Tripod max height and user's height

[GreenGuy33]

At 6'5" tall, and an avid nature photographer, do I need a taller tripod, or is it the composition height that is most important?
I have a 20 year old steel bogen/manfrotto tripod that is showing its age. I'd like to get a carbon fiber tripod (that won't break the bank).

 

[Designer]

I think you might as well be comfortable while shooting.

There are some really tall tripods, try Manfrotto. They have one that gets really tall.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Perspective is what matters. That being said, you'd still want a tripod that will be tall enough for you to shoot with standing up, without having to extend the center column (if it has one). There's no such thing as a tripod that's too tall. An elevated perspective can be just as interesting as a ground level one.

Personally, I went through this dilemma not too long ago and ended up with the Sirui R4203L. It's a very tall tripod (73") which allows me to get overhead shots when I need too (I am only 5'7" after all) while being light weight, sturdy, and it fit well into my budget.

Sirui R 4203 L Full Length by tltichy, on Flickr​

Another brand that is affordable and well respected is Feisol. I know a fair number of people who use them and all are happy with them.

Induro is another of the "affordable" carbon tripod companies. They make some very stout tripods and have recently introduced their own "Systematic" style pods as well (center columnless tripods).

 

[CameraClicker]

You're taller than me. I hunted through the available offerings to find one that I could stand upright with eye to the viewfinder, without extending the centre column. At the same time, the legs can splay out to let the camera be about 4 inches above ground. Over time I have taken photos with the camera at almost every height between the extremes available. Stability and vibration reduction are also important features. Of course, if you are carrying it, weight matters, too.

 

[ronlane]

I'd like to get a carbon fiber tripod (that won't break the bank).

I think that they've pretty much covered the height thing but a carbon fiber tripod that won't break the bank. That's a unicorn there.

 

[astroNikon]

Check into adoramas flashpoint carbon fiber tripods.
They're still expensive becz you want height., stability and carbon fiber.
I have slik tripods and I think their AMT line like the 700 is pretty sturdy and tall and light. The CF - carbon fibers are lighter still.
My professional is very tall.

you also didn't mention if you wanted a head with it.
Flashpoint CF tripods --> Flashpoint Tripod Legs | Buy, Compare & Review | Adorama

example of SLiks --> Slik Carbon Fiber Tripod Legs | Buy, Compare & Review | Adorama

this one goes 100 inches tall but has a tall price --> Slik Professional Grand Pro CF-4 Carbon Tripod Leg Set 616165

you can peruse all the tripods and get a good example of price etc as they have Manfrotto and all the other top brands.

Use their search features on the left to look at all the CF tripods with a certain height .. it's not 100% accurate but you can peruse tons of stuff --> http://www.adorama.com/l/Tripods-an...er|Minimum-Height_7-dot-1-quotes-to-10-quotes

 

[JoeW]

At 6'5" tall, and an avid nature photographer, do I need a taller tripod, or is it the composition height that is most important?
I have a 20 year old steel bogen/manfrotto tripod that is showing its age. I'd like to get a carbon fiber tripod (that won't break the bank).

Totally depends upon your needs.

I have 3 tripods. One is a travel tripod. It's shorter than my height, I'd ideally like it to be a bit taller. But it is stable and fits in carry-on luggage. Another is really small (will fit in a messenger bag) and is really about providing some increased stability. A third fits my height well but is a bear to lug around on location shoots or to fly with.

My point is not that you need 3-4-5 tripods (though...why stop at just one?). It's that you should be clear on your needs. You said you're avid nature photographer. So I'd think that priorities for you would be stability (b/c your shooting with a 200mm or 400mm lens). Or portability (b/c you have to schlep it some places on foot). Or ability to deal with rough ground (so perhaps spikes on the legs).

I really think it's a mistake to try to get a tripod that has "everything" b/c "everything" often means its a weak compromise. Get a tripod that does what is really important to you really well. So that starts with you deciding on what your priorities are for a tripod and then going from there.

 

[KmH]

+1 that covering all bases means having several tripods.

IMO carbon fiber is a poor material for a tripod.
Specifically, carbon fiber is to stiff and does not damp vibration as effectively as aluminum or wood does.

Plus, the few ounces of weight savings relative to the cost doesn't compute for me.

 

[Scatterbrained]

+1 that covering all bases means having several tripods.

IMO carbon fiber is a poor material for a tripod.
Specifically, carbon fiber is to stiff and does not damp vibration as effectively as aluminum or wood does.

Plus, the few ounces of weight savings relative to the cost doesn't compute for me.

Actually, carbon is considered to dampen vibrations better than aluminum, which is one of the reasons it's become so commonplace. Ride a mountain bike with an aluminum handlebar, then replace that with a carbon bar and ride the same trail, the difference between the two materials becomes painfully obvious. Of course wood offers the best vibration dampening, but it's not exactly lightweight.

 

[theHomelessJedi]

Also take into consideration what ballhead you'll be using. That usually adds a few inches into the camera height as well.