Tripod height. Does it Matter?

After a few shots on vacation recently that came out incredibly sharp with the assistance of a nearby rail or bench, I have decided to go ahead and get a tripod.

I have read all the sticky posts and many, many opinions about CF dampening and stability. I understand weight, stability and price being a 2 out of 3 kind of compromise. The issue that gets to me is height. I am 6"1 and am reading lots of posts from people saying they can't do the shorter tripods. Looking at many of these they do ~4ft without a center column extended and barely 4 1/2 ft with . I just imagine me bent in two trying to get these shots. Not to mention ever trying to get decent eye level landscapes or any standing portraits.

So without spending hundreds of dollars more on a tripod to accommodate height that is then so heavy I'd never want to take it on a trip with me, I am considering the SLIK 700DX with a 488rc2. This is 55.2 w/o column extended and 70.1 with. now it does weigh just under 5 pounds which puts me at around 6lbs with the head.

So then I start wondering if a less tall tripod would really hinder me that much. I would initially like this to be my all purpose tripod. I have a 70" mono I use for kids sports and close areas but for landscapes, night shots and general use I'd love to have a nicer tripod that won't kill me in weight or price.

Should I be focusing on height as a major issue? I was considering the 190DX or the 190xPro with the same head but the height issue scared me off. I know some of the $6-800 jobs will provide height and weight but I'm not at that point in my photography.

I'd really appreciate some input regarding height as determining factor for your tripod. Is it that major of an issue? if so why are so many tripods so short?

Thanks for the help.

Shawn

When it comes to landscapes it probably doesn't matter as much as it does with portraits where tripod height is a major consideration depending on the subject. A lot of people like to shoot at or above eye level and will even use a small step latter so they can be high enough. Obviously in this case you would need a tripod high enough to accommodate your subjects.

When it comes to travel I don't think it matters as much but it can lead to comfort issues. If you are really tall and get a short travel tripod and you are taking a lot of pictures you might find your back hurting more than it would from carrying around a taller tripod.

I started out with a really nice light weight tripod which I still take traveling but invested in a good quality one for other work that has the height that I want / need for other occasions.

I know this probably goes without saying but another consideration is the weight capacity and the stability of the tripod. I've seen some of these lower end names that claim they can hold 20 lbs and there is no way I would put my 40D with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS on it. One the other side I have a tilt / swivel head on my monopod (which by the way might be another option for you) that will hold a lot more than it is rated.

Shawn - using virtually any tripod with the center column extended is something that degrades the tripod's ability to hold your camera/lens in a rigid fashion. A times, one must extend the center column for one reason or another. However, if you anticipate using a tripod frequently with the center column extended, you really should find a taller tripod that is at least as sturdy as the shorter one with its legs fully extended.

For your height, I would highly recommend the Manfrotto 055XProB over the 190 version. There are even taller tripods that would work well, but they are usually either heavier or much more expensive.

Shawn,

How about buying a portable folding stool? You can get them fairly cheap and they don't weigh a lot. Then you can sit down to use your tripod - maximising stability and comfort.

I've got a Walkstool- more expensive than most, but very comfortable and able to support my weight easily.

Hello Docthomas

Personally, I think extending the centre column of a tripod compromises it's stability, and after all that is why you use one. So when I decided to buy my tripod/ball head combination, I made the assumption I needed a unit that was tall enough without any centre column extension. Also, after having had to "stoop" to use my previous tripod setup, I was absolutely sure I did not want to have to that again, unless a lower point of view was required to get the shot, at which point I would grit my teeth and do it!

Before I selected my tripod and head, I calculated the combination had to be at least 155 cm or 61" high, because my measured standing height, from the floor to my eye is 165 cm or 65". Since I use a gripped 40D and gripped XTi the cameras would account for 4" to 5" of the required height.

I decided on a Giottos MT-7371 with MH-3300 ball head, which measures 170 cm or 67" when the legs are fully extended and with the centre column fully retracted. This is 15cm or 6" more than I need for my height (I am 178 cm or 70"). I think my tripod/head combination could handle someone up to a maximum of 193 cm or 76". The combination cost $499.90 from Adorama, has a manufacturer's stated capacity of 22 lbs, and weighs 7.7 lbs. It is very stable, rock steady, well made and versatile.

My review of this combination, with photos:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=493232

Maxdave

I'm 6' 2" and have removed the centre column from my 055PROB because I never used it. "Bent double" is exagerating unless you have back problems. If you have, the stool suggestion seems to be the perfect answer.

I agree that camera height on not often critical for landscape shots, but I prefer to go for maximum stability. From what I've read, the shake problem goes "critical" at certain shutter speeds. Not the very slow speeds I'd have imagined, nor the faster ones. Rather its around the 1/10s sort of speeds that are the worst.

I did look at the 055xb but was put off my the 24" folded height. but i guess taller tripod will equal taller folded height. just thinking weight/size when strapping it to my pack on a trip and 24" and 5lbs before the head was starting to get pretty heavy for long hikes.

am i trying to get too much from one tripod?

For a hiking tripod you are going to have to accept a lot of compromises. Light weight would be top of my list if looking for suitable hiking tripod. Which means I'd have to accept it would be smaller, less stable as it probably uses 4 rather than 3 sections and as it would probably be carbon fibre, which means more expensive.

Still better than no tripod at all.

suggestions then? no one said avoid the slik they just recommended others. i would prob tolerate lower height for less weight and stability.

that was the original question. do I NEED the height or can i get that needed function from a 190pro or a slik without spending hundreds more for cf?

considering the majority of tripods are a pretty standard height I assume I'm putting too much thought into this.

so choice for decent packable tripod that can be used as a primary for portraits and general shooting. I'd like something like the 488rc2 that gives advantages of ball head with panning as well.

Shawn.

This video tells you every thing you need to know about tripods.

http://www.mindbites.c​om …ndbites-insight-4-tripods

My opinion about tripod height is that elevation of the camera should be driven by composition, not by the comfort of the individual shooting the photo! Best composition in some cases is lower, in other cases higher.

Forget trying to cover normal tripod duty with a lightweight hiker. You are never going to be happy with it. Accept the hiking tripod for what it is and get a good hefty normal tripod for general duties.

OK, so good hiker? and good head?

Docthomas wrote in post #6266558
OK, so good hiker? and good head?

The Manfrotto 190 should fit the bill for a good 'hiker', as its predecessor in the USA the Bogen 3001 was long considered to be a very good tripod for hiking purposes (though a tiny bit short for those over 6' tall)

Yes and No...

As mentioned, you can usually have only two out of these three parameters in any tripod: weight, stability and low price. However, you can compromise by selecting a shorter tripod. Shorter tripods will obviously be lighter in weight than taller tripods if all other parameters are equal.

I use two tripods. My primary tripod is a Giottos MT-8180; a carbon fiber tripod which is tall and extremely sturdy. However, the legs alone weigh 5.7 pounds while the MH-1300 ball head adds another 1.7 pounds to that package and I often use a Manfrotto 3221 Gimbal head which weighs an additional 3.10 pounds.

The Giottos is great for stationary photography and with the Manfrotto gimbal is absolutely wonderful for following fast moving subjects using my 400mm f/5.6L lens. It is tall enough for me to use (I am 6'1") without extending the center column and is sturdy enough to accommodate quite a load. However, at about 7.4 pounds with the Giottos head and close to 9 pounds I consider it too heavy for "boonie tromping".

I use a very light weight SLIK 330 Pro legs set for "boonie tromping". I have replaced the long center column with a shorter one which reduces the total weight of the legs to right at 2 pounds. I have replaced the SLIK head with the MH-1300 Giottos ball head. The weight of that package is 3.7 pounds. I could reduce the weight by over a half pound or so by using a magnesium ball head such as a Flashpoint F-1 which weighs only 11 ounces instead of the 1.7 pounds of the Giottos.

The SLIK 330 PRO are reasonably sturdy tripod legs with which I don't use anything heavier than my 70-200mm f/4L IS on a 30D camera. These legs with the Giottos head support that package quite well, as long as I don't extend the center column.

However since the SLIK 330 Pro is relatively short and I am relatively tall, I have two choices when I use this tripod. First is to stoop over which I do fairly often and second is to use a right angle finder which is a great way to frame landscape shots.

I get along very well using the SLIK for boonie tromping. However, I would not want to try to follow fast action using a short tripod like that. It would be quite awkward. I also would not want to use it in places like a zoo where I have to elevate my camera over walls or guard rails. However, for normal landscapes, some night shots and for panos, my SLIK is quite all I need.

I don't know of another set of legs which weigh only two pounds, provide reasonable stability and cost less than eighty dollars. The price I pay for this package is the need to stoop or use a right angle finder.

Whenever I use a camera/lens combination without a tripod-ring equipped lens, i will attach my camera with a Really Right Stuff L-Bracket. This L-bracket really assists any tripod in remaining stable because it allows the center of gravity of the camera/lens to remain right over the tripod instead of being cantilevered over to the side when I have the camera in vertical position.