Manfrotto or Hama tripods?
Posted 02/03/2013 - 13:12
Link
Quote:
Buy a heavy one that can stand in water or one leg on the ground and two up a wall or tree. Get a UNI-LOC. the fat end of the legs is at the bottom and they really are waterproof. The centre leg can hold a camera at either end so you can shoot at ground level. They are like a demented octopus until you get used to them and then you juust know they are THE BEST.
Sorry fellas but all the modern ones with their multi position centre legs just followed Benbo and the same people that made the Benbo then went on to make the UNI-LOC.
CHEERS Vic.
Spot on, the sturdier the better. The worst is a light flimsy tripod. it wobbles in the wind or nearby vibrations without noticing, but your picture misses some of the sharpness.Buy a heavy one that can stand in water or one leg on the ground and two up a wall or tree. Get a UNI-LOC. the fat end of the legs is at the bottom and they really are waterproof. The centre leg can hold a camera at either end so you can shoot at ground level. They are like a demented octopus until you get used to them and then you juust know they are THE BEST.
Sorry fellas but all the modern ones with their multi position centre legs just followed Benbo and the same people that made the Benbo then went on to make the UNI-LOC.
CHEERS Vic.
I have to Manfrottos, real heavy and very reliable.
The centre collumn lets you adjust the camera hight well and you can keep the tripod legs fully spread.
Better no tripod at all then a flimsy one.
Regards, Horst
Posted 02/03/2013 - 14:35
Link
Hi if it's too heavy then it could be a pain to carry around while walking, I plan on taking a tripod to Cornwall.
Always be kind to people
link
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Photographs-by-an-angel/262352847143059
link
link
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Photographs-by-an-angel/262352847143059
link
Posted 04/03/2013 - 21:51
Link
davidstorm wrote:
I wouldn't go for either Hama or Manfrotto for the following reasons:
- Hama are cheap but you get what you pay for, i.e. flimsy construction and won't last if used outside frequently (as I do with my tripod in all weathers!)
- Manfrotto are relatively expensive, better built but you are paying for the name
I agree with David. In fact, none of the "high street" brands are worth the money. They use cheap parts and cheap assembly. For example, I had a Slik that came highly recommended and fell apart after very little use. I could see they used the cheapest possible plastic bushings to hold the leg segments together. Here's what I learned after wasting money. I wouldn't go for either Hama or Manfrotto for the following reasons:
- Hama are cheap but you get what you pay for, i.e. flimsy construction and won't last if used outside frequently (as I do with my tripod in all weathers!)
- Manfrotto are relatively expensive, better built but you are paying for the name
1. If it isn't light to carry, you likely won't have it with you when you need it. A tripod sitting at home or in the car is completely useless.
2. A tripod that isn't sturdy is worthless. (Especially for lucky Pentax users with SR.)
3. "Carbon fibre" is a term that covers a multitude of sins.
4. A tripod that is light, sturdy, and made with quality carbon fibre will be expensive. The raw materials and workmanship demand this. There are no short-cuts. All good tripods are expensive!
I bought a Feisol for about 500 quid, half of what a competing brand would charge for the same quality. I did that as a rather poor person who rarely even uses a tripod. Why? Because... I simply can't afford to keep repurchasing rubbish.
Posted 04/03/2013 - 23:13
Link
AuraTodd wrote:
Hi if it's too heavy then it could be a pain to carry around while walking, I plan on taking a tripod to Cornwall.
But if it's too light it basically serves no purpose... You need to find a happy mediumHi if it's too heavy then it could be a pain to carry around while walking, I plan on taking a tripod to Cornwall.
Generally, heavier is sturdier...
If you do go for something lighter - make sure it has a hook on the bottom of the centre column - you can then hang your camera bag (or a tesco bag full of sand/bricks) from it, increasing the weight...
Also - using the 12second timer (or at the very least the 2 second timer as I do ) on your camera will help avoid vibrations in the tripod caused by you pressing the shutter button...
........................................................................
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/
Posted 05/03/2013 - 00:14 - Helpful Comment
Link
The Redsnapper is not 'light' but it's not 'heavy' either. It is well built and sturdy and will withstand heavy use. Try using a tripod in 60-70mph winds like we had in Derbyshire on a recent trip out. A Hama will just not cut the mustard in conditions like this. The Redsnapper will.
The Redsnapper also comes with 2 centre columns (short one and a long one), the short one for when you want to go down really low. The legs open out to a ridiculously wide angle, so the Redsnapper is one hell of a flexible tripod. It has clearly been designed by people who know what they are doing.
Back to the weight - if you are not prepared to carry around a decent tripod you are not really that serious about landscape photography - it is a necessity. The weight for me is not a factor and I am not a big bloke. I am happy to lug it around and would not go out without it.
All parts on the Redsnapper are metal, there's not any plastic anywhere on it, apart from the anti-twist bushes hidded within the legs and these are plastic because plastic is appropriate. For what it costs, it is the bargain of the century.
Regards
David
The Redsnapper also comes with 2 centre columns (short one and a long one), the short one for when you want to go down really low. The legs open out to a ridiculously wide angle, so the Redsnapper is one hell of a flexible tripod. It has clearly been designed by people who know what they are doing.
Back to the weight - if you are not prepared to carry around a decent tripod you are not really that serious about landscape photography - it is a necessity. The weight for me is not a factor and I am not a big bloke. I am happy to lug it around and would not go out without it.
All parts on the Redsnapper are metal, there's not any plastic anywhere on it, apart from the anti-twist bushes hidded within the legs and these are plastic because plastic is appropriate. For what it costs, it is the bargain of the century.
Regards
David
Posted 05/03/2013 - 02:03
Link
Something needs clarifying here. A light tripod can be useful, because it is not the weight that is important. After all, you can always add weight to a lighter tripod, in cases where this is really needed, either by weighing down the legs or by putting something heavy off a central hook. (I just noticed Dave Holmes wrote this already.)
More important than weight is rigidity. You do not want a tripod where any part can bend or flex. You want it to be robust under all kinds of torsion and stress. That's what aluminum can't offer, and nor can a tripod with poorly constructed joints.
More important than weight is rigidity. You do not want a tripod where any part can bend or flex. You want it to be robust under all kinds of torsion and stress. That's what aluminum can't offer, and nor can a tripod with poorly constructed joints.
Posted 05/03/2013 - 08:19
Link
Quote:
You want it to be robust under all kinds of torsion and stress. That's what aluminum can't offer, and nor can a tripod with poorly constructed joints
I may slightly disagree with this. Most tripod legs which are made of aluminium are very sturdy. Don’t forget, some aluminium alloys are as strong or stronger than steel. Both my Manfrotto tripods have tubular aluminium legs. I have a very old Viola tripod (from the 60s) which has U channel aluminium legs.You want it to be robust under all kinds of torsion and stress. That's what aluminum can't offer, and nor can a tripod with poorly constructed joints
If they where made of steel, the weight would be prohibitive.
However the fittings for the legs and for the camera mount is some heavy material.
As long as the legs have a reasonable diameter they will be rugged.
However I fully agree with your comment about the joints.
If they are sloppy in the first place, or when the screws holding them work loose after a while, then the most solid legs don't help.
I guess some later models are made of carbon fibre, but I am certain the price is accordingly higher. If they are so much sturdier than good aluminium legs is questionable.
Regards, Horst
Posted 05/03/2013 - 08:36
Link
Carbon fibre is light, very strong, but also flexible. It does make good sense for tripods used in the field.
Wood is also a very good choice for tripods. Older ones might be MPP, but I seem to remember that Billingham also made one for a while.
Wood is also a very good choice for tripods. Older ones might be MPP, but I seem to remember that Billingham also made one for a while.
Best regards, John
Posted 05/03/2013 - 09:26
Link
Hi I use the 2 sec timer when taking landscape shops, where is the best place to get a Redsnapper tripod from?
Always be kind to people
link
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Photographs-by-an-angel/262352847143059
link
link
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Photographs-by-an-angel/262352847143059
link
Posted 05/03/2013 - 09:36
Link
AuraTodd wrote:
Hi I use the 2 sec timer when taking landscape shops, where is the best place to get a Redsnapper tripod from?
Usually mail order only...Hi I use the 2 sec timer when taking landscape shops, where is the best place to get a Redsnapper tripod from?
http://www.redsnapperuk.com/index.html
-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Posted 05/03/2013 - 12:38
Link
Which Landscape Shops do you usally photograph
AuraTodd wrote:
Hi I use the 2 sec timer when taking landscape shops, where is the best place to get a Redsnapper tripod from?
Hi I use the 2 sec timer when taking landscape shops, where is the best place to get a Redsnapper tripod from?
Posted 05/03/2013 - 16:45
Link
all if i could har har! Sorry typing error. Once called a cut and blow dry and cut and blow !"£$
Always be kind to people
link
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Photographs-by-an-angel/262352847143059
link
link
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Photographs-by-an-angel/262352847143059
link
Posted 05/03/2013 - 20:58
Link
http://www.redsnapperuk.com/camera-accessories/RS-284_and_RSH-24_3-way_head_.htm...#a92
Have a look here Auratodd!
Have a look here Auratodd!
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
84 posts
15 years
Sussex
I suspect a Redsnapper might be more suitable and easier to use, they are good value for the quality. I do not think there are any stockists, I believe they can only be purchased on-line.
I guess it would be helpful to know what your friend intends using a tripod for.
If it is for an occasional stand for self portraits, she may get away with cheap and cheerful. However, if she wishes to use it to improve her images and extend her range of techniques, she would be wise to buy something decent.
A cheap, wobbly tripod, can ruin as many shots as hand shake can. In fact I would rather improvise and lean on a gate, fence, back of a chair or use any steady surface rather than a cheap tripod.