Cheap Tripod?

These are quite handy to have in your camera bag for compact cameras. They're also useful for positioning battery flash units off-camera.

This page illustrates using a table top tripod in the field, showing you don't always need to carry a large support for a small camera.

And for going really small, it's worth remembering this classic designed by Walter Zapp. Beautifully made, the size of a long pen and built to last.

I've got one of these for my little sony compact. Cost about £2 off Amazon. It's actually really well made





Although for most camera stabilising scenarios I used things like walls, the floor and other solid objects to hold the camera against.







..

For only £124 NEW you can have one of the best tripods ever made....
a Leica wooden surveying tripod link
Just needs an adapter to a photographic head which I sure is
readily available. Wood is better than alloy at absorbing
vibrations and is warmer in cold weather. There used to be
a PDF on the Leica site detailing tests they'd done on their
range of tripods and the wooden ones came out top.

What kind of vibrations?

Are you talking about preventing the transmission of vibrations or preventing them happening in the first place?

If you're talking about the latter than assuming the surface the tripod is sitting on is totally solid then the most rigid/heavy tripod will cause the camera to vibrate the least when subject to excitation.

If you're talking about the former then the resonant frequency of the mass-spring-mass system is the single most important factor in determining how much vibration is isolated, and is frequency dependent

In this case 'mass-spring-mass' = 'earth-tripod-camera'

I can't any physical/practical reason why a wooden tripod would be better to avoid camera shake.


Tripod performance aside ... wood is not better than alloy at absorbing vibrations, as the ability to absorb vibrations depends on a large number of factors over just the material used to construct the absorber.







...

The Best one's actually made of Beech. This ones a lightweight made
of pine but still better than alloy tripods. You could stand on this
quite easily.... Whoops! I want one for when I get a
1000mm lens

In between are fibreglass tripods.

The Test Report is quite interesting:
http://www.tequipment.net/pdf/Leica/Tripod_Analysis.pdf

Pentax make some alloy one's not sure if they do wood as well, but
they were never in the same league as Leica.

I know of a few surviving examples around the local reservoirs. A friend who's into hill walking reckons that many are being removed due to people attempting to stand on them, falling off, breaking something and needing mountain rescue or the air ambulance to come and get them (or alternatively this is what the cotton wool brigade think might possibly happen)!

I haven't looked at them too closely, next time I'm up there I will try to find all three in each location. I did see a team using them a few months ago, believe it or not.

I suppose someone must have already come up with the idea of a spike you just drive into earth/sand and mount the camera on top of (probably via a ball head)?

- Actually I guess that would need to be quite heavy to be strong enough to be hammered in - in which case you may as well just take a tripod

Sounds like a monopod to me with a spike.
But seriously, wouldn't a monopod be more handy then such a small tripod, i don't really see a use for them.

While some of those test differences could affect the performance of surveying equipment to a small degree I can't see how this would relate to photogrpahy?. The accuracy of surveying equipment, which amazingly is used to build 2km bridges with a few mm tolerance, probably relates to a billionth of a pixel in photography terms.

Well after you've scared all the wildlife away with the hammering, I would guess that a spike into sand isn't going to be that fixed at all.

You wouldn't necessarily need to hammer it. I've got a screw-in ground spike here which I use for a bird feeder in winter, it was really intended for a clothes dryer I think. Comes with a length of steel bar which you put through a couple of holes in the top and use as a T bar to screw it in.

I don't see many locations being terribly keen on the resulting holes, however!

I have to say I disagree, cheap tripods can have their place. as long as they are mechanically sound and not likely to collapse then they are fine for mounting a camera and standard zoom in order to get yourself in the picture, they are fine for holiday sunsets or night time exposures etc, just dont expect to be able to use them in anything other than a slight breeze or expect super sharp prize winning shots.

As long as you choose a "branded" model and dont try and mount ridiculously long lenses they should be adaquate for occasional use.

My first ever tripod was the cheapest from Jessops "Atlantic" range, it served me well for many years and never collapsed or fell over.

I've got a Slik 88 which is pretty robust and cheap. Just make sure the leg clips are sound before you buy. The plastic can split.

I've also got an expensive CF tripod. Well, relatively expensive. Expensive for me anyway!

Bought the cheap one first, then saved for the expensive one.

The cheap one doesn't mind getting its spikes wet.in the sea.

Each has their uses.

Well I tried a monopod for long exposures once. No matter what I did, it just kept falling over

Just kidding- it's just a monopod wouldn't cover what I use a tripod for, which involves the camera being entirely self supported.

Just a question. Is it a normal practice here that nobody really cares about quite reasonable suggestions made within a given thread?