Cheap Tripod for Landscape?

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hello everyone, just got my 17-40L a few days ago and I need a tripod for some landscape shooting. I don't have enough cash for a really good one right now, so I'm looking for the cheapest possible tripod out there that'll work with my 20D and 17-40L lens attatched. Thanks!

[gasrocks]

I can't say what good is also cheap - guess buying a used one might save a few $. Do you really need one for that combination? Tripods and wide angle don't both come to mind right away to me. Especially when you can run the ISO up on a 20D with good results.

[lostdoggy]

What do you consider cheap???
It all depends on your real needs, height and weight is some consideration.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yes, I need one for wide angle shots. I want to shoot some water falls with my wide angle. The very slow shutter speeds make it necessary to use a tripod.

And I consider cheap right now to be in the 40-60 range...... is that impossible.....? If so..... I really don't want to exceed 100 right now..... I figured I'd just buy a wicked cheap one for the time being, and get a really good one later on when I have the cash and stuff. It doesn't have to be all snazzy and stuff. Just has to screw into the bottom of my 20D and hold it steady while I take a shot. I know basically nothing about tripods though so if there's anything you think I should know, please enlighten me! :-)

[Lotto]

I have been using the Slik 300DX for 7 years, now my 20D sits on it. It's pretty solid build yet light weight, comes with 3 way pan head with quick release. It has been abused by me a lot but still going strong. So I guest I would recomand it. It's $99;)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=104984&is=REG

[SkipD]

Consider creative alternatives to a tripod. A bean bag comes to mind.

[Matatazela]

You must make a choice here! I posted this before, but here goes:

- Cheap
- Stable
- Durable

Choose any two.

Having said that, I got by with a $10 tripod for ages, although it wasn't as stable as it could have been. I used to leave the spindly end of the legs retracted to improve that a bit, but it eventually broke at the connector to the body. Then, you have to be prepared to throw the whole thing away, as it couldn't be fixed.

[Matatazela]

Consider creative alternatives to a tripod. A bean bag comes to mind.

Beans sometimes start to sprout, or worse, begin to rot when there is sufficent humidity. Use plastic beads rather! Much lighter, and it doesn't rot.

[blue_max]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000WXD1G/qid%3D1118667747/026-8743639-2053256

It's a tripod with head for £16.99. It does hold the camera, but it ain't no rock. It's quite light to carry though. Probably better than handholding, but I think you should get the Manfrotto 055 plus a head and have done with it.

Graham

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

matatazela, I'd go with cheap and stable I guess.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Blue_max, that looks like a decent tripod for a great price, but can it be shipped to the US?

[blue_max]

Amazon.com has quite a selection at very affordable prices (and they have user reviews). I doubt they have exactly the same, but there is sure to be a similar one.

You would be better off buying over there and getting it shipped for free (if you spend enough – or at least that's how it works over here).

I just searched for tripod on their site and got loads.

Graham

[lostdoggy]

Slik and Velbon tripod are nice Pods for under a $100 just do a search at B&H. Gotta go to B&H!!!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=234289&is=REG

[Matatazela]

Cheap and stable is good, but what you get will probably be heavy or badly made, so you will end up losing out somewhere.

Maybe I should have written Cheap, Durable, Lightweight.... Choose any two!

[Radioham]

Hi
I use a Velbon cx-444 cost me £29.00, It holds my 20D with my Tokina 200mm which is pretty heavy and does the job, I would like a carbon fiber one but cant justify the cost, :(

[ed2day]

For landscape photography especially, the pros claim the tripod is a bigger difference maker than the lens. I'm a believer. I have a Velbon I got for backpacking and it's lightweight (2 lbs)and really a pretty slick design--cost about $90. But if there's the slightest breeze I can can easily see it rocking in the viewfinder. It's not subtle. Worse than handheld. So unless you're willing to pay a minimum of about $300 for tripod and head I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. Just buy the cheapest one you can find and resign yourself to the fact that you're not going to get the performance out of the camera that you paid for.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hmm, I definately like that Slik! Thanks for showing that to me LostDoggy.

And ed2day, I know what your saying, but I just don't have enough cash to buy a 300 dollar on up tripod right now. Even $90.00 is a stretch. I just need one to last me a little while until I can get a good one. Can't always have the best right away, ya know? :-)

[Eric DeCastro]

I bought my bogen head and legs for 150 shipped. from b&h
i woudln't trust my camera alone much less with a lens on a cheap (not in expensive but low quality) tripod.

[DocFrankenstein]

Go to walmart and get that aluminum wonder for 20 bucks, it's gonna take you a few shoots to figure out why it sucks and you'll be ready for the next step... After a while you'll either go through an evolution of tripod friends ending up with a decent one, or would read this article and trust the advice:

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm (http://www.bythom.com/support.html)

[lostdoggy]

Go to walmart and get that aluminum wonder for 20 bucks, it's gonna take you a few shoots to figure out why it sucks and you'll be ready for the next step... After a while you'll either go through an evolution of tripod friends ending up with a decent one, or would read this article and trust the advice:

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm (http://www.bythom.com/support.html)

Hey Doc link no good!!!

[DocFrankenstein]

Hey Doc link no good!!!
I think his server doesn't allow direct linking or something similar...

Goto www.bythom.com (http://www.bythom.com)
then add: "/support.htm" in the address line... Works for me that way.

That's the article, full credit to thom, I didn't write it... etc...
Serious Support
I can save you at least US$700: just buy the right stuff the first time.
5/10/04: Rewrote Acratech recommendation to be more clear

http://www.bythom.com/Images/thom1973.jpg Even in 1973 I was practicing what I preach in this article, albeit then I was using film cameras and very heavy tripods. Here I'm doing my best Austin Powers Can You Dig It imitation while shooting a Pac-8 Baseball Championship game for ABC Sports. These days I still sometimes look like a shag-o-delic Beatle, but yes, I've lost the plaid bell bottoms...ladies, you can stop your swooning ;~) One of the things that comes up at least once at every workshop I teach is that someone is shooting without enough support. I don't mean my teaching and cheerleading is failing the student. I mean that they just aren't providing a secure platform from which to shoot.

Thom's Maxim #1: You're wasting money on expensive AF-S and other Nikkor optics if you fail to give your camera and lens a stable platform.

Yes, I understand that sometimes you have to handhold your camera to get a shot, and that some types of photography require you to be mobile and flexible. But better handholding technique is a discussion for another article. Today, we're talking about getting the kinds of shots I do, where we're not in a hurry and can use a tripod.

"So, let's pop our cameras onto a tripod and shoot. Hey, why do I see your camera drooping on that tilt-down shot? And did I notice the end of your lens vibrate a bit when you pressed the shutter release? Hmm. Well, you're not going to like hearing this, but you shouldn't have purchased that 17-35mm AF-S lens. You'd be better served by getting the less expensive 18-35mm Nikkor and spending the money you saved on a better support system." (Why does it feel like I've said that a lot, lately?)

Even when students come to class with a good tripod and head, they aren't always using it as securely as they should be. The bottom line is simple: if the camera is moving when you shoot, you'll never resolve what the lens is capable of. Other factors enter into the picture, too. If you mount your camera on a decent tripod but hang a heavy lens off the front (like the 80-200mm AF-S), you can actually get the center of gravity far enough out from the leg support that the front of the lens still moves a bit during exposure. And on many Nikon bodies, there's tangible "mirror slap" vibration that shows up with telephoto lenses when the shutter speed is in the 1/2 to 1/15 range (I usually suggest either avoiding the 1 second to 1/30 range with lenses over 100mm unless you have a solid platform and use either mirror lockup (F4 and F5) or anti-mirror vibration (D1 series and D100).

Thom's Maxim #2: You can spend US$1700 to buy a good tripod and head, or you can spend US$1000 and do the same thing. (Corollary: eventually you'll do one or the other.)

Here's the usual sequence that most photographers go through in getting to a stable platform:




First they try handholding. Eventually, they realize that their results aren't as sharp as those of others.
So the next step is to work on improving technique. Elbows get tucked, the camera is braced against stable objects, they stop holding their breath, etc. But that doesn't solve every problem or work in every situation. And it certainly doesn't always work for very long lenses.
Now we find our photographer at the store buying a tripod. It's one of those low-cost, Velbon-type pods with braces between the legs (that's gotta make it stable, right?) that weighs a couple of pounds and has nice looking aluminum legs (US$75). This solution seems to help with the middle focal lengths, at least. But eventually the bottom section of one of the legs gets a bit bent and doesn't collapse back into the other sections easily. And with long or heavy lenses, the head "creeps" when the camera is pointed downward. The whole thing shakes in the wind, and you can't get down to ground level for shots. In fact, the photographer finds that they're spending way to much time fighting the tripod rather than taking pictures.
Since it seemed the light legs had to be part of the problem, the next step is buy a heftier pod (US$125 min; US$200 spent so far). That usually turns out to be one of the classic Bogen legs (3021 is popular; these days also the 3001) with the two handle pan/tilt head. This solves one of the problems: the bottom leg section doesn't get bent with use. And used correctly, it solves the basic stability problem, as the 4-pound weight and sturdy legs at least give the whole thing a solid base. But now the problem seems to be that our photographer is constantly fiddling with the head (pan/tilt heads were designed for video cameras, not still cameras). Getting the camera level becomes a chore. Getting a scene locked down doesn't always work the first time, either (that head sag, again).
So we start the procession of the heads (US$50, US$75, US$125, US$200, plus eventually some proprietary quick plates at US$25 each; US$700 spent so far). The first attempt at a new head will usually be a "better" variant of what they had, or perhaps a very small, cheap ball head. Neither will fix the problems our user has, and the primary problem will still be getting the camera level quickly, so the next head is usually the "pistol grip" type, because it seems to be "faster." Problem still not corrected (and verticals are now a bit of a problem), so we start the ball head parade. The first "decent" ball head will be one of the Manfrotto (Giotto) heads, perhaps with a built-in plate system of some sort. That starts to work better, but the photographer still finds that the camera moves a bit when they turn the knob to lock the ball. And some of the plate systems have just enough slop in them that the compromise the stability of the entire system (another problem is that few of them "grip" the camera bottom in ways so that they can't be turned; they eventually work loose and end up marring the camera bottom's finish). So we try another, larger ball. Still, our prototypical photographer doesn't "go all the way" just yet because it seems ludicrous to spend US$350 on a head that mounts onto a set of US$125 legs, right?
The legs are starting to make their shortcomings known. They don't let you get down to ground level (or, if you got the Bogen with the "trick" centerpost, the stability isn't great in some positions). And the whole concoction is starting to get a bit on the heavy side (depending on the legs and head, perhaps as much as 7 pounds). So a set of Gitzo carbon fiber legs is next on the list (US$550; US$1250 spent so far). Upon acquisition of decent legs, it immediately becomes clear that the head is the sole problem point, so...
Our photographer breaks down and buys a Kirk Photo or an Arca Swiss ball head (US$350 plus US$100 or more for plates; total spent: US$1700 or more). A few folk take a short detour here and buy something like the Linhof Profli II ball head (US$250). And they find that that head fixes every problem except one: the darned thing won't stay firmly screwed onto the legs without using Locktite on it.
So, for more than the cost of one pro grade Nikkor (with filters and a new case to put it in) the photographer can finally see the quality of their lenses.

Or...you could just skip all the intermediary steps and buy the final solution first. Just to clear, here's what I recommend for the kind of nature shooting I do (you don't have to take my word for it; go to Really Right Stuff's site (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/) and send for their catalog. It'll give you a lot more background on some of the issues that keep you from getting a stable platform for your camera):


A Gitzo carbon fiber tripod (US$400-$800). Gitzo's come in a lot of flavors, so take your time figuring out which one you want. The primary choices are: number of leg sections, length of the leg sections, and centerpost options. The usual choices for the weight conscious end up: the G1128 if you're interested in the lowest possible weight (41 ounces); the G1227 if you're interested in a tripod that'll reach over 5' at the lowest price (56 ounces); or the G1228 (which I use) if you want the same but need to pack it in carry-on sized luggage (the G1227 collapses to a little over 25", the G1228 to less than 21"). If you're not weight sensitive or need to run large teles on your pod, the Gitzo 1325 is a far better choice, as it's a bit heavier and sturdier (72 ounces, 26.4" minimum size). Indeed, a few folk, such as macro enthusiast John Shaw, think this is the bottom of the line you should consider.
A Kirk Photo (http://www.kirkphoto.com/) BH-1 or Arca Swiss Monoball B-1 ball head (if you plan on ever using long lenses [300mm or over] you'll have to get the larger Kirk or Arca Swiss) (US$350).
Kirk Photo or Really Right Stuff Arca-style quick release plates for each camera body you own, and for each lens that has a tripod collar (US$50 minimum, as much as US$400 for two bodies and three lenses, assuming you get the L brackets for the bodies).
So, you're in for a minimum of US$800, but more likely somewhere around US$1000. Thus, I've saved you a minimum of US$700 if you just opt for this approach from the beginning.

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 that gets you almost everything the other does:


Hakuba HG-6230C or HG-6240C carbon fiber tripod (US$275-290). There are two versions of the Hakuba, which differ mostly in slightly different leg lengths. Either seems to be a decent knockoff of the Gitzo.
Acratech (http://www.acratech.net/) ball head (US$275). A strange looking head, but it is light (1 pound) and works quite well. I especially like the fact that I can keep the ball clean while traveling in hostile environments. Consider getting the rubber knobs (an extra cost option), as the metal knobs are rough on the hand when you do a lot of fiddling. Alternatively, the Kirk BH-3 head is a little heavier (20 ounces), but more traditional in design.
Plates, as above.
This option gets you in the door for US$600+ and weighs in at about 4.5 pounds, even less if you use the short centerpost (or none) on the legs. Just don't expect to mount your 300mm f/2.8 on it and be happy. (I originally had a note in #2 above that confused even the Acratech folks; they thought that I was saying that their head can't hold more than 4 pounds. There are two intersecting issues here: (a) how much weight the head can hold at an angle without moving position; and (b) how much weight you can place at the top of a light object and still expect the system to work as support. So let me clarify: the Acratech head can hold very large loads (perhaps 10 pounds or more), but if you place a D1x and 300mm lens on top of a 4.5 pound support system, you've compromised the support abilities, regardless of what the head can hold. The old rule of thumb was that your tripod/head needed to be 1.5x (or more) the weight of what was on top of it. These days, new materials and designs let you get down to about 1x--assuming that have a disciplined technique--but beyond that you're just asking for problems, especially with long lenses or slow shutter speeds. So, to reiterate: I very much like the Acratech head, and use it while backpacking; just don't expect to create a <4-pound support solution that can support >4-pounds of weight on top.)

And speaking of the long, heavy telephotos: if you use the 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, or the 300mm telephotos with extenders, at a minimum get a Wimberley Sidekick (http://www.tripodhead.com/) (US$250). This clever device has to be used to be appreciated. Essentially, it's the perfect way to get the weight of the camera and lens balanced and stabilized on your pod. If you use long lenses all the time, consider getting the full Wimberley head instead (and perhaps even heavier legs). A 600mm f/4 on a Wimberley head moves effortlessly enough to track flying birds, yet gets enough support to render sharp photos.

http://www.bythom.com/Images/CG-31-Galen-Washing.jpg And with two sturdy tripods (ball head not necessary) you can do laundry. The late Galen Rowell (and wife Barbara relaxing near tent) doing a bit of mid-day house chores near Alpamaya, Peru (http://www.bythom.com/Cordillera.htm).

[MarkoPolo]

My budget tripod is the Velbon Chaser Elf-4A ($79) and the medium Giottos ball head ($89). It's light and stable, small enough to put in your carry on bag and is surprisingly good. My better tripoid is a Gitzo with a Kirk ball head, but that ain't cheap! Hope this helps.

[12345Michael54321]

I routinely see used Bogen 3001 tripods, with inexpensive Bogen/Manfrotto head, going on eBay for $40-90 (plus $10-15 for shipping).

Yeah, it's used. But in many cases it's barely used, having been trotted out maybe twice, then stuck in a closet for 5 years. And even if it has seen more use than that, a few scratches won't really impair a tripod's functionality all that much.

Now, the 3001 isn't Bogen's top-of-the-line tripod, but it's a perfectly good tripod. In fact, while I'm a bit of a tripod freak and own a variety of the things, the 3001 is the tripod I typically take along if I'm going to be doing some short distance hiking. It's also the tripod I usually keep in the back seat of the car, just in case I find myself in need of a tripod. Okay, so it's not really as tall as I'd like, and it's not really as heavy duty as I'd like, but if it were as tall and heavy duty as I'd like, it'd be my Bogen 3036, and if you think I'm going hiking with a 3036, you don't know just how lazy and out of shape I am. Besides, compared to most of the Walmart Special tripods out there, even the 3001 is solid and serious and professional.

So spring for the $75 one will cost you via eBay, then once you move up to a $300 tripod w/$350 head, you can make the 3001 your "compact, knock around, it's always good to have a backup" tripod. And you can stash it in the back seat of the car, or carry it along when hiking. (And whine to yourself about how a compact carbon fiber tripod would weigh 1 1/2 lbs. less and be so much easier to carry around by the end of the day, but you're too cheap to buy one.)

[Jack W.]

Here's the one I use at the moment:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=283759&is=REG
Supports my 20D with a Sigma 80-400OS with no problems (the lens alone weighs a bit over 3 1/2 lbs.).
Jack