Jump to content

Affordable tripod for long exposures and environmental photography

Dipper

Recommended Posts

Dipper

Dipper

Posted
Posted

Hi,

Santa asked what do I want for Christmas and I figured I would really want a tripod. I was always amazed by startrail pictures and wanted to do those myself and I also wanted to add some quality to my simple envoronmetal photos - photographing city, landscapes, holiday pictures. I have a Nikon D40 whitch weighs around 1,0-1,1 kilograms with the lens and I also have a remote shutter release.

So having these in mind (wanting to take long exposure pictures, taking occasional industrial pictures and knowing my camera is just over 1 kilo), what would be a good choice for a reasonably priced tripod? I was looking at this Hama Star 61 Tripod: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics and youtube reviews are neat but hey, what do I know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Photosbykev

Photosbykev

Posted
Posted

As Tinker has said you do get what you pay for and buying a cheap lightweight tripod will soon have you wishing you paid more or saved up to buy a better one.

You can improve the stability of any tripod by hanging weights, like a camera bag, off the underside of the tripod but a good tripod can cost a lot of money. Certain features also improve the stability, don't buy a tripod with a rising central column and don't buy a tripod with more than 3 sections in each leg and just because a tripod will stand 8' tall doesn't make it better, a tripod that has a height of no more than 5-6 feet will be more stable.

The SLIK range are, what I would call, bottom end of an average tripod. Better tripods include Manfrotto and then Ghiotto and at the top end Gitzo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grunthos

Grunthos

Posted
Posted

Ever the contrarian I like the Hama range. I still own a Hama Star 63 (only 15 squid last time I looked).

It is a decent tripod in a cheap and cheerful sort of way (and I still use it when I'm in "guerilla photography" mode). Great for grab and go photography.

You will "get what you pay for". However, bigger ain't necessarily better and, as with many things in life, the law of diminishing returns applies.

If you are prepared for a less than optimal mount (but still good enough some of the time) go for the Hama range.

You can always spec up later...(e.g. I just bought a Horizon 8115 and it's excellent - but....a lot heavier....)

Just my 2p worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dipper

Dipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You will "get what you pay for". However, bigger ain't necessarily better and, as with many things in life, the law of diminishing returns applies.

If you are prepared for a less than optimal mount (but still good enough some of the time) go for the Hama range.

Have you tried to take long exposure pictures? And I mean long, like leaving it on for several hours in the open?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MG1

MG1

Posted
Posted

I would certainly recommend investing in a good tripod if you think you'll be using it a lot.

I've had a manfrotto 55proB for almost 12 years...it's a bit scuffed from use in places but it's solid, pretty much indestructible and quick to setup.

I was a student when I bought it and swallowed hard at parting with that much cash, but it's fully user serviceable and I will get many more uses out of it. Cost per use is pennies so well worth the investment.

Why not ask for contributions towards and treat yourself once you have saved up.

Sorry, that's prob not what you wanted to here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ags

Ags

Posted
Posted

I know next to nothing about cameras but have you considered an AZ3 mount - these can cope with small telescopes and can easily carry a camera with a wide-field lens. I just bought the Celestron equivalent (Celestron Heavy-Duty Alt-Azimuth Tripod) and intend to use it for wide-field and telephoto pictures using my 1100D. My only quibble is that the altitude axis is very stiff. This is because the mount is inherently unbalanced so it can only hold its position through friction. It cost me 100 euros - that must be 20 pounds these days? :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MG1

MG1

Posted
Posted

A lot does depend upon what you're going to put on it. As soon as you start getting some good glass the weight adds up and most cheaper tripods (with fixed heads) will either slip or have the dreaded shift when you tighten them up.

Again it all depends upon your aspirations.. As with many things in photography to a certain extent you get what you pay for. You just have to decide if those are features you want to be paying for.

I've used the manfrotto with a geared head and an 80mm scope as a grab and go...now using it with the 66. It managed both easily.

If you want to shoot landscapes, architecture or macro and need control to frame accurately then a cheap head/tripod combination will be incredibly frustrating. They tend to shift when you tighten them up and change you framing.

If you shoot sport or nature and want a friction head to enable supported panning then again you'll find slippage on cheaper heads will start to bug you.

However, if you're getting started these are good to get used to general tripod tech. I still have some cheap plastic pods that I occasionally mount flash heads on.

A good pair of legs has more flexibility but if you can't afford a separate head too you may be better off just getting out there with whatever you can get your hands on.

Don't be pressured into buying into the hobby, but don't be fooled that you don't get what you pay for.

As I already said, it's whether or not YOU need those features.

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgs001

jgs001

Posted
Posted

If you want cheap, then you could do a lot worse than the redsnapper that Petet mentioned. I have one, it's not light (2.5kg) but it's sturdy, I use it for shooting the moon at in excess of 1200mm with my 80ed and it's not exactly well balanced on top. I use shutter speeds down to 1/10s at that focal length. I've shot a 30 min exposure with just the camera and lens, about the same weight as you describe and it was solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.