7 hundred to a camera?

[shorty6049]

if you can afford it, look for something from bogen/manfrotto. I've been looking at those lately, but i cant really afford one right now, so i'll probably get something cheaper from Amvona.com they sell tripods that are decent, for really good prices if you cant afford the good stuff.

 

[kundalini]

If it's a cheap tripod (as reg suggests....the link isn't working for me) hang some weight on it like your camera bag.

 

[reg]

Yeah, it's only 40 bucks (lol) BUT it says it hold up to 5kg.

Still, keep that thing on a close watch and hook some weight on.

 

[vbrandon91]

kinda harsh...

but no way im ever gonna spend more than 50 on a tripod...im doing this as a hobby not as a profesion .
whats the difference?
price?

 

[reg]

The difference is that one holds your camera and one breaks it. They always always always always end up making people cry if they get to the end of their lifespan.

And if you took the (lol) as being harsh, did you miss where I said I had used worse? It wasn't meant to be insulting, but that still is gonna be one bad tripod!

I just highly suggest you rethink even using a tripod if you're unwilling to more then 50 bucks on the SOLE THING keeping the camera from falling onto the ground.

 

[vbrandon91]

do the other ones have stakes into the ground or what?
i just dont see myself spending 300 on something thats just gonna hold the camera..i could buy a couple of batteries and some more cards..
i know your probly right i just find it hard to believe

oh yeah i didnt see it cuz its in asteriks..[the stars]....

 

[reg]

Yeah, the forum does that automatically. It doesn't like my vocabulary



The other ones are just more stable, really. It's all in build quality. And some are carbon fiber, which is a pretty expensive material anyway.

A more better-er tripod at $145

 

[vbrandon91]

if i have my camera on the tripod i will be right behind it..

ill just do what kundalini suggested and add more weight...
i used the tripod for my old video camera and nothin ever happened to it so i trust it//...

 

[Overread]

Carbon fibre is really nice if you can afford it, but it really adds to the cost of the tripod (sometimes double the price or more). Plus some people don't like the lighter weight as it is partly defeating the point of a tripod.

If you use a cheapy tripod you are right you will be behind it every time holding the camera, that can be limiting many times; and I don't just mean with getting yourself in the shot. Much photography works best when you don't have a hand on the camera and can shoot by remote or timer - as this reduces camera shake and this gets you sharper shots (think static subjects, buildings, landscapes, macro work, flowers etc...)
A cheap tripod is better than no tripod, but don't discount them as a cheap area - remember you payed how much for that camera and lens and other bits and your going to put all that money on top of $40 worth of tripod???

 

[nynfortoo]

I see tripods like tyres; they're the only thing stopping you (the camera) from wiping out on the floor. Best not to scrimp on them.

 

[Alex_B]

You're still probably gonna need a graduated neutral density filter to get any sort of speed in the seconds during the day.

while graduated filters have their use, in this case we are talking of a standard ND filter without a gradient. The graduation would not help too much when trying to get longer exposures of the water.



As for the tripod, one important thing they are supposed to do is to damp vibrations, vibrations of the mirror, vibrations through wind, vibrations through the ground, this is quite important for lengthy exposures ... and wobble-pods like the one suggested are not particularly good at this. it is true, within limits applying some extra weight does help, but some of those lightweight tripods just cannot take too much weight.


and if you plan to travel ... play with your camera beforehand ... don't start just on vacation. You will have a learning curve, and you do not want to be at its beginning when you are out there to capture your travels.

 

[Alex_B]

oh, and to come to that first question, are 700 a worthwhile investment for you ... only you can decide that! My Ex did great photography with a good p&s on some trips we did together.. but of course there were moments when her camera was just not sufficient. Those were the moments when I was happy to lug my ton of equipment around with me

Keep in mind, on here you are talking to fetishists who take equipment worth 7000 and more on trips like the one you plan. so there will always be voices saying, yes, spend your money

 

[TamiyaGuy]

To answer your original question, Vbrandon, the 18-55 kit lens and a 55-200 telephoto will do you very nicely for almost every situation. Talking about "crisper images" that you wanted, a DSLR will certainly help with that. A crop DSLR's sensor is about 7 times larger than a high-zoom point & shoot camera, and the general rule is that the more pixels you cram into a space, the more each pixel quality will degrade.

And with regards to the tripod, that one will do you. I use a £20 Jessops tripod, and it hasn't fallen over... yet. Sure, I need to allow for its lack of rigidity, but it works. So long as you keep an eye on it and set it up carefully, your camera will be fairly safe (I say "fairly" because no matter what support you use, having a camera suspended 1.5m off the ground isn't exactly safe as houses). Also, a proper tripod will certainly minimize camera shake, but yet again, it is possible to compensate for this with a cheaper tripod.

For example, The bunny photos in this thread were taken at a very slow shutter speed (average of 1/20s), at 200mm, and with no mirror lock-up for self-timer mode. And they came out OK, right? RIGHT??

The bottom line is that a "bad" tripod will do you, you just need to be careful.

 

[rlcphotos]

lol this os a amusing thread,,,but my first tripod was a $19.95 plus tax from walmart,,added some weight to it and bingo,,now I do have a better one but had to save up for it....

 

[vbrandon91]

lots of good info here thanks guys..but yet another question?

canon g9 or the d40

ive read on several other forums that the d40 has better pictures and is just all around a better camera...

but the canon g9 ?

sorry to put a point n shoot camera on here ..