Advice on tripod sizing, please.

Hi all - I'm in need of tripod sizing advice and am hoping you can assist. I've searched for similar threads but haven't been able to find the type of advice I'm seeking so I apologize in advance if this has been covered once, or multiple times before.

I've been saving my pennies and am looking to invest in a tripod and think I'm ready to pull the trigger. My heart is set on a Gitzo Mountaineer Series 3, given I like to hike, camp, and my general love for the outdoors, although I will gladly consider other recommendations. With this in mind, I'm also looking for a tripod that can be used around the house for portraits and such (my wife and I are expecting our first child in January).

Specs:
My height: 5'8" (68")
Eye Height: 5'3.5" (63.5")
Tripod Head Height: 3.7" (RRS BH-55)
Distance from bottom of camera to middle of LCD Screen: 2" (approximately)

Using the guide included on the following web page, I've calculate that my tripod should be approximately 57-58 inches tall (without center column extended). I arrived at 57-58 inches by taking 63.5 - 3.7 - 2 = 57.8 inches.

http://blog.nicgranlee​se.com …ht-tripod-height-for-you/

With this being said, do you think I'm going about this correctly? Is this guide correct or is there a better way to figure this out? My hesitation is that the Mountaineer Series 3 height (without center column extended) is 52.4" which I'm afraid is too short. Meanwhile, the Mountaineer Series 3 Long height (without center column extended) is 59.1". Is this too long?

Would love to hear from anyone who has first hand experience. Thanks in advance.

I'd get the long if you don't want to bend over a little.

Most people go through life bending over a little with tripods as they never get one the right height. I was one of them until recently. IMHO if you are ready to go Gitzo, just get the tall one.

Appreciate the feedback, Jake.

OK, now I'm no help at all because I am going to back track a bit.
My first reply was based on my experience with tripods that HAVE NO CENTER COLUMN.

You do have a center column on these models. Yes I understand that the tripod is "best" when you don;t use it, but you have it, so let's not ignore the center column as if it's not there.

The height difference is small with the "short" model,. just a few inches short of perfect without using the center column.

So your dilemma is more complex than i first imagined.

To get "perfect" height with the shorter version, you just have to fiddle with the center column and extend it slightly. It's there, using it is not a disaster, and you may have many times when you don't use the center column. But again., getting up to perfect will mean one tweak of the center column.

For the tripod that is slightly too tall, getting it right will mean every time you use it you will have to set three legs to something lower than full extension. This seems like a bit more of a pain to me.

So there, I'm no help at ll.

Equipment selection criteria:

1. The 'real photographer' takes a photo at whatever height makes for the best composition...sometime​s it is lower than our eye, sometimes it is ABOVE our eye. In short, the tripod that puts our camera at our eye level (whatever that happens to be) will not necessarily give us our BEST composition.
   
2. Furthermore, when we USE our tripod, it is not always on a level surface, so our 'ideal' tripod might be setting on the ground that is lower than level ground, or higher than level ground...and suddenly our 'ideal' tripod is NOT 'ideal' any longer!
   
3. or vary the leg spread to provide stability, and again our 'ideal' tripod is no longer ideal
   

Don't forget to take in to account the height of whatever head you use too. I'm assuming you will use a ball head, or pan/tilt head. Otherwise you are just stuck adjusting the tripod legs up and down and with rocks, trees, sitcks, or whatever else. That can add the 5 or so inches you just took out. Also take in to account if you will be using a grip or not, and a tripod quick release or not. I based my choice on the tripod I wanted having a center column that went higher than my eyes. I didn't even think about if I had to bend over or not. Ironicly as it turned out, the tripod with the 5D2, no grip, was the perfect height for me not to have to bend over I also based my purchase on the weight of the gear I would be using. I knew I was going to use my camera with some longer glass and wanted to make sure it would be stable.

Thanks guys - really appreciate the feedback.

I'm leaning towards the shorter version after considering the points made about shooting on un-level ground, etc. Do you guys feel strongly one way or another about 3 vs 4 sections. I've read that the 4 section tripods may not be as stable as 3 sections, but I've also noticed that the 4 section tripod is approximately 4" shorter when folded which would be better for hiking. What's your opinion on this?

I was always of the "3 sections is more stable" mind set. In theory this makes perfect logical sense. One fact that would corroborate this is that for a specific model offered in 3 or 4 sections, that 4th sections diameter is smaller than on the 3 section unit.

That said, I am now the owner of my first 4 section carbon fiber (a HUGE Systematic style Induro) and I see no real downside to 4 sections other than the time it takes to to unlock 3 more leg sections.

So were I you, I'd be debating the collapsed size advantage vs. the minimal additional extra time to adjust and set up. For hiking, I think I would go with short version, and 4 leg sections.


It's all about your application here, as all of the above is about 180degrees opposite of what I would recommend for a big super telephoto birding rig. (No center column, , go for the height, 3 leg sections etc..)

Random suggestion: Rather than worrying too much about matching the height of a tripod to your own height I would suggest getting the tallest stable tripod you can find in your budget, and then also getting yourself an adjustable field stool, and possibly kneepads.

I know that I generally extend my tripod so that it is comfortable to work with at a standing height, and I honestly am beginning to view this as a terribly bad habit. I feel that to really get more out of my tripod then I need to stop thinking of it as a device of around 170cm, and start focusing on it being a device to hold my camera steady at the height it needs to be for a shot, whether that is 170cm or 17cm off the ground.

Generally with tripods you can make them shorter than their max height, to a limit, but you need to get really crafty in the field to make a tripod taller than it normally is and still keep it stable.

jmh285 wrote in post #17757056
Thanks guys - really appreciate the feedback.

I'm leaning towards the shorter version after considering the points made about shooting on un-level ground, etc. Do you guys feel strongly one way or another about 3 vs 4 sections. I've read that the 4 section tripods may not be as stable as 3 sections, but I've also noticed that the 4 section tripod is approximately 4" shorter when folded which would be better for hiking. What's your opinion on this?

For use on unlevel ground, you would very likely be better off with a TALLER tripod. The "downhill" leg(s) will often need to be set longer than the "uphill" leg(s). If your tripod legs are just barely tall enough for you on level ground, the rig could be a pain in the you-know-where on unlevel ground. For field use, I like having a tripod that's at least six inches taller than I would consider for just level surface use.

I would never use a tripod with relatively thin four-section legs because that reduces stability. Stability is, for me, the number one requirement of a tripod.

This is all really great feedback - thank you so much. There are so many variables to consider that I feel like I'm buying a camera all over. Perhaps I'm over thinking it, but my concern with a tall tripod is that I would be standing on my toes to reach the viewfinder, unless I took the time to adjust the legs individually. Comparing this to a set-up that came to my eye level, or just below it, which would allow for faster deployment. Again, I'm probably over thinking it. Just want to make the right purchase.

Thanks again for all of your feedback.

jmh285 wrote in post #17757056
Thanks guys - really appreciate the feedback.

I'm leaning towards the shorter version after considering the points made about shooting on un-level ground, etc. Do you guys feel strongly one way or another about 3 vs 4 sections. I've read that the 4 section tripods may not be as stable as 3 sections, but I've also noticed that the 4 section tripod is approximately 4" shorter when folded which would be better for hiking. What's your opinion on this?

4 sections means that, when I use the tripod as a 'tall' device, I am spending 50% more time and 50% more effort every time I am extending or collapsing each leg!

• 3 locks (4 section) vs. 2 locks (3 section), to actuate locks
  
• 3 sections vs. 2 sections, to pull out or push in
  

If I'm not on a perfectly level floor then I need to fiddle with leg height anyway, so that is really kind of a non-issue if you're looking for something to take out for field use.

The value of a 'perfectly level tripod' is also not as critical as some seem to make it out to be, especially if you're using a ball head. Unless you're trying to do panning shots along a level plane, then you just get your tripod 'close enough', and do final adjustment for level with the head itself.

If you are doing a lot of panning work, then personally I would go with investing in a levelling head to take care of the final fine adjustment rather than trying to always deal with it through the legs themselves.


But like I said before, if you get into the habit of slamming your legs out to their full height, plopping the tripod down, and tossing your camera on to start snapping away, then you're going to be robbing yourself of a lot of value in small angle adjustment that can really make or break photography.

Yeah, I follow what you guys are saying. It's better to have the length and adjust down, rather than not have it and be unable to adjust up.

I think going with the Mountaineer 3 (long), which will put the middle of the LCD screen at approx 64.5" (my eye height is 63.5") is probably my best bet. This specific tripod does have 4 sections but all reviews praise its sturdiness so we'll see. The 64.5" mentioned also does not include the center column which can also be extended.

Anything you guys think I'm missing here? Again, really appreciate all of the feedback and guidance.

I'm wondering about the match between the legs and head. That's RRS' biggest sturdiest head. Do you need all that on your hiking tripod?