Can anyone recommend a tripod for a Nikon D3100 which a) isn't going to let me (or the camera!) down, and b) isn't going to break the bank? I'm not a pro, I'm a (beginning) hobbyist, so spending more than the camera cost seems kind of overkill, but on the other hand I do want to know that when I put the thing up it isn't going to collapse.
Failing that, are there any brands you would recommend, or that I should steer clear of? Then I can always pop into a local camera shop forearmed.
A cheap tripod may end up costing you more in the long run, as you may get frustrated with it (not stable, heads not interchangeable, fiddly to fit the camera on etc). Have a look at Manfrotto tripods, these are very good, strong, and not massively expensive. I have one I use quite a bit and am very happy with it. The more stable the tripod, the less vibration you will get from wind. Also, have a look at Nikon's ML-L3 remote it is only about £17 and will prevent any camera shake when you are taking photos using the tripod. I did buy a cheap one at first and ended up buying a better one in the end, and using the cheap one as a flash stand
I have a couple of velbon tripods one small and one large both were under £25 they have interchangable heads and they are well built they work a treat with my D3100 I have seen tripods that cost hundreds but they all do the same thing in the end
Ps my fav tripod is a bean bag that I use to steady my camera fits in a pocket and works great...
I have a D3100 and have been using a Vista Explorer tripod for two years. You can buy it brand new on Amazon for $23. It has never let me down, highly recommended.
My preference is to shoot freehand, but I have a Sunpak, which is a nice little work horse, not very expensive and holds my camera with telephoto quite steady. Also, has a nice easy release attachment, so I can go from tri-pod to hand held very quickly.
I have a ProMaster carbon fibre that I love. I have about 8 tripods of various sizes and composites, and that ProMaster is my first choice every time. I use a Manfrotto pistol grip head most of the time, although I have a panoramic head that I pop on there occasionally.
Spend the $ on a good tripod up front. I'd have saved a lot of money if I'd gone with a carbon fibre at the beginning. I can carry this thing around with me all day, and not get tired.
The D3100 is a very light camera, unless you're strapping a super-telephoto lens to the front of it, it's very unlikely any tripod you can buy would actually physically collapse under the weight.
Most decent tripods will specify a load rating, and by looking online (or using a scale) you'll very easily be able to calculate the combined weight of your camera and heaviest lens (or the heaviest lens you think you'll buy in the future, if you want to future-proof). Try and go for a tripod that is specified to double that weight if possible, especially if from a no-name manufacturer.
If the tripod doesn't specify a load rating, like the Argos one, then it's probably worth steering clear. (I see the Argos work experience students have been working on the website again, the three-way pinhead amused me somewhat!). That one from Argos actually states what cameras it's suitable for, and DSLRs aren't listed.
As I said earlier, almost no tripod will collapse under the weight of your equipment, so why does it matter? A tripod that isn't rated to hold the weight of your equipment will not be steady when you put that equipment on it. The slightest gust of wind will cause it to shake, blurring your shots and making the tripod relatively useless, especially when used with a telephoto lens.
As an example, here is a (poor) video of how my travel tripod behaves in a *very* light breeze when a 300mm lens is mounted. This is a video of the camera in live view mode zoomed in 10x:
Note that the wind sounds worse than it was, it really was the lightest of breezes. You can see that the picture in the viewfinder is shaking significantly -- this is probably 10-15 pixels of movement as seen by the sensor. That means every sharp detail is smeared across that many pixels, and would literally turn a 22 megapixel image into one that's only sharp when scaled down to around 2 megapixels. I wasn't touching the tripod, and it was on a solid base -- this is solely the effect of the wind hitting the camera. That tripod is a high-end Velbon model, but because it's a travel tripod and extremely light, it's not rated to hold the weight of my camera and that lens, and that's the result.
I would also steer clear of any tripod with a centre brace (struts connecting the centre column to the legs) -- this generally suggests that the tripod is not built sturdily and requires the brace to have any degree of rigidity. It also drastically reduces the usefulness of the tripod, as you can't set the legs to different angles, which is key in tricky situations like macro photography, or uneven surfaces. If a surface isn't flat, it's much easier to adjust the angle of one of the legs to compensate rather than to adjust the height of one of the legs. Take a look next time you see someone using a tripod on an uneven surface -- almost always they will have left the tripod at an angle and be using the head to level the camera.
This is the reason for 99% of tripod-related camera damage -- the user doesn't realise how close the tripod is to overbalancing, lets go to grab a filter from their bag, and the tripod slowly, gracefully topples over, bringing their camera crashing to the ground. I have personally seen this happen 4 or 5 times to different people. A tripod with independently adjustable leg angles is much easier to use, and you will be more likely to use it correctly because of that.
With all that being said, a lot of people say that you should buy a nice tripod up-front, and there's a lot to be said for that. If you are taking photography seriously, plan to be at it for a long time, have a decent camera and lenses and think there's a chance in the future you'll be upgrading to an even better camera and lenses, then yes, buying a high-quality tripod and head is a superb investment and will save years of frustration with cheaper models (and more money spent overall). However, that doesn't fit the profile of everyone on this site -- if that doesn't sound like you, then it could well make more sense to buy a cheaper tripod. Just try and get one rated to hold a suitable weight, and without a centre brace.
If you have a local camera shop of the independent sort, it may be worth asking about second hand heads. That's how I got my Manfrotto #029 for a song, and that'll support just about anything. Probably better to buy the legs new, however.
Thanks, all. Who knew there was so much to consider! I certainly hadn't thought any tripod would give the kind of wobble shown in Alexis' video. What's the point of a tripod that does that when I wobble less holding the camera in my hand? (Yes, okay, I'm a cynic and can answer my own question: "The point is to make money".)
It seems like Manfrotto are highly rated. I'll look at them. Thank you again.
keep in mind that you don't have to be a pro to appreciate a lighter tripod as you carry it where ever you go... airports, mountain hikes, rocky beaches... a heavy tripod wears you out pretty quickly.
a light, shaky tripod is no good at all.
so, spend the $ on a carbon fibre. you get stability and mobility in one. they're more expensive, but you benefit from the moment you buy it.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Ps my fav tripod is a bean bag that I use to steady my camera fits in a pocket and works great...
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/113866.htm
Spend the $ on a good tripod up front. I'd have saved a lot of money if I'd gone with a carbon fibre at the beginning. I can carry this thing around with me all day, and not get tired.
Most decent tripods will specify a load rating, and by looking online (or using a scale) you'll very easily be able to calculate the combined weight of your camera and heaviest lens (or the heaviest lens you think you'll buy in the future, if you want to future-proof). Try and go for a tripod that is specified to double that weight if possible, especially if from a no-name manufacturer.
If the tripod doesn't specify a load rating, like the Argos one, then it's probably worth steering clear. (I see the Argos work experience students have been working on the website again, the three-way pinhead amused me somewhat!). That one from Argos actually states what cameras it's suitable for, and DSLRs aren't listed.
As I said earlier, almost no tripod will collapse under the weight of your equipment, so why does it matter? A tripod that isn't rated to hold the weight of your equipment will not be steady when you put that equipment on it. The slightest gust of wind will cause it to shake, blurring your shots and making the tripod relatively useless, especially when used with a telephoto lens.
As an example, here is a (poor) video of how my travel tripod behaves in a *very* light breeze when a 300mm lens is mounted. This is a video of the camera in live view mode zoomed in 10x:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1UPFE8VkI
Note that the wind sounds worse than it was, it really was the lightest of breezes. You can see that the picture in the viewfinder is shaking significantly -- this is probably 10-15 pixels of movement as seen by the sensor. That means every sharp detail is smeared across that many pixels, and would literally turn a 22 megapixel image into one that's only sharp when scaled down to around 2 megapixels. I wasn't touching the tripod, and it was on a solid base -- this is solely the effect of the wind hitting the camera. That tripod is a high-end Velbon model, but because it's a travel tripod and extremely light, it's not rated to hold the weight of my camera and that lens, and that's the result.
I would also steer clear of any tripod with a centre brace (struts connecting the centre column to the legs) -- this generally suggests that the tripod is not built sturdily and requires the brace to have any degree of rigidity. It also drastically reduces the usefulness of the tripod, as you can't set the legs to different angles, which is key in tricky situations like macro photography, or uneven surfaces. If a surface isn't flat, it's much easier to adjust the angle of one of the legs to compensate rather than to adjust the height of one of the legs. Take a look next time you see someone using a tripod on an uneven surface -- almost always they will have left the tripod at an angle and be using the head to level the camera.
This is the reason for 99% of tripod-related camera damage -- the user doesn't realise how close the tripod is to overbalancing, lets go to grab a filter from their bag, and the tripod slowly, gracefully topples over, bringing their camera crashing to the ground. I have personally seen this happen 4 or 5 times to different people. A tripod with independently adjustable leg angles is much easier to use, and you will be more likely to use it correctly because of that.
With all that being said, a lot of people say that you should buy a nice tripod up-front, and there's a lot to be said for that. If you are taking photography seriously, plan to be at it for a long time, have a decent camera and lenses and think there's a chance in the future you'll be upgrading to an even better camera and lenses, then yes, buying a high-quality tripod and head is a superb investment and will save years of frustration with cheaper models (and more money spent overall). However, that doesn't fit the profile of everyone on this site -- if that doesn't sound like you, then it could well make more sense to buy a cheaper tripod. Just try and get one rated to hold a suitable weight, and without a centre brace.
Thanks, all. Who knew there was so much to consider! I certainly hadn't thought any tripod would give the kind of wobble shown in Alexis' video. What's the point of a tripod that does that when I wobble less holding the camera in my hand? (Yes, okay, I'm a cynic and can answer my own question: "The point is to make money".)
It seems like Manfrotto are highly rated. I'll look at them. Thank you again.
a light, shaky tripod is no good at all.
so, spend the $ on a carbon fibre. you get stability and mobility in one. they're more expensive, but you benefit from the moment you buy it.