Tripods what is the cut off?

[willie45]

I have a humble Manfrotto 190 Pro B tripod and have used this for some years now without complaint. A while ago I came across this article by Thom Hogan. Is he correct in stating that these massively expensive support systems are necessary to get the full benefit from your camera and lenses? I would be surprised.

I suppose my needs are modest. I don't go beyond 300mm in focal length and that is at f5.6. Maybe it would be different if I was using 800mm or some similarly weighty beast.

My only gripe about my current set up is the head which is a 322RC and tends to make the tripod very heavy and unbalanced when carrying it. I do wonder if a smaller ball head would be more appropriate.

Periodically I wonder when I wheel out my tripod if I am doing my system an injustice.

Willie

[huwevans]

I have a humble Manfrotto 190 Pro B tripod and have used this for some years now without complaint. A while ago I came across this article by Thom Hogan. Is he correct in stating that these massively expensive support systems are necessary to get the full benefit from your camera and lenses?

No. It's the sort of opinion that gets trotted out from time to time by people who sometimes seem to have more money than sense. Much, much cheaper tripods and heads have been used for generations perfectly adequately by millions of photographers the world over. But for some reason this sort of thing happens every now and again, often when there is some sort of revolution in the technology and the price bar gets raised, and some people who really should know better suddenly start to think that absolutely nothing less is capable of doing the job properly.

Whilst it has a grain of truth (the general principle that cheap tripods tend to be flimsy, less good at the job than they purport to be, and are often just a false economy), nevertheless they take the argument to quite ludicrous extremes.

[willie45]

Hi Huw

This makes sense and is pretty much what I would have thought. I haven't the cash to splash on such exotica at the moment and even if I did there's a lot of other things I'd rather spend it on

Willie

[AndyTake2]

The technical term for articles like this is "a complete load of bol1ox"

The Pro B is a fine tripod, and the simple test is whether it holds your camera stable or not.
If the legs don't wobble, and everything fits together ok, then there is no problem.

Changing heads for a more suitable one is probably the best way to go if you're not happy with your current one, that's what I intend to do, but hoiking a damn great tripod built to hold a bus around will do nothing other than break your back, wallet and eventually get you to leave the thing at home.

In fact, going the other way is now the main technology change. Carbon fibre pods are now really good and light, and weight can be added by as necessary by stringing your camera bag round it.

[beejaybee]

In fact, going the other way is now the main technology change. Carbon fibre pods are now really good and light, and weight can be added by as necessary by stringing your camera bag round it.

Weight is never desireable, it just changes the resonant frequency.

However I must say that - for a tripod to carry a heavy, long tele lens - I have no problems with ordinary aluminimum tube construction - which is a lot cheaper than exotic materials. If I wanted a lightweight 'pod to lug around the hills & support a "standard" zoom lens then I guess one of the carbon types might be preferable. But with modern kit I find it unnecessary to carry a tripod at all when tramping round the hills.

Heads are very personal, I hate the ball type because I find them infuriating to clamp accurately in the position I want.

But the fact remains that tripods have at most two of the attributes "affordable", "rigid" and "light"; very commonly only one, and some have none at all.

[willie45]

Well I would settle for the affordable and rigid criteria. Light would be nice but not for around £800 for a Gitzo pod and B1 Ball head

Willie

[huwevans]

In fact, going the other way is now the main technology change. Carbon fibre pods are now really good and light, and weight can be added by as necessary by stringing your camera bag round it.

Weight is never desireable, it just changes the resonant frequency.

On the contrary - for photographic use in the field, in particular, it can make a huge difference. The principal one is in helping to establish a firm base. Soft ground is very common, and a light tripod/camera combination can be difficult or impossible to stabilize by itself. Wind also can be a problem when the gear is too light. Mass (preferably of the tripod leg-set itself, but added mass is better than nothing) helps tremendously in blustery conditions, not only for holding the camera as steady as possible during the exposure, but also for security - a lightweight tripod with a big 'sail' of a camera, lens, and hood catching the wind is all too easily blown over. Finally it's very easy to knock a tripod accidentally - light tripods are just much more likely to move when you don't want them to. If you're doing anything at all with multiple exposures that means starting again from the beginning, and possibly having to do all the setting up work again.

[beejaybee]

On the contrary - for photographic use in the field, in particular, it [weight] can make a huge difference. The principal one is in helping to establish a firm base. Soft ground is very common, and a light tripod/camera combination can be difficult or impossible to stabilize by itself.

And excess weight can make the tripod legs sink into the morass significantly during the exposure.

There's a compromise somewhere.

a lightweight tripod with a big 'sail' of a camera, lens, and hood catching the wind is all too easily blown over.

A lighter tripod moves the centre of gravity upwards but does not affect the wind resistance.

[huwevans]

And excess weight can make the tripod legs sink into the morass significantly during the exposure.

Well, it could, if the photographer weren't bright enough to make sure that the tripod had reached a firm enough setting before beginning. But I was taking it for granted that we weren't talking about total half-wits here.

A lighter tripod moves the centre of gravity upwards but does not affect the wind resistance.

Umm, no-one suggested that it affected wind resistance. Please tell me I don't really have to explain why a tripod with smaller mass and all else equal is more easily blown over in the wind. This is a fairly simple mechanics homework problem - about O-level, I'd say. From what I know of you you certainly ought not to need that.

[Benchista]

I suspect Beejaybee's confusing rigidity with stability.

As to the original story, well there's a grain of truth in it, but it's waaaaay overblown. A typical Septic tale from someone that's been so far up their own backside for so long they've forgotten what the real world looks like. Yes, it's always worth spending money on a decent tripod and head to start with, but you really, really don't have to go that far.

[beejaybee]

I suspect Beejaybee's confusing rigidity with stability.

Not really - though damping is a very important aspect, in fact for astronomical telescopes (where the high magnification makes any vibration painfully obvious) it is quite clear that the best material for tripod legs is wood. This is very far from the most rigid solution, but the damping reduces the impact of any vibration much better than any metal or artificial composite material, and the loading is never high enough to cause significant bending of the tripod legs. There is however a significant weight penalty compared with a stainless steel pipe leg; making the steel pipe thicker gauge does not solve any problems, it just makes the vibration frequency higher.

So far as being blown over is concerned, the cross sectional area is the displacing action and so long as the centre of gravity stays within space the triangle described by the tripod feet the thing will not blow over. A heavier tripod tends to lower the CoG, that's the only reason there's any extra stability. Hanging weights on the tripod will always reduce the load carrying capacity in terms of the stability of the direction the camera points in, even if it may help in marginal cases to prevent the wind blowing it over.

OTOH I've seen plenty of people trying to polar align an equatorial mount, wondering why they don't get it ... the legs are resting on mud, and slowly settling into it.

As to the original story, well there's a grain of truth in it, but it's waaaaay overblown. A typical Septic tale from someone that's been so far up their own backside for so long they've forgotten what the real world looks like. Yes, it's always worth spending money on a decent tripod and head to start with, but you really, really don't have to go that far.

Agreed.

[TimF]

Well I would settle for the affordable and rigid criteria. Light would be nice but not for around £800 for a Gitzo pod and B1 Ball head

To be fair to Thom, he did say Gitzo or equivalent. Specifically mentioning the Bogen 3221 WN. That seems to be no longer available, but as the link makes clear the closest replacement would be our old friend the Manfrotto/Bogen 055.

Perhaps what he writes isn't so ludicrous as some have claimed. OTT perhaps, but I tend to look at that as "poetic licence"; exaggeration to make a valid point. Hell, if I had a Pound for every time someone here has asked about tripods and been told don't skimp on a proper set of legs (and head), as it'll only end up costing you more in the long run, I'd have done quite well. Thom is simply saying the same thing.

[Benchista]

Perhaps what he writes isn't so ludicrous as some have claimed.

Of course it is. The obnoxious git claims you need to spend $1000 to get a decent tripod. That's not tripods, it's tripe, and indefensible tripe at that - don't try and make excuses for that wally, please.

[huwevans]

A heavier tripod tends to lower the CoG, that's the only reason there's any extra stability.

No, it isn't. The restoring force is proportional not only to the sine of the angle at the pivot between the vertical and the centre of gravity, but also to the mass. Lowering the CoG is indeed one reason why adding mass or using a heavier tripod aids stability in such conditions, but the mass itself is equally significant, and even if it were added precisely at the existing CoG (thus not lowering it at all), would still have that effect.

Secondly, the issue of the CoG being over the base only tells you that the tripod won't continue to topple under its own weight, even if the force due to wind is removed. Because the CoG is (it is safe to assume) not underground, the sine of the angle mentioned above is at a maximum when all three legs are planted. If the wind is strong enough to make the pod begin to blow over, and if the force of the wind does not drop, it will then certainly blow over if it isn't caught, because the restoring force due to gravity only decreases as the tripod begins to pivot.

There are, BTW, legions of tales of woe of people ending up with broken cameras and/or lenses in exactly this way. I've seen it happen to others at least a couple of times, and I've had to catch my own gear on one occasion, so it's really not as marginal as you seem to think.

[huwevans]

Of course it is. The obnoxious git claims you need to spend $1000 to get a decent tripod. That's not tripods, it's tripe, and indefensible tripe at that - don't try and make excuses for that wally, please.

You're really not mincing your words, are you?

Actually, he does suggest that, 'If you need a less expensive solution and know you won't be shooting with lenses over two pounds (basically under 300mm), there's another solution I can recommend ...' He goes on to offer an alternative that, 'gets you in the door for US$600+ ...' Even that is over £400, and that doesn't take account of the fact that this sort of commodity is so much cheaper in the US to start with.

[TimF]

Perhaps what he writes isn't so ludicrous as some have claimed.

Of course it is. The obnoxious git claims you need to spend $1000 to get a decent tripod. That's not tripods, it's tripe, and indefensible tripe at that - don't try and make excuses for that wally, please.

Thom Hogan wrote (my bold stress):
Or...you could just skip all the intermediary steps and buy the final solution first. Just to clear, <u>here's what I recommend for the kind of nature shooting I do</u>

Just to clear things up, it's what he recommends for the kind of shooting he does. If you take it as a generalization then fine, it's not how I read it, and we'll agree to differ. And for the record, the $1000 spend also includes an, in his opinion, worthy head, and Arca-Swiss style QR plates.

[Benchista]

Of course it is. The obnoxious git claims you need to spend $1000 to get a decent tripod. That's not tripods, it's tripe, and indefensible tripe at that - don't try and make excuses for that wally, please.

You're really not mincing your words, are you?

Actually, he does suggest that, 'If you need a less expensive solution and know you won't be shooting with lenses over two pounds (basically under 300mm), there's another solution I can recommend ...' He goes on to offer an alternative that, 'gets you in the door for US$600+ ...' Even that is over £400, and that doesn't take account of the fact that this sort of commodity is so much cheaper in the US to start with.

Sorry, I've had the misfortune to read quite a lot of his tripe in the last couple of weeks and although a lot of it is decent stuff, his opinion of himself and some of his silly topics make good old Ken look entirely straight...

[huwevans]

... some of his silly topics make good old Ken look entirely straight...

Blimey, I hate to think what you've been reading then!

[Benchista]

... some of his silly topics make good old Ken look entirely straight...

Blimey, I hate to think what you've been reading then!

Well this one for a start...

[huwevans]

Yeah, fair point!