Pros and cons of big heavy tripods (convince me that I need one)

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

B

bleirer

Bill, Cleveland OH.
Supporting Member
Marketplace
This is not a brand comparison discussion so please no specific brand recommendations.

What I'm interested in is why so many top shooters say it is imperative to have a huge expensive tripod. I guess I don't like the cost as I can get a pretty decent lens instead for the same $3000 and I don't like the weight since I have to carry it on a trail, and I don't like the size since I have to find a place in the trunk for it and pay to ship it.

Doesn't a $300 tripod get the same result 90% of the time? If its a calm day and the setup is basic? What is needed to get that final 10%?

I guess I'm willing to spend the money if it really is the magic fairy dust that will change my life, but I'd need convincing.
 
PhilcTx said:
I think you should mention what is the largest/heaviest camera/lens you could ever anticipate putting on a big pricey tripod.
Click to expand...

The largest I'd probably ever use would be an R5 with a 100-500, but more likely on a tripod it would be an R5 with a landscape size lens, going for a 1/4 to 1/2 second exposure on a waterfall for example and not wanting it to wiggle.
 
Member's gallery
IMHO, paying $3K for a tripod is a bit (a lot) much. Getting a high quality sturdy tripod, in the range of $500 is quite possible. What most are recommending is avoiding those $70-80 or even the $125 models that are all center column. What head you are using also makes a big difference. I'm using a Robus RC-5570 (~$550, ~5.5 lbs) from several years ago, with a fluid head that is stable as a rock. There are many now much lighter and just as stable.
Avoiding center column models (when extended can be wobbly), good carbon fiber legs, using the right feet (claw vs spike, etc) and ability to use a stone bag to help stabilize if windy (sound of camera and lens going to ground will give you nightmares for weeks), probably meets most needs. Some (i.e. Hudson Henry) really like the extra tall (7') models to look over crowds, on a steep hillside or straddling a barrier of some sort, is better yet. Check Hudson's web site as he has good reviews of tripods and he sells tripods that he has customized. Hope this helps a bit, interested to read what others are thinking.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
This is not a brand comparison discussion so please no specific brand recommendations.

What I'm interested in is why so many top shooters say it is imperative to have a huge expensive tripod. I guess I don't like the cost as I can get a pretty decent lens instead for the same $3000 and I don't like the weight since I have to carry it on a trail, and I don't like the size since I have to find a place in the trunk for it and pay to ship it.

Doesn't a $300 tripod get the same result 90% of the time? If its a calm day and the setup is basic? What is needed to get that final 10%?

I guess I'm willing to spend the money if it really is the magic fairy dust that will change my life, but I'd need convincing.
Click to expand...
Not sure that big and heavy is the same as expensive. Except in cine applications. The most expensive still ones give you stability and durability in a light package.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
The largest I'd probably ever use would be an R5 with a 100-500, but more likely on a tripod it would be an R5 with a landscape size lens, going for a 1/4 to 1/2 second exposure on a waterfall for example and not wanting it to wiggle.
Click to expand...

Then IMO a $3k tripod is overkill. A nice moderately priced set of carbon fiber legs with either a quality ball-head or fluid-head will likely be all you ever need.

if you shoot a lot with a big telephoto f/4 prime with 1.4 or 2x teleconverters out in very windy conditions a big heavy duty tripod may be more beneficial.

For minimizing "wiggle" use a remote shutter-release or camera's timer. Adding more weight when windy with the aforementioned stone bag or hang a backpack under the tripod for added stability.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
This is not a brand comparison discussion so please no specific brand recommendations.

What I'm interested in is why so many top shooters say it is imperative to have a huge expensive tripod. I guess I don't like the cost as I can get a pretty decent lens instead for the same $3000 and I don't like the weight since I have to carry it on a trail, and I don't like the size since I have to find a place in the trunk for it and pay to ship it.

Doesn't a $300 tripod get the same result 90% of the time? If its a calm day and the setup is basic? What is needed to get that final 10%?

I guess I'm willing to spend the money if it really is the magic fairy dust that will change my life, but I'd need convincing.
Click to expand...
I just looked. Without mentioning brands, arguably the best stick/ballhead combo on the market is 4.2lb, costs about $1,600 and rated for 50lb. I've been using it for many years and it is indestructible.
 
The answer depends on which 10% of your photo opportunities you're willing to sacrifice. Generally a bigger heavier tripod (assuming similar materials/construction) will be better able to resist vibration from wind or from water flowing around the legs, OTOH a heavier tripod is one you're less likely to carry very far. IMHO $3k is overkill for most applications.

As others have mentioned, avoid long center columns. If you need height for use on slopes or to position the camera over obstructions use a tripod with long legs; heavier, more $$$ but if you need the height there's no substitute.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
What I'm interested in is why so many top shooters say it is imperative to have a huge expensive tripod. I guess I don't like the cost as I can get a pretty decent lens instead for the same $3000 and I don't like the weight since I have to carry it on a trail, and I don't like the size since I have to find a place in the trunk for it and pay to ship it.

Doesn't a $300 tripod get the same result 90% of the time? If its a calm day and the setup is basic? What is needed to get that final 10%?
Click to expand...
When shooting from a tripod, sturdy is certainly important and things like height (higher than head level to deal with hillsides, high nest shots and irregular terrain) and adjustability are important but that doesn't mean you have to go with the highest priced tripods out there. Sure, if you want the best of the best then get a top end lightweight carbon fiber tripod from a top vendor like RRS or Gitzo.

But these days there are a lot of good options from the likes of Benro, Feisol, Leofoto and others that are pretty darn good and meet both the sturdiness and adjustability criteria. Will they last as long and will things like the locks remain smooth and trouble free for as many years? Hard to say as the top end stuff is very, very good and that level of quality does cost money but in my experience some of the recent less expensive tripods are also quite good at very attractive price points.

If your tripod work will generally be close to the car then there's also the option of older aluminum alloy tripods like older but rock solid Glitzo tripods like an older G-1410 that weighs a lot more than the carbon fiber models and isn't as pleasant to use in very hot or very cold conditions but is rock solid and can often be found for really good prices on the used market.
 
Member's gallery
There are these reasons I would give to you as an answer.
  • Durability of the build
    • good tripod will outlast any any gear change as it is gear agnostic
    • good tripod is made of very good materials and very well crafted
    • Unless broken by an accident its value is very little diminished by years of use
    • Hence price per year is less for an excellent one
  • Duration of shaking caused by a gear setting.
    • The bigger the gear is the sooner the shake is dampened
    • The heavier the max load is the less it will shake in the first place
    • Hence one is not restrained by the tripod
  • Possibility to use full length of the tripod
    • No limitations on your gear when fully extended
    • Hence the possibility to extend one leg to its full length when shooting on a steep slopes
Beware, good tripod may be compromised by a mediocre ball head or gimbal.
I am using Rollei Alpha XL with a price tag of 500 Euro.
 
Member's gallery
I still use the aluminum Gitzo tripod I purchased in 1979 and it works as well now as it did then. I have updated the head a few times as my needs changed but the tripod still works as well as it did the day I purchased it. It is heavy and I don't really remember what I paid for it, but I do remember thinking that it was very expensive at the time. What ever the cost was it is probably the best value in photography I have ever had. I do have a smaller carbon fiber tripod that I travel with when weight and size is important.

Purchase a good tripod and head now and you won't have to worry about that piece of equipment for many years.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
The largest I'd probably ever use would be an R5 with a 100-500, but more likely on a tripod it would be an R5 with a landscape size lens, going for a 1/4 to 1/2 second exposure on a waterfall for example and not wanting it to wiggle.
Click to expand...
For a 200-500 lens I don't think you need a heavy tripod. Not suggesting you but a RRS, but their level 2 should work great with this lens. If you think you may add a 500/600 or similar lens to your kit, might consider a level 3 tripod. Again, not suggesting RRS, though their products are EXCELLENT, just that I am familiar with them.

Buy advise - buy a really good tripod and get one that is taller than you think you will need on level ground. Two important uses for a tall tripod. First on a hillside and second shouting up (camera is taller than you head so you don't have to bend down).

A good tripod will last you years. I still have my 15 year RRS BH-55 and it works flawlessly. Tripods are about 10 years old and have not had a problem with them. Other than muy bad case of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) I seen no reason to replace them.
 
Member's gallery
I'm 5'3" tall and use an extended height tripod. I need the height when shooting the sky or architecture, especially very high ceilings. In the early 90's I bought a carbon fiber Gitzo for about $600....expensive at that time. My husband is now using it for video and it is in great shape. Not a bad investment after 30 years of use...... A few years ago I got a RRS TVC24 tall for my 600 f4 for $1,000. I use it for wildlife......and landscapes and architecture (which often requires exposure bracketing). More than adequate for the way I use it. I expect it to last me the rest of my lifetime. I try to buy the best quality I need - once. YMMV......
 
Member's gallery
Looking at Steve's survey of handheld vs. tripod vs. monopod it seems that a lot of us take 80-90% of our photographs handheld. The question then becomes "What is that final 10-20% worth to you?". Although I occasionally use a tripod in a blind or when photographing waterfalls, the vast majority of the time when I need a support it's either a monopod or a beanbag. My monopod began life as a birch sapling and is fitted with a Manfroto tilthead (used) and a quick-release clamp, so the cost was minimal. My beanbag is homemade based on Simon Eardley's design and filled with millet seed. For my style of photography (with Olympus cameras and lenses -- which are very light) I can't justify spending big bucks on a tripod or lugging anything heavy.
 
Member's gallery
The way I look at it is the sturdiness/stiffness/quality/cost of the tripod is inversely proportional to the target shutter speed. If all you're doing is using the tripod to hold a 600mm lens while you wait for action but are able to shoot at hand-held shutter speeds, any cheap lightweight tripod will do. But if you're shooting long exposure stills or long-lens video, then you're getting into the higher weight/quality/cost class. I do long-lens video and have $4k invested just in my tripod and fluid head, and it's by no means overkill.
 
Member's gallery
There's much useful advice, explanations given through this thread. My only addition is to suggest it's well worth reading up about the principles of tripod specifications/materials etc and on the few sources that make rigorous comparisons. This is essential to get beyond the brand advertising, and seine through many options on the market.

A great deal depends on why you are buying a tripod (s) in the first place. Thus not only weight of gear, and focal lengths, but above all, what are your Subjects, and how you photograph, and/or film.... So several factors determine tripod selection, and there's also the quality of the materials, machining, patented features etc, and all these ramp up the costs.

Thom Hogan has "tripod advice" articles buried in his websites.

Above all, the Center Column is essential reading IMHO
thecentercolumn.com

The Center Column

Independent Tripod Testing
thecentercolumn.com thecentercolumn.com
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
This is not a brand comparison discussion so please no specific brand recommendations.

What I'm interested in is why so many top shooters say it is imperative to have a huge expensive tripod. I guess I don't like the cost as I can get a pretty decent lens instead for the same $3000 and I don't like the weight since I have to carry it on a trail, and I don't like the size since I have to find a place in the trunk for it and pay to ship it.

Doesn't a $300 tripod get the same result 90% of the time? If its a calm day and the setup is basic? What is needed to get that final 10%?

I guess I'm willing to spend the money if it really is the magic fairy dust that will change my life, but I'd need convincing.
Click to expand...
The answer partially depends upon the kind of shooting you do. For landscapes and macro work, a quality, sturdy tripod is essential. Many people shoot wildlife (birds especially) hand held, but frankly I prefer using a tripod with a gimbal head, primarily because it takes the load off my aging arms, and because it provides more fluidity and better stability in most situations. In my opinion, having a well made, sturdy tripod is almost as important as a good camera and lens. And don’t be tempted to go cheap - you’ll end up spending more in the long term by buying successively better tripods, after losing cameras and lenses from cheap tripod failures. You’re much better off buying the very best tripod you can afford up front. Just ask yourself: would you honestly trust $5,000-$10,000 in camera gear on a $250 tripod?
 
Member's gallery
You don't need to spend $3000, $500-$1000 or so will give you a good set of carbon fiber legs and a good ball head. I wouldn't go any less than that though. My tripod legs cost $450 (Benro), and ball head cost $650 (RRS BH55), and it is as sturdy as I ever need. But you can get acceptable ball heads for much less than that. At any rate, a sturdy tripod is essential. Get one but don't spend $3000 (or less than $500 IMO).
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
The largest I'd probably ever use would be an R5 with a 100-500, but more likely on a tripod it would be an R5 with a landscape size lens, going for a 1/4 to 1/2 second exposure on a waterfall for example and not wanting it to wiggle.
Click to expand...
You do not need an expensive tripod. The best thing to do is to hang a heavy weight from the tripod to reduce vibration. I have a bag/hammock that attaches to all 3 legs and I fill with stones. Obviously your camera/lens must be locked down.
That said I have 4 large tripods all different sizes and weights from 8’ to 5’ and all with levelling heads — I lov my monster but it is too big to carry far. Carbon Fibre tends to be easier when it is very cold. I also use ground pods when shooting from ground level.
 
Member's gallery
You don't need to spend $3K for a heavy duty and sturdy tripod. The key things I would look for in a tripod is height, leg style, and size when completely closed for any travel restrictions you may have. A tripod that does not fit you, your needs or allows you to have it with you when you will need it is a waste of money.

For well under $1K you can get a tripod that is well built, light for its size, carbon fiber and in my case I have one of my tripods that will easily go to over 7'.

Also, on the $300 budget depending on the weight of your gear, the type of use, your height requirements etc. some will be well served by a tripod in that price range. My spouse is 5'4 I am 6', we need different max heights plus extra to allow for uneven ground etc.

Do you have heavier older large glass or modern new mirrorless which is lighter? Do you just want to shoot astro, landscapes etc. with a ball head or do you want to put an old 600 or 800 lens that is significantly heavy with say a D5 type body? If so you need more tripod than someone using a Z6 and 300PF on a tripod. I own 3 tripods so I can shoot more than one camera at time and I have different length and weight needs for different gear.

Like many things in life the big fancy name brands that are super expensive aren't as special as they once were. We have plenty of choices that can deliver great results without having to buy the most expensive brands.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top