How I learned to stop worrying and love cheap tripods.

I have searched, as have many others, for the perfect tripod.
Should I spend $400 or should I spend $30?
In my research there are statements that appear in articles repeatedly. I would like to comment on them.
Admittedly, I am not looking for the same thing as the people who write these articles.
I want a tripod to take pictures less than 10% of my shots. I want it for low light conditions, usually associated with dawn and dusk, and not for macro work ( I have a huge tripod at home for that stuff). I only want to use it when all other options fail.
I need to include it in my carry on luggage, but if security objects-- have no worries about handing it over to them to check through.

STATEMENTS:

-A tripod is not something you ever want to skrimp on. Spend the money to get a really good one.
Ok, yeah, I don't want it to fall apart after one use, or to have the legs constantly refuse to open or close, etc.
But I propose that it is entirely possible that my best option is to buy a cheap $30 tripod and be willing to replace it.
I understand the pure joy of having a fine well made piece of expensive machinery, but let's just call it that then. There is no absolute "need" for such equipment for everybody's situation.


-This tripod/head from company XXX will accomodate a weight of 4 pounds. Does anybody know what that means?
I have never found any explanation. Dead weight straight down? Any more and the legs buckle?
Maximum weight and be steady in a 20 mph wind? What?
I can tell you what I want it to mean- and what I have never seen discussed-I want it to mean I can attach my SLR with a long nose-heavy lens, pointed at a 45 degree down angle, lock the head in place, and not have it slowly tilt the nose over until it is straight down. If it can do that, it is strong enough.


-Your tripod needs to be sturdy enough and heavy enough to be rock solid in the wind.
Well, unless you are taking pictures of the stars rotating the poles, or photographing tornadoes, I disagree.
If it is sturdy enough not to fall over, and to hold the camera still enough for the short duration of somewhere under 3 seconds (and probably usually under a second) - you have covered a huge portion of what will ever be asked. Cheaper and lighter is just as good here.


-you simply must buy an expensive ball head. Those pan heads with handles are for losers.
I disagree. If, like me, you want to use the tripod a low percentage of the time, on shots that do not have excessive shutter times, and you want to get away cheaply-- then your best bet is actually the pan head.
The reason is related to the need for the head not to slowly tip as described above.
If you get a less than expensive ball head, it will probably not hold.
But if you get a cheap head with handles, you have the option of actually holding onto the handle and keeping the head from slowly tilting over.
Sure it's crude, it has no hi-tec pazaz whatsoever. But it will work. And it will be cheap.

Good post!

A $10 tripod is better than no tripod. Sure, a $600 tripod is a beatiful thing to look at and use. But no one should let lack of funds get in the way of owning a tripod. A cheap tripod might be annoying and it might not last. But if it works for a while and allows you to get photos you wouldn't have otherwise shot, then your $10 - $20 - $30 was well-spent. The real thing to avoid is putting off buying a tripod because you want the best. If you don't have much to spend, buy the WalMart POS tripod and start shooting. You can buy the carbon fiber Gitzo and ArcaSwiss balllhead when you're rich. But you might as well be taking sweet night shots in the meantime.

Who needs to spend a fortune on a big brand tripod, I'm loving my Amvona that I think I paid $70 shipped for on Ebay. Not the lightest tripod, which is fine with me, but it solid as a rock and smooth as silk :thumbsup:

As an owner of the Walmart POS model tripod, I can wholly support the cheap tripod logic. It's made of aluminum and plastic so it's not heavy at all, and while it probably won't last forever, I've beaten the heck out of it for over two years in the woods, through creeks, rocks, etc, and it's hardly the worse for wear. And as a bonus, I don't think twice about throwing into the creek and the mud to get the shot I need. Actually, I've never really found myself wanting more. If it broke I'd probably just go get another one. Now if you put a bazooka-sized lens and a 1D on top of it, then it may be a different story. And no, it won't levitate, hang from the ceiling, flip inside out, or any of that stuff. But it will darn well stand there with a camera on top of it and hold it still.

Excellent topic Dr_Zyzix! For me, the main requirement was that it was light enough and folded small enough that I'd actually take it with me. According to the manufacturer, the tripod I own will not support the weight I put on it (a very good point you made - under what conditions?) and yet it does. I probably dropped a little more than what WalMart charges for theirs, but it was still cheap - $59.00. It's a Monfrotto Modo and it's 5 segment legs fold up small enough to fit in a carry-on bag with room to spare, and light enough that I usually carry it with me everywhere (even when I think I won't need it). What good is a $600 tripod if it's sitting at home in the closet because it's too much of a P.I.T.A. to lug around?