going steady: better tripod needed.

[jamiebonline]

Hi everyone

I am looking to buy a new tripod. What I have is terrible. It is a Velbon 44, or something. It was only 40 bucks maybe. I have about 200 dollars to spend. Could you help? I want to use it mostly for portraits. I would handhold but I have a manual lens and can't hold it steady enough to see the viewfinder magnified, in order to accurately focus at 1.4 or even 1.8. The lens has a chip (in it, not on its shoulder) which means the Nikon is able to confirm a point of focus but... I did a shoot Sunday and almost all the pics were out of focus. Granted by small degrees, but it is frustrating! The tripod might also be used for landscapes.
I know next to nothing about them. It seems I can get one and also a separate head for it? I think the ball and socket thing would be much better. One more thing that is very important. It is not much good if I can't tilt the camera 90 degrees on it in order to get pictures 'on the long end'

Thanks for your help. Excuse my lack of knowledge.

 

[Designer]

I own a Velbon "Sherpa", which seems perfectly adequate for holding my kit steady.

Perhaps your focusing problem is not actually caused by any deficiency in the tripod, but rather by the extremely shallow DOF?

 

[ronlane]

Perhaps your focusing problem is not actually caused by any deficiency in the tripod, but rather by the extremely shallow DOF?

This is very possible. The closer you are to the subject at 1.4 or 1.8, the smaller the amount of focus is in the DOF.

 

[FotosbyMike]

Perhaps your focusing problem is not actually caused by any deficiency in the tripod, but rather by the extremely shallow DOF?

I would also asked this question as shooting wide open is not always the best option.

Any ways $200 is a good amount to work with, I have a Manfrotto 190XPROL with a Manfrotto 496RC2 Ball head. But it looks like the 190XPROL has gone up in price a lot since I bought it. But this doesn't look bad http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-190...r_1_23?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1427894294&sr=1-23

 

[jamiebonline]

Perhaps your focusing problem is not actually caused by any deficiency in the tripod, but rather by the extremely shallow DOF?

Yes, for sure it makes it harder at 1.4 but that's really why I got the lens , to get more exaggerated bokeh and low light performance. If you had the cam steady I could magnify the viewfinder and pinpoint the focus on the eyes better... Tips for tripods sound good. Any more tripod options for under 200 are welcome. .. I also have a little big back problems so lighter is better as long as it is sturdy of course

 

[Designer]

Sturdy and light costs more. People who regularly hike into the back country with a tripod strive to save a few ounces of weight, so they buy carbon fiber tripods.

After you look them up and see the prices, you might decide that an aluminum tripod will suffice.

 

[D-B-J]

Sturdy and light costs more. People who regularly hike into the back country with a tripod strive to save a few ounces of weight, so they buy carbon fiber tripods.

After you look them up and see the prices, you might decide that an aluminum tripod will suffice.

Yes, carbon fiber is expensive. The set of legs (no head) I just picked up were $450 and I didn't even buy the best!

Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ronlane]

Yes, for sure it makes it harder at 1.4 but that's really why I got the lens , to get more exaggerated bokeh and low light performance.

You can get great bokeh stopped down to f/2.8 and that will help the dof issue. See this for help with it. Using a 50mm f/1.4 at 1.4 and being 10 feet from the subject you have a DOF of 0.68 ft, so just over 6 inches and at 5 feet you have 0.17 ft. This is really shallow.

 

[Derrel]

Aluminum tripods cost less than carbon fiber models, so I'd definitely look for something in aluminum. I would look at Adorama and B&H Photo websites.