum tripod in very nice condition and picked it up for only $10. I don't tend to use a tripod very often and I'm sure it's a bit heavier than a more modern carbon fiber unit but it still does a good job for me when I need it.
With technology ibis and camera sizes these days unless your shoot with heavy cameras and lenses the need for larger/ heavier tripods is probably unnecessary
I have had smaller travel tripods from good manufacturers that have not met the need and have not been suitable.... this was when trying to get photos at 400 and 560mm and with a 10 second timer, at the lowest elevation, and the details I wanted (climbers on a wall huge wall in yosemite), were not sharp enough. In the end everything in photography is a compromise, you can't have a tripod that is compact, tall, lightweight, amazingly sturdy. In the end I think a travel tripod should work for most photographers that are limiting themselves to about 200mm.
I used to haul a Benbo Mk1 around, then 'upgraded' to the Benbo Trekker. Which I still use. By todays standards it's still massive and heavy, however I've become an expert at wielding the bagpipes around so have just stuck with it.
I use 3 tripods… 2 from benro, cant fault em…one is the mammoth tripod for when im doing timelapses and the other i use for video and my 3rd tripod of from ‘3leggedthing’ which im not a big fan off tbh….
Like anything, I think it depends on the content you are making. I have a pricey light weight tripod with a fluid head for video, it's quite a big one still so definitely not for this kind of travel. The difference would be in the level of control you get when panning the camera, it also won't nudge back slightly as you slow down or come to a halt. I use a K&F carbon fibre for travel, it's perfectly suited for the type of pictures I take. It could be an issue if you want to take pictures of the stars on a windy day 😅.
That is some cracking scenery you are walking through, Henry. I have learned to my cost that if I am out and about and lugging a tripod around it needs to be lightweight. My tripod is a Manfrotto 055PROB which is an aluminum model. This is indeed a sturdy tripod and great for use indoors but when used with a fairly chunky Manfrotto 3 way pan and tilt head that I used to have it paired with is a bit of a pain to carry any great distance outside. I recently bought an Ifootage monopod as I am a great admirer of the build quality and design of their products. A gazelle TC6 is staring to look very appealing at this point.
With the levels of IBIS being built into cameras bodies, and IS in lenses, do we really need a tripod any more? Of course, there's always image stacking (where a tripod is vital?), but for most shots??? I use a Fuji X-H2s with focus bracketing. I can align shots in Photoshop. I haven't used a tripod for a long time, except for tabletop photography.
I'm enjoying this video of an area I know well. I decided I needed to upgrade from my 43 year old metal Velbon tripod as I wanted a lighter and taller tripod for my travels. After ordering a total of three tripods, from different manufacturers, I realised that my old 3-section Velbon had many 'innovative' features! It was solid: fairly so even with the centre column raised (on a ratchet). It was 22.5 inches long retracted and 60 inches fully extended with the (pan and tilt) head. The pan and tilt head of course didn't have a quick release plate, but a 1/4" screw tightened with a knurled wheel and a short lever for the final clamping. This turns out to be far more secure and risk free than the not-quite-secured-but-looks-like-it-at-first-glance fashion of quick release plates. It also had spiked feet that appeared by screwing in the rubber feet. I've never needed allen keys to adjust anything either! The upshot being that I did eventually keep a carbon fibre Innorel GT 284C tripod and a smallrig AP10. In other words, I ended up with a similar set up to you I'm keeping the old Velbon though! Keep up the entertaining and informative work. Barry.
Hello I'm looking at buying the Innorel GT 284C for a winter trip to Iceland. What are your thoughts about the tripod? Any issues? I intend to use it as my main travel tripod.
Still using my over 20 year old aluminium Manfrotto 190 tripod and 308 ballhead. I quite fancy getting a carbon update for less cold hands while carrying* as much as weight so these considerations are continuously in my mind. Small and light or tall and sturdy. Or save my money and keep what I have... I'm not sold on a new one yet. *I prefer a shoulder bag over a backpack for easy access. Also holds my gear while changing lenses or adding filters.
Have to say, I bought a Manfrotto 190XProB with a 3 way pan/tilt head - reasonably expensive, not that sturdy in my opinion. Big DSLR with a weighty telephoto on it, any contact with one of the legs or used in a strong wind and the whole thing bounces. Don't get it :(
For years I have lugged around heavy duty carbon fibre tripods. So moderately heavy. But for a year now I have left my Really Right Stuff tripod at home and take my Ulanzi & Coman travel tripod instead. No issues at all. IBIS and Image Stabilisation has taken care of almost everything. I have now bought a R8 and 24-240mm lens for when I want it really light but will always use my R5 on shorter or more important walks. It is working well and I am not going back to heavy tripods any time soon.
I am 70 years old and I really like using my IFOOTAGE TC6S while photographing the the southern Sierra’s. By the way, you where the one to introduce me to this tripod. Thanks for the video. 😊
The tripod is virtually the simplest of the major equipment purchases to design and make. It's hardly an engineering masterpiece that some punters and manufacturers both would have you believe. It does a job, and most well built tripods can do that job very well (look back to when wooden tripods were de rigueur and exposures were always long) ! Of course sticking a brand label (RRS, Gitzo etc.) on the side will enable you to triple/quadruple the price but that is far far away from a doubling/quadrupling of the performance. I literally struggle to find an unsharp shot in over 25+ years of my 'on tripod' photography (NB. I use a tripod for the vast majority of my landscape work, and now astro, and with long exposures up to or exceeding 3 mins) and any showing movement blur was almost certainly not due to tripod inadequacy but user-error (far & away the most likely cause for anyone). Shielding the camera/tripod from the elements (which I usually do with my body unless into a head wind) will make far (far far far) more difference to the result than a tripod x3 the price. In fact there are more ways to improve your tripod performance than just buying a new (often expensive) tripod, these methods for starters will almost always make a far greater improvement : a) Shielding (use your body or other implement) b) Making a solid base for the tripod (on a beach setting into the sand, on a mountain-side adding rocks to the base for example, in a stream pushing the legs into the gravel) etc. c) In towns - shooting in between large vehicles passing by and not shooting off of high vibration structures (which no tripod can cope with). As for a tripod *that will last you 10 years* (that some people give as a reason to buy a RRS/Gitzo), well some people may indeed keep them that long, but we all know that the vast majority of photographers buy and sell gear whenever the next fad comes along or maybe because their circumstances/requirements have changed and they need something else. At least with a tripod that doesn't cost the best part of £1,000 I am never worried about loss/theft/damage aside from the inconvenience (not everyone is able, or feel it necessary, to buy insurance to cover them). And if the worst comes to pass (theft/loss/damage) then I know I can buy a new tripod to the very latest specifications and still have paid (for the two tripods) roughly 30-50% of what one Gitzo/RRS would have cost me (and which now resides in a thief's bag / at the bottom of a ravine/lake or requires expensive repairs).
On travels and longer hikes and doing macro I take the smaller travel tripod (Sirui) with Acratech GXP ball head. If I know there's not much hiking (staying close to the car) and I need the height I take the bigger and slightly larger iFootage Gazelle Tripod TC7-Fastbowl with an Acratech Long Lens Head, which works nice for panorama's as well. Especially in long exposure situations I prefer the bigger tripod as well. So far it works for me. If there's plenty of light I also sometimes decide to leave the tripod at home. I also - for landscape - prefer the bigger tripod as it is easier to get it level with the Fastbowl. It just depends really on where and what I'm thinking of taking pictures of.
Outrageous ! I grew up believing that tripods eat badly behaved children - it was only after i turned 70 that i suspected some sort of malfeasance had been committed with the truth !
You are not allwoed to release vids with this title, while I am waiting for a new tripod to arrive in the mail!
LOVE this comment! Cheers
Oh dear I am sorry! 😂
The tripod required depends on the following criteria:
1. The focal length of the lens
2. The Shutter speed to be used.
3. The camera/lens height required
4. Wind speed
I normally use Manfrotto 055 tripods with various Manfrotto heads. The adapters for the tripod heads live on my cameras. I have others for special occasions. I shoot a lot at 1 second and longer. At 1 second and shorter with a 24 to 120mm lens, my cameras with image stabilization allows me to shoot hand held.
Get a good tripod and You will have it for a long time, buy a cheap tripod and replace it soon.
I have 3 tripods. A big solid one I use in the studio and my garden for still life, macro and film "scanning". I have a mid-size carbon fibre that I keep in the car and I use when shooting near the road(say up to a 2 or 3-mile hike) and I have a little travel tripod that I take up the hills with me. (I also have a Manfrotto pixie table tripod that comes backpacking!). The biggest compromise with the smaller units is height. The smaller they get the lower they reach, so the travel one only gets to waist level. But the main purpose of a tripod (especially nowadays) is not to hold the camera steady (IBIS does that!) it's to hold the composition steady while you wait for the light/clouds/animals etc to get in place. If these things are fleeting you might only have 5 or 10 seconds to get the shot and you don't want to be trying to recompose a handheld shot, and you don't want to hold a handheld position for the 10-30 minutes or more that might be needed for things to coalesce. But holding a composition steady doesn't require the big heavy tripods of yesteryear, modern lightweight (but still well made!) ones are great.
I personally use a large tripod that has no center column with a leveling bowl. A tripod is just like a lens, everything is a compromise. So use the gear that works for your needs.
Hey Henry, just want to say I just soak up all the energy you give off here every time I watch a video. I have no comments on tripods as it's probably an individual choice for the most part. Thanks a gain for my spirit gift in this video.
I think choosing to use a lighter or heavier tripod comes down to what you're putting on it. If the longest lens you use is 200mm, then something lighter may be all you need. But if you regularly use a much bigger lens, say 500mm or bigger, then a bigger, heavier tripod will likely be beneficial. A 200mm lens is approximately a 4x telescope. A 600mm is 12x, and any camera shake is magnified by 12 times. I usually shoot wildlife and birds with a long lens, and most often use a heavy tripod. And even so I sometimes still have to hang my pack from it to anchor. It's physics. Can't beat mass for gaining stability.
I’ve had many mate. Now I have weeded out the rubbish and stick with two. Manfrotto carbon for my landscape work and a 3 Legged Thing for travel. You do get what you pay for in most cases. I highly recommend a geared head over a ball head, locks the composition in and stays there. Great for fine tuning too. Great vid as always. Keep at it 👍📷
I have found any center column is a disaster in the wind. If you use the pixel shift, your solid tripod is worth it. Get a stone bag as you can add rocks to weigh the tripod in the wind and adds no weight moving. Wide angle is easier to stabilize than a telephoto in the wind. Skinny legs should be avoided just set the tripod lower. A big tripod is great on slopes where the height gives extra perspective and the long legs help level the slope. If you spend a lot on a lens to get tack sharp edge to edge, why not spend a bit on a decent tripod. If it's not windy and you are hiking with a small kit, then light is ok. If you are out in the mountains or at the coast in strong wind leave the travel tripod and handhold or take a big tripod. I have a big gitzo purchased used, and smaller leofoto carbon and a crap mefoto for hiking and indoor. It's noticeably bad in the wind
Worth mentioning that I abandoned carbon tripods years ago because with heavier lenses (telephoto or just wide aperture) the whole arrangement can get very top-heavy and unstable. There are advantages in having a heavier tripod!
Depends on individual shooting preferences I think. I have three tripods, a heavy one, a travel one and a tabletop one. I use the heavy one for astrophotography and seascapes, because it can withstand rushing water better and shifting sands (i use spikes), plus its often breezy, and i like to shoot rushing water at 1/4 second to about 1 second. The travel tripod is nice and compact and light, but sufficiently sturdy for most of my other landscape needs. It's ok in the wind, but not for really long exposures, say 3 seconds plus. The table top tripod is great for close-up and macro photography, e.g. flowers, patterns in rocks and sand and pebbles - it weighs barely anything, and its less tiring (working at ground level is tiring, even if you don't walk very far). Having a van means I can take all three and choose between them.
Replying to myself here........ a big factor with shake comes from the lens/filter holder catching the wind as opposed to the tripod. It's a misconception. Even with a really heavy, sturdy tripod, the wind will catch a longish lens (70-200mm) very easily and mean you're forced to shoot at fairly fast shutter speeds. Heavier tripods also needed if you're supporting a heavy set up. For astrophotography I use a small tracker and a second ballhead, all of which adds to the bulk, and these are exposures of 2-3 minutes. Another way to reduce shake/vibration is to splay the legs and work lower, as it distributes the load better, and low to the ground is less windy than 1.4m up
I’ve used the same Benro travel tripod in the peak of winter for years. I also have a 3.3kg Benro Alu 3 piece but I haven’t used in years.
I can shoot handheld down to 1/80th shutter up to 300mm and with my 16-80 I can get handheld shots down to 1/6th of a second.
If I genuinely need my tripod because it’s windy, I just hang my pack off the centre column hook and stand in a way to block the wind. Considering I do regular 4 night trips, I don’t find the 3x heavier tripod gives 3x better results so I’d rather save the 60% in weight and increase my enjoyment of the whole experience.
Your enthusiasm is infectious. ❤
Cheers Henry, it’s Sean in Atlanta! I “learned” photography utilising UA-cam videos, just like yours. And the primary authors of those videos were using Olympus cameras, so that was my first camera. The image stabilisation, as you know, is stellar and probably the very best in the entire camera industry and always has been. So I never purchased a tripod because I didn’t see the need for the landscape/opportunistic photography that I was experimenting with. in fact, to this day I don’t own a tripod nor have plans to get one. I see the need for them if you shoot certain types of images but I don’t need it. I rather like the lightweight of a shoulder bag and that is where I have been and where I will continue to go with my photography. Great food for thought, mate!
Sean
I have an OM-1, but still have a nice tripod for astrophotography, not much else.
Hi mate, yes that's a great point regarding the Oly and their image stabilisation capabilities, it can truly negate the need for a tripod in many circumstances!
I have been taking photographs, man and boy, for over 60 years. I have accumulated 6 or 7 tripods including Linhof, Gitzo and Manfrotto models - and when I am outdoors I never use any of them! YMMV of course.
@@UKMike2009😂😂👍
Amateur perspective: Even though I’ve gradually been moving away from my Olympus to my phone, I still carry a tripod with me when I travel/hike, primary because I’ve found over the years that photos without friends or family in them (including me) don’t hold as much meaning after awhile. Propping one's phone/camera on a rock in order to be a part of the scene just does’t cut it most of the time.
I like to use the tripod as i can then concentrate more on compositions whilst "hands free" and study more on live view while experimenting with settings.
Great shots up there Henry and another great image with layers in background.
Liked how you showed the different exposures for the final merged image.
I tend to use tripods mainly to support trail cameras and IR floodlights around the farm. They get left out in all weathers and are vulnerable to "walking" so I don't spend much money on them. I think the ground, especially where there is thick vegetation, is often the limiting factor with enough "give" under the feet of the tripod to cause movement in a wind regardless of how sturdy the tripod is. I tend to use a dog-screw to lash the centre of the pod down using the hook but in really strong winds I have had the tripods go over (I also had one pushed over by a tawny owl that seemed to object to the camera pointing at its nest box).
For my landscape photography I'm walking a lot, so light weight and a small pack size are most important to me. A good quality travel tripod is therefore just right for my needs and absolutely sufficient.
Thanks for the video!
Cheers mate
Thanks Henry
I have the Swiss Army knife of tripods, K&F Concept £100. I love it, centre column comes out and can be inverted. The column inside the centre column will come up and bend 90 degrees and you can also make a 7 foot mono pod.
I don't always use a tripod, but I often find having a tripod at hand improves some of my images, so I'll take a lighter travel tripod with me rather than than not have a tripod at all. Beyond the stability a tripod adds to a camera, a tripod helps change my attitude towards taking a picture and composition. IF I use a tripod, I don't treat my DSLR like a snapshot camera, I take a bit more time to prepare to take a photograph, which results in me thinking more about everything in front of the camera. Also, if the tripod is supporting the camera, I'm a bit more relaxed, and I often wait a bit longer for something to happen, or for the light to change a bit. Also, depending on the tripod I use, I can set it up higher than my head, or down at my knees more comfortably. this change in POV also elevates some images beyond the snapshot.
That final sunset picture was warm and comforting to me. Thanks for sharing it.
The beauty of the 'light/travel' tripods is that you can spread the legs wider, yes it does lower the height but the wider spread gives much more stability even in strong wind conditions. Great videos Henry.
I think the "sturdiness" of a tripod is based on the individuals approach. I am really fussy with my compositions so a sturdy tripod is the perfect platform - for me - from which to be picky take my time. Additionally, the camera I use in the landscape - a Sigma fpL - does not have IBIS, although I know that some of the lenses available to the camera do have IS built in, so therefore I cannot adopt that run and gun type approach.
Sturdiness is never an issue due to the fact that most center columns has a hook at the bottom end to hang your camera bag or a universal sandbag to weigh down the center of gravity, as long as the legs can handle the additional weight. My dilemma in the marketing of tripods is the "real" differences in Carbon fiber vs. aluminum models for carry weight. With everything you are carrying in your bag already, Is the few little ounces or grams savings [which amounts to not much] worth the extra cost of the carbon fiber versions.
The key in shopping for tripods is how much weight can it hold and comfortably workable height without extending the center column, which is another discussion on camera shake...
It really depends on the gear you are using on how sturdy of a tripod you need. Some lenses and bodies do not work that great with IS turned on when on a tripod.
The Tripod I use most now is a Benbo Trekker. A bit of a weird setup but it works great for what I normally use it for and it can drop pretty much all the way to ground level and is pretty sturdy.
For larger / heavier gear a sturdy tripod is a must as smaller tripods will not be able to support / steady the setup properly.
I agree! I've got a couple of travel Manfrotto's, cost about £60 each... they're great. Light, small and cost effective. The only thing you have to be aware of is, as you have pointed out, really windy days.
I had a cheap aluminium tripod and my only complaint was it froze my hands carrying it in the winter. So I bought one of K&F higher end carbon Tripos and it's much better on the hands. As it weighs hardly anything I invested in some long spiked feet for use in woodlands and soft ground. I love it. Even add a gamble sometimes when doing birding. I use my old cheap Amazon tripod to support my flash for indoor still life. So nothing wasted.
Great topic Henry. I've had my carbon fiber Gitzo for about ten years...use it on 85% of my photos. The legs can spread out flat to the ground which is the game-changing attribute a tripod must have for me since I love macro shooting. There's no reason a quality, well-built tripod shouldn't last for years and years, outlasting most other camera gear, so a tripod can be your truly one-time purchase in your photography life! Weight is important enough that if they could make one like my Gitzo that weighed half as much, I'd jump at it. BTW, don't forget about the tripod head. A good one can cost 50% of what the tripod costs!
i travel for wildlife and landscape photography, and i completely agree, a lightweight tripod is sufficient. That's particularly true with most of today's high quality high ISO cameras. crank up the ISO and use one of the several amazing AI noise reduction programs. For wildlife, i use a super lightweight tripod when I'm waiting for the right moment. I use it simply to take the weight off my arms. I steady the camera. its not the tripod being steady. the tripod simply takes the weight for me. for landscapes, you're right, it can be less than ideal in windy conditions, but then again, the wind is blowing the subject too, so you're kind of forced to increase shutter speed, and hence ISO, so who cares if the tripod is flimsy. on the other hand, lowering the tripod can also help. my first move is to not deploy the lowest/thinnest sections of the legs. then the next section. the remaining sections are almost always sturdy enough, although you do lose a bit of altitude. there's always a way.
Personally I have used a few, and I am down to one currently. It is heavy, but I don't take the same hikes you do. I have also been experimenting with a monopod. I have been surprised how well it works, but it will never replace the tripod. When I was using cheap, light tripods, I always had to hang my bag to reduce shaking in the wind. I had rigged up an adjustable rope to ensure my camera bag was sitting on the ground, and could adjust how much weight was on the tripod. Seemed to work, but a good tripod would avoid the extra steps. Really enjoy your channel. No matter the circumstances, you seem to be having fun. Keep up the great work.
I have found that the steel spike drastically reduces vibration on rock and all types of ground. In my enthusiasm, I even glued it on.
Im old school, so I always use spikes on my tripods. I also buy tripods that are high enough, that I can evoid using the weakest/thinnest part of the legs. And last, I never ever use the middle pole, in fact, if I can get rid of it I do. That give me the posibility to lower my tripod down to the ground if I need to. For me a sturdy tripod are more important than weight.
The Z8 has completely changed when I need a tripod now. The f/6.3 lens are so much lighter and the stabilization so much better than my previous gear. I can now shoot most of my shots handheld. However, with that said I still appreciate my super heavy duty Gitzo tripod and my ultra light Gitzo travel pod when I respectively need them. I have to decide which set of lens and which set of legs I will be taking out depending on the requirements of the shoot.
Which is their travel pod ? Gitzo
I use a fairly sturdy tripod myself: Rollei Beta II. It's quite a difference between my former K&F tripod and this one, although I still use the K&F tripod for its exceptional height. In strong winds or flowing water the Rollei tripod performs much better. What people tend to forget though: a sturdy tripod requires a more massive ballhead to perform best. The overall investment is quite impressive and so everyone should consider, whether the improved stability is worth it or not.
It depends a lot on the equipment a user has, is it heavy and large or light. Personally, I use Olympus because I can't bear to carry heavy camera equipment anymore, and I always have 6 lenses and 2 cameras with me that weigh a total of 4kg and cover all my needs. and all because of the good stabilizer in the Olympus cameras, I don't need a tripod with me.
I started carrying a travel tripod about 10 years or so ago when I gave my little tripod to my daughter. It was about her size. At 65, it just makes things easier. I do have a very heavy tripod and it is also great. Works great after 40 years, it is in great condition. Just remember use the correct tool for the job at hand.
I usually either carry no tripod when out hiking or a short, lightweight one for the lewer light sunsets and macro shots. Ialso have a full height "travel" tripod. There are two things that can make a difference without carrying extra weight. One is hanging your backpack (or a small bag of stones) from the tripod and the other is the addition of spikes to the legs. I am considering investing in the latter. Looking at the way that you shoved the legs into the pocket, I assume that you do not have spikes on the legs unles they are retractable.
A stone bag always helps with stability and there's usually plenty of stones around. Of course you could try to persuade one of the local cows to assist you...cheers, Henry!
I use my 3 Legged Thing Billy for pretty much everything. Lightweight, sturdy enough, versatile. Haven’t felt a need for anything else.
Henry's back!! Your enthusiasm, passion, energy and excitement is so enjoyable to watch. Love these photos!!!
Great point Henry I have fallen into the trap having a lighter pod and a much heavier one for my main work, in 15 or so years I have only had bother with the wind twice both times I had the heavy pod and both times it was still a struggle getting the shot as I was holding down the pod for dear life, you have made me think why am I carrying more weight than I have to, good job my friend
Nobody has lied to me about tripods, but it took three attempts to get the "right one" for me. Started with a inexpensive one I got from my parents. It was my only trippd for years and fine for group shots and other easy stuff, but not super stable with a long tele and definitely too large and heavy for hiking.
My next one was expensive, or at least I thought it was expensive at the time. Much smaller packed, much sturdier and generally fine for most tasks. Except for what I really wanted - a tripod that would fit inside a daypack and basically go everywhere I went.
So, I got my third tripod, twice as expensive as the second one, but it did what I wanted, light enough (1.3kg), packed small, tall enough in use and sturdy enough even for a 400mm - but probably not in super high winds.
Great as always, Henry. I'm still waiting for a video of Henry with making-ofs or take-outs, in which he films himself setting up his actual video equipment, crossing a small stream (which will then be seen in the productive video clip), coming back again, dismantling his video equipment, crossing the stream, setting up his video equipment again for a different perspective, crossing the stream again, and then coming back again, which will then be seen again in the productive video clip. 😏
For me, I use a 3LT tripod, purchased for the sake of the weight played off against size. The problem with being 6ft4 is I wanted a tripod that I can get up to my height and the 3LT Brian tripod fits me perfectly. The carbon fibre helps with the weight aspect, while the size of it is perfect for my height. I got rid of my old travel tripod from Manfrotto, a BeFree carbon fibre was the height wasn't enough for me even though it was lighter that the 3LT. Its "horses for courses" I think and everyone will always have their own preference for Tripods :)
It's probably more important to have a sturdy tripod if you shoot a lot of long exposures otherwise I would just bump the ISO, reduce the tripod height or maybe just go hand held.
I have a lightweight (not cheap) tripod that lives in our abroad house and a sturdy, much heavier tripod that lives at home in the UK. With the lightweight tripod, I sometimes get camera shake on long exposure shots, but with the heavier, sturdier one, this never ever happens, it is rock solid. Both have sturdy ball heads, so it's not the head causing the movement, it's the full structure of the lighter tripod. So, in my experience over the past decade or so, a sturdier, heavier tripod is definitely better.
My camera system is large and heavy (Fuji GFX) so a travel tripod wouldn't be much use unless it's a very calm day. I take a lot of long exposure shots, often on the coast, or in windy locations. It's a pain carrying a larger & heavier tripod, but less sturdy tripods just don't keep the camera steady enough, which shoes in the final shot.
It's all in the setup of the legs - don't assume they all have to be set to the same length. I hold a small plumb-bob to the center pole on my tripod to make sure the vertical center of the tripod & camera is directly centered between the feet of all 3 legs. That means rarely are all 3 legs pulled to matching lengths. If I have good footing, I set two legs downhill, one leg uphill. If footing's a concern or conditions don't allow (like wobbly rocks, sand or mud), then the tripod's feet have to set where they must. Set up like this, my little Manfrotto aluminum tripod reliably supports my Nikon D7200 in mountainous, windy New Mexico USA.
I've got a nice sturdy aluminium tripod that I end up leaving at home (or in the boot of the car) half the time because it's heavy and cumbersome for any shoot where you have to walk too far. So last week I purchased a Benro tortoise carbon fibre travel tripod and the difference is fantastic. Yesterday I was out for about 5 hours and I didn't notice it was there, it wasn't too windy so I don't know how it will cope with the wind, but my first impression is definitely favourable.
I have a sturdy tripod and I use a geared head most of the time.Photographing Real Estate as I do does not require speed but it does require an accurate, balanced image. Ball heads are too finicky and need more adjustment. I find gears heads work the same way for landscape images as well.
Hi Henry. Due to mobility issues that I have, my everyday tripod is a carbon fibre Three-Legged-Thing "Billy" weighting in at just 1.4 kilos and I have only seldom felt that it wasn't sturdy enough for my Sony A7iii and a 24-70 lens. Admittedly, with a 70-200 lens it's a different story and I'd only use it then in very light wind conditions, and I'd never ever contemplate it for my 200-600. It's all about planning for what you want to achieve and the conditions you are likely to encounter, and all too often big macho beasts will be overkill. PS: I almost always use "Billy" with spike feet, which give me better grip on most surfaces.
And, I couldn't agree more that MPB is "Mint" I have used them for some time now as well as KEH. Both are quality outfits however I do a lot more business with MPB. I've both sold and bought/traded and MPB are brilliant. I'm sounding rather British yet I'm a plain old Sherman myself. Sherman Tank=Yank for your non-Anglo followers LOL!
I started with film cameras and aluminum tripods. Things were a bit heavier back then. Fortunately I was younger and capable of hauling that gear around. These days I'm looking for the lightest gear I can find and still get acceptable image quality.. What I've found is that the gear I use depends on the subject and conditions in which I'll be working. For a while I was looking for a separate smaller kit for travel. That is until I stepped away from my "travel" tripod for a moment to get another view of what I was shooting, and to my horror saw my tripod with camera rise up on two legs and almost tumble over by a gust of wind. These days my travel gear and the gear I use at home are the same kit, although I've reduced weight where I could. My current travel tripod is a Leofoto Ranger with a RRS ballhead which is a smaller version of my main tripod and head which I use at home.
I had a spinal fusion 8 yrs ago so struggle with too much weight on my back. When I take a tripod out I have the K&F Concept A255C2 carbon fibre tripod which only weighs 1.3kg and never had a problem with stability 👍🏼
I have three tripods, varrying from a 1.4KG National Geographic Carbon Fibre Tripod to a tiny little carbon fibre Cullman tripod that only weights 490g and I take on long backpacking trips. For the larger tripods, the most important thing is a good L bracket for the camera. The 2nd most important thing imo is tripod spikes. My Middle '850' gram tripod with aluminium spikes is more stable in the wind than the big one with the default rubber feet.
Honestly though, and I recon you experienced this with the OM Systems camera, is these days I think we need tripods less and less. I won't be sad to see the weight and bulk of the tripod disappear from my backpack in all honesty.
I have that exact Benro tripod with one of their geared heads on it - it's perfectly stable and perfect for landscape photography as you can walk miles with it! It's no good having a heavy tripod if you don't go anywhere with it because it's too heavy to carry far!
Good point mate!
I've got an aluminum tripod that I bought 25 years ago, it's great but heavy. When I started hiking more with all my gear that old tripod became more weight than I wanted to carry. During Covid I purchased a carbon fiber travel tripod. I haven't noticed my new tripod being any less sturdy than the old aluminum tripod.
Doing a lot of star-timelapse with the camera locked in place for 4 hours and more. Never had an issue with a tripod where I could hang a couple of weights off the central column. A hessian bag and a couple of rocks. I don't take the rocks home.
And the best, most sturdy of tripods is as good as the ground you plant it in.
all I could think about was the old age photographers carrying ---- lugging a tripod to hold a 8 x 10 inch view camera , or even a "little" 5 x 4'' . If a tripod doesn't do the job of holding the camera rock steady there is little point of owning it imo and no point carrying up the hill .
The longer the lens the more stable required . One trick is to stay closer to the ground where a different picture can be made .
I've been using a P&B 1108 for the last 4 decades. Very solid tripod that weighs 4 pounds. I've looked at the carbon fiber ones I like and they're 3.5 pounds. Considering the P&B has a pan swivel head over the choice of the locking ball joint ( which I don't find to be as reliable over time ), I've yet to justify the money for purchasing a new one. I'd have to replace the head with a pan swivel head anyway. Eventually maybe. I use a much smaller sling bag also, so a half of a pound is nothing extra to worry about carrying. These tripods were made to carry quite a heavy load also as the camera gear was so much heavier back then. Where you definitely don't want a flimsy tripod is in astronomy. Big tubes can catch a small breeze pretty well. Usually the best upgrade on a cheaper telescope is actually a better tripod. Some of the older tripods I have were definitely made for the old instamatic type camera. The legs just slide out and lock with pins. Absolutely crazy and nothing you would ever put a real camera on.
Enjoyed the video as usual Henry.
I have started using my trypod more because normally it ends up just being carried around.
Great image.
Look forward to seeing your next video.
after buying several bad tripods one of which i wrapped around a tree, I bought a Slik tripod and that was 40 years ago and I still use it. It was a very light weight tripod then, It's a beast now had to replace the center column and have been using Bogen heads for the last 25 years still sturdy, versatile and in complete working order. I bought a K F a year ago very sturdy and versatile and weights a little over haft has much has the Sik. And I use the same trick with both if I think they need to be more rigid I hang a weight from the center column a camera bag or whatever handy and neither one has let me down yet. and they both have excellent leg locks.
Leofoto LS324C here. A nice balance between weight, height, stability and price. I find it best with long spikes embedded into the earth where possible.
Great vlog Henry! It's another million dollar question, shall I take my tripod or not, whenever I set out on a hike. I've also had many types over the past 30 years, and weight is the key consideration these days. Good quality travel tripods are the best trade-off between sturdiness and weight. You don't want to restrict your hike because of excess weight!
Thank you for another thought provoking video with beautiful images. I have a big, sturdy Leofoto tripod that I use for astro, especially when I need to add a heavy tracker. I have a Manfrotto 190 4 section tripod I use 90% of the time. It fits in my carry-on when I remove the head, and is OK carrying in my backpack. I have long considered a lighter/smaller tripod, but at 6’5” I simply have not found one tall enough for my liking.
I bought a $20 tripod and apart from the flimsiness of it and the lack of features, the non-standardised plates and sloppy attachments just made it worthless, so then I bought a real one. It's "only" a travel tripod, but it's a nifty bit of kit. The little Heipi that a couple of youtubers reviewed at the kickstarter stage.
I guess my 3legged thing tripod is in between. It’s not a big one you can park a tank on, but it’s beefier than a travel one. If it’s really windy I just don’t extend all the leg sections and keep it lower, that helps me with stability. But it’s also pretty lightweight and reasonably compact
I just bought a new travel tripod for one of the reasons you touched on - stability. My “main” tripod is a solid rock and stable as all heck, but my travel tripod always wiggles a bit and I didn’t really trust it unless I shot with it at its lowest setting.
I heard so many good things about it in the past which is why I got one but I never really enjoyed it because of its lack of being as rigid as my main tripod, so I finally bit the bullet and bought a new travel tripod that claims to be ridiculously stable. Here’s to hoping!
For me, it all depends on which lenses I’m using. I’ll use my grave tripod with my 24-70 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8 with my Z5. anything longer and I’ll use my sturdier aluminum, although slightly heavier tripod.
I have a Joby RangePod that I've had several years that I carry when day hiking. Actually, it's the only tripod I own. While not very fancy, it's fairly lightweight and inexpensive. It gets the job done but I do notice some shake in high winds. But, since it's not very windy where I live that's not a huge issue. I really don't feel the need to own a large, heavy and high price tripod. It fits into my minimalist gear philosophy quite well.
Great video and perfect timing as I am having a heated debate with myself on this very subject LOL. Travel size or heavy duty?
I have this exact same tripod, and I absolutely love it, its lightweight but sturdy to use. In windier conditions a tip I use, is to rest my camera bag against the tripod legs to make it a bit more steady; put my camera on timer and then take the shot.
Thanks once again for your videos and beautiful pictures, look forward to your next adventure....
Like you, I choose a lightweight tripod for mountain treks. I got a Benro on the recommendation from a youtuber and it turned out to be rubbish. I could see the vibration through the viewfinder - mountains frequently have wind. I gave that tripod away. Stiffness, rather than sturdiness is really important. Now I take a smaller Gitzo which has thinner legs and is shorter, but is stiff.
I see a lot of gear shaming in one form or another. I dont think Henry Turner was gear shaming in this video, so my comments aren't directed at him, but rather, at a trend I've noticed in videos and articles and the accompanying comments.
Oddly, tripods seem to be the piece of gear most commonly used to separate the photography "blue bloods" from the riffraff. You'd think it would be cameras and lenses.
The one thing I never see addressed while in shame mode is what the needs of the individual are. I hear glib, pithy little sayings like, "pay nice or pay twice."
While I agree, on the whole, that you get what you pay for, I also acknowledge that there are other factors that widen the spectrum, factors like budget and frequency/degree of use.
A $300+ tripod is undoubtedly going to be better than a $50 tripod. But a $50 tripod might be just fine for an amateur who only uses it maybe once a month on average. It may be every bit as good and reliable as a $300+ tripod, if only being used occasionally, and it may last for several years. The difference in quality is most often how many times you can extend the legs and lock the down, how many times you can splay the legs before the hinges loosen at the top. A $300+ tripod will likely last for thousands of uses and in more extreme conditions, but it doesn't mean it's going to last longer, if you're comparing a pro heavily using a premium tripod to an amateur lightly using a budget tripod.
The thing that amuses me is that I see many pros put out a new video every couple of years (and sometimes more often) about the new tripod they absolutely love. So what happened to paying nice to avoid paying twice? I realize that sometimes it's the features that prompt a new purchase, but other times it's because their old one failed them. I realize that that failure probably occurred after thousands of uses.
Meanwhile, my $50 tripods that I bought 3-4 years ago are still very sturdy and stable, and I wouldn't hesitate to use them for most things. I have bought better tripods that I can use for anything and everything, and so those newer ones are now my primary tripods, but I still didn't pay as much as $300 for them.
Another thing I find interesting, actually amusing, is when I see videos or read comments where the gear snob shows their hand and reveals that budget is a valid concern. They'll say something like, "there's really no added benefit once you get above about $600 or so, so there's no need to buy a $1200 tripod."
I guess where I'm going with this is that when I see videos or read articles that aren't just nuts and bolts reviews about a specific tripod (or any piece of gear), but instead are of an opinionated nature about this type or that type, I wonder who they think their audience is. If their audience is pros and veteran amateurs who already know this stuff, then why make the video or write the article?
It's probably people seeking information and insight because they don't know. In other words, it's probably a newbie or amateur who probably doesn't have the budget for $300+ tripod, or at least doesn't want to commit that kind of money without something more informative and detailed than a cute catch phrase to pay nice or pay twice. Give specifics. Why and how the weather is a factor in how well the tripod performs. How many uses you can expect out of budget tripod vs a premium tripod. Why load capacity is important. Why certain features, like a removable head or removable feet, are advantageous. Are the parts easily obtainable and replaceable? Armed with this kind of information, the newbies would probably be more receptive to paying a higher price, or at the very least, they now have direction in how to research the gear they want to buy.
Think of your back.... In years to come you will thank me 😊. Cheers Ian.
I like having a tripod as I think it slows me down a bit and helps me to concentrate a bit more on getting the composition right (or less wrong). I'm loving the Ulanzi Zero Coman one - it's carbon and super light.
I just love how everything has a name its seems so British to me, you describe the landscape as if out of a Tolkien novel. I live right next to a national forest in America and I don't know any of the names of the landmarks.
I live in Northern Norway, question isnt how often do you need a sturdy tripod cos of wind. The question is how often can you get away with a lightweigt tripod cos there is no wind, and it isnt often.
I also have two tripods -- A Bogen / Manfrotto 3211 aluminum model (from the early '90s) with a 3-way Manfrotto 3-way head. It weighs 8 lbs and is nearly 31" long collapsed, i.e., too big / heavy for backpacking. The only minor disadvantage at times is the legs won't splay out wide, so it can't go really low (the next module "up" does though). I also have an Oben AT-3586 aluminum travel tripod with its own brand ball head. The Manfrotto is very sturdy (I bought it for use with 10x70 binoculars) and has two leg sections that extend. The Oben is much lighter but still good in context of what it is. It has four leg sections that extend and it's not as tall as the Manfrotto. But even though I'm 6' 1" it's still plenty good. I think as long as you stay above the "baseline of rubbish" in quality terms and use a tripod within its design context, you'll be good. The Oben certainly isn't a Gitzo (nor did it cost like a Gitzo) but it's fine for what I need and it collapses very small. Occasionally I'd like a little more vertical height, but that's rare. What's more important -- again as long as you're above the rubbish level -- is to use good tripod technique. Maybe one day I'll get a carbon fiber tripod, who knows...
When I need a tripod, I use the The ifootage Gazelle TC-6 for astrophotography and my 150-450. For general usage I have a Ulanzi Zero. The shake reduction thing is a hit and miss. My Pentax K3-III can make thing worse if there is no shake (like on the tripod with no shake) so even on a windy day, if I leave the shake reduction on but I take a shot when the gust subsides, I can occasionally get a little motion blur.
What, with those shutter speeds I'll go handheld :D
A tripod must be sturdy enough for many seconds of exposure, which is why I even bother to use a tripod when I do. A monopod is different, but I'll use that more often.
Put your tripod up to the highest you normally use it and tap the top sideways. If it wobbles its too flimsy.
I had a heavy studio tripod (it was stolen) although I never used it outside the studio, but I've been thinking of replacing it with a light travel tripod, but I'm still wondering about it ... probably overthinking it. I've been a photographer for 40-years and never traveled with a tripod. I'm also not uptight about tight focusing or super sharpness, so everything I've ever shot outside has been handheld. And yes, I've used a railing or stump at times to stabilize by camera, and I often sharpen things up in post if I can (or if I want to) but I guess in the end it's all about the expectations of the individual photographer.
The Peak Design Carbon travel tripod is a great mixture of lightweight and strength.
Ive just purchased a different tripod. My current one is a Benro AL47 something 2.8kg aluminium tall chunky one(incredibly sturdy).
Swapped to a Benro Tortoise columnless #3 carbon fibre tripod, 1.8kg. similar height etc. I will be going out on Sunday to feel the difference...
I use a tripod to slow me down. But the main purpose is for focus stacking macro & if I want to get focus front to back in a woodland scene. (Though lately I've just been using higher aperture's handheld, Z8 IBIS is great!!!) Plus anything long exposure.
Another great video, Henry. I lived in Tokyo for 5 yrs (2001-06) and had several thrift stores that I enjoyed visiting. On one trip I found a SLIK aluminum tripod in very nice condition and picked it up for only $10. I don't tend to use a tripod very often and I'm sure it's a bit heavier than a more modern carbon fiber unit but it still does a good job for me when I need it.
With technology ibis and camera sizes these days unless your shoot with heavy cameras and lenses the need for larger/ heavier tripods is probably unnecessary
I have had smaller travel tripods from good manufacturers that have not met the need and have not been suitable.... this was when trying to get photos at 400 and 560mm and with a 10 second timer, at the lowest elevation, and the details I wanted (climbers on a wall huge wall in yosemite), were not sharp enough. In the end everything in photography is a compromise, you can't have a tripod that is compact, tall, lightweight, amazingly sturdy. In the end I think a travel tripod should work for most photographers that are limiting themselves to about 200mm.
I used to haul a Benbo Mk1 around, then 'upgraded' to the Benbo Trekker. Which I still use. By todays standards it's still massive and heavy, however I've become an expert at wielding the bagpipes around so have just stuck with it.
I use 3 tripods… 2 from benro, cant fault em…one is the mammoth tripod for when im doing timelapses and the other i use for video and my 3rd tripod of from ‘3leggedthing’ which im not a big fan off tbh….
Like anything, I think it depends on the content you are making. I have a pricey light weight tripod with a fluid head for video, it's quite a big one still so definitely not for this kind of travel. The difference would be in the level of control you get when panning the camera, it also won't nudge back slightly as you slow down or come to a halt.
I use a K&F carbon fibre for travel, it's perfectly suited for the type of pictures I take. It could be an issue if you want to take pictures of the stars on a windy day 😅.
That is some cracking scenery you are walking through, Henry. I have learned to my cost that if I am out and about and lugging a tripod around it needs to be lightweight. My tripod is a Manfrotto 055PROB which is an aluminum model. This is indeed a sturdy tripod and great for use indoors but when used with a fairly chunky Manfrotto 3 way pan and tilt head that I used to have it paired with is a bit of a pain to carry any great distance outside. I recently bought an Ifootage monopod as I am a great admirer of the build quality and design of their products. A gazelle TC6 is staring to look very appealing at this point.
With the levels of IBIS being built into cameras bodies, and IS in lenses, do we really need a tripod any more? Of course, there's always image stacking (where a tripod is vital?), but for most shots??? I use a Fuji X-H2s with focus bracketing. I can align shots in Photoshop. I haven't used a tripod for a long time, except for tabletop photography.
I'm enjoying this video of an area I know well. I decided I needed to upgrade from my 43 year old metal Velbon tripod as I wanted a lighter and taller tripod for my travels. After ordering a total of three tripods, from different manufacturers, I realised that my old 3-section Velbon had many 'innovative' features! It was solid: fairly so even with the centre column raised (on a ratchet). It was 22.5 inches long retracted and 60 inches fully extended with the (pan and tilt) head. The pan and tilt head of course didn't have a quick release plate, but a 1/4" screw tightened with a knurled wheel and a short lever for the final clamping. This turns out to be far more secure and risk free than the not-quite-secured-but-looks-like-it-at-first-glance fashion of quick release plates. It also had spiked feet that appeared by screwing in the rubber feet. I've never needed allen keys to adjust anything either! The upshot being that I did eventually keep a carbon fibre Innorel GT 284C tripod and a smallrig AP10. In other words, I ended up with a similar set up to you I'm keeping the old Velbon though!
Keep up the entertaining and informative work. Barry.
Hello I'm looking at buying the Innorel GT 284C for a winter trip to Iceland. What are your thoughts about the tripod? Any issues? I intend to use it as my main travel tripod.
Still using my over 20 year old aluminium Manfrotto 190 tripod and 308 ballhead. I quite fancy getting a carbon update for less cold hands while carrying* as much as weight so these considerations are continuously in my mind. Small and light or tall and sturdy. Or save my money and keep what I have... I'm not sold on a new one yet.
*I prefer a shoulder bag over a backpack for easy access. Also holds my gear while changing lenses or adding filters.
Superb video Tom.Your street photography was really interesting.
Cheers John 😉
Have to say, I bought a Manfrotto 190XProB with a 3 way pan/tilt head - reasonably expensive, not that sturdy in my opinion. Big DSLR with a weighty telephoto on it, any contact with one of the legs or used in a strong wind and the whole thing bounces. Don't get it :(
For years I have lugged around heavy duty carbon fibre tripods. So moderately heavy. But for a year now I have left my Really Right Stuff tripod at home and take my Ulanzi & Coman travel tripod instead. No issues at all. IBIS and Image Stabilisation has taken care of almost everything. I have now bought a R8 and 24-240mm lens for when I want it really light but will always use my R5 on shorter or more important walks. It is working well and I am not going back to heavy tripods any time soon.
I am 70 years old and I really like using my IFOOTAGE TC6S while photographing the the southern Sierra’s. By the way, you where the one to introduce me to this tripod. Thanks for the video. 😊
I think, his point is the question: do you really *need* a sturdy tripod? That is a valid question indeed, considering the cost of such a beast.
The tripod is virtually the simplest of the major equipment purchases to design and make. It's hardly an engineering masterpiece that some punters and manufacturers both would have you believe. It does a job, and most well built tripods can do that job very well (look back to when wooden tripods were de rigueur and exposures were always long) ! Of course sticking a brand label (RRS, Gitzo etc.) on the side will enable you to triple/quadruple the price but that is far far away from a doubling/quadrupling of the performance.
I literally struggle to find an unsharp shot in over 25+ years of my 'on tripod' photography (NB. I use a tripod for the vast majority of my landscape work, and now astro, and with long exposures up to or exceeding 3 mins) and any showing movement blur was almost certainly not due to tripod inadequacy but user-error (far & away the most likely cause for anyone). Shielding the camera/tripod from the elements (which I usually do with my body unless into a head wind) will make far (far far far) more difference to the result than a tripod x3 the price.
In fact there are more ways to improve your tripod performance than just buying a new (often expensive) tripod, these methods for starters will almost always make a far greater improvement :
a) Shielding (use your body or other implement)
b) Making a solid base for the tripod (on a beach setting into the sand, on a mountain-side adding rocks to the base for example, in a stream pushing the legs into the gravel) etc.
c) In towns - shooting in between large vehicles passing by and not shooting off of high vibration structures (which no tripod can cope with).
As for a tripod *that will last you 10 years* (that some people give as a reason to buy a RRS/Gitzo), well some people may indeed keep them that long, but we all know that the vast majority of photographers buy and sell gear whenever the next fad comes along or maybe because their circumstances/requirements have changed and they need something else.
At least with a tripod that doesn't cost the best part of £1,000 I am never worried about loss/theft/damage aside from the inconvenience (not everyone is able, or feel it necessary, to buy insurance to cover them).
And if the worst comes to pass (theft/loss/damage) then I know I can buy a new tripod to the very latest specifications and still have paid (for the two tripods) roughly 30-50% of what one Gitzo/RRS would have cost me (and which now resides in a thief's bag / at the bottom of a ravine/lake or requires expensive repairs).
On travels and longer hikes and doing macro I take the smaller travel tripod (Sirui) with Acratech GXP ball head. If I know there's not much hiking (staying close to the car) and I need the height I take the bigger and slightly larger iFootage Gazelle Tripod TC7-Fastbowl with an Acratech Long Lens Head, which works nice for panorama's as well. Especially in long exposure situations I prefer the bigger tripod as well. So far it works for me. If there's plenty of light I also sometimes decide to leave the tripod at home. I also - for landscape - prefer the bigger tripod as it is easier to get it level with the Fastbowl. It just depends really on where and what I'm thinking of taking pictures of.