Three-legged Tripod For Both Camcorder And Camera

[iKwak]

I like to pick up a strong tripod to use for both the camcorder and the camera.
Both camera and camcorder seems to have the same size hole on the bottom for the tripod but I should try it out first at a local store (Ritz).


Should I invest in a $50-$80 tripod or is it a waste of a money for such a low-end tripod? I am looking for something in mediocre size that I can carry along and take group pictures once in awhile and take videos.

[Ripper2860]

Probably not appropriate, but ...

My wife calls me Mr. Tripod and it's not becuase I an hold our camera still!

[indolikaa]

Probably not appropriate, but ...

My wife calls me Mr. Tripod and it's not becuase I an hold our camera still!

That's because she's from Arizona, so she obviously doesn't know any better...

I like to pick up a strong tripod to use for both the camcorder and the camera. Both camera and camcorder seems to have the same size hole on the bottom for the tripod but I should try it out first at a local store (Ritz).

Should I invest in a $50-$80 tripod or is it a waste of a money for such a low-end tripod? I am looking for something in mediocre size that I can carry along and take group pictures once in awhile and take videos.

The tripod I use was included with the camcorder I purchased at Ultimate Electronics. It was normally $40, and it does just fine. We have a 35mm SLR in the family and it works fine with camera, too. So I'd say you'd be fine spending $50-$80.

[Doramius]

I agree with Indo. I got mine for free when I purchased my camcorder. The Tripod I have is a Samsonite and it's worth about $30. You can get a decent one for cheap at Wal-Mart or Target. You might find one on eBay for less.

[tekkieman]

Finally a chance to help someone, and it's still in OT! Anyway, I do both video and still photograhy. In general, in a studio, and on outdoor shoots, you want a heavy duty tripod. Expect to pay at least $300-$500 for this. For outdoor general use (not professional shoots), a sturdy cheapo $40 tripod would be fine. You might also consider a monopod. They are lightweight, easy to carry, and make a great walking stick. These usually start around $40.00 as well.

[stiltman]

I picked up a cheapy at BestBuy for $15. It does a pretty good job.

[offline]

What you need for that professional look is a Dolly

[Ripper2860]

Capmaster might have something to say about that!

[housepig]

don't be afraid to check thrift stores and Goodwill or Salvation Army type places as well... I got my best tripod from a friend's "going to charity" pile in his basement - the previous owner of his house had left it behind, and he never used it.

lightweight, aluminum, more adjustments than I've used yet, and absolutely free.

[offline]

lightweight, aluminum, more adjustments than I've used yet, and absolutely free.

Capmaster might comment on this too.. apart from the
aluminum. He's a funny guy.

[troyvcd1]

Dont get a cheap tripod. Get a bogen/manfrotto 3011,3021 or similar. Also get a decent head so you can pan without jerkyness ie 3126, 3130 head. Go to ritz or similar stores and just compare how much better a decent tripod is especially for your camcorder. I got a 3021 with a 3130 head on ebay for $80.

[vitualis]

BTW, tripods for video recorders and still cameras are designed DIFFERENTLY -- at least, the head is different.

A cheapo tripod will usually try to merge both functions into one which usually means that it isn't particularly good for either.

There are two schools fo thought for a tripod for still photography. If you want the BEST photos in terms of minimising camera shake, you should get an expensive, high quality and heavy tripod. If you are going to get a tripod and bring it along, you might as well get one that is actually going to do the job you want it to do.

The other school of thought is that a super-duper tripod is only good if you use it -- which may be unlikely if it is heavy, bulky, and takes a long time to set up. As such, a cheaper, lighter tripod you will actually USE is the better choice...

Regards.

[Conquest10]

Dont get a cheap tripod.

I agree with this statement. $50-$80? Come on man.

Expect to pay at least $300-$500 for this.

[Capmaster]

[DVD_Ripper]

Now thats a Tripod....

[Capmaster]

Technically she's a quadropod. She's equipped with a german equatorial mechanism and motor drive (all kinds of possibilities there ).

[Doramius]

I have steady-cam, so a shaking picture is not a problem for me. For stills, if you're that shaky pressing a button or jerky enough using a hand-bulb (heh, Jerky with hand-bulb ) then use the timer. If you don't have a timer or other fancy equipment with your camera, it's cheap and not worth getting anything expensive for it. For your video camera, Only pay less than 1/4 the cost of your camera if you're just doing simple home video. If you spend the money on a camera for making independent movies and other things like it, then you'll probably want to get something a little better and will end up being pricey. But I wouldn't get a $500 TRIPOD for a disposable still camera or a cheap $70 digital still/video cam with less than 1 megapixel.

[Craig Tucker]

Three-legged Tripod

Is there any other kind

[tekkieman]

Three-legged Tripod

Is there any other kind

[lordsmurf]

The more money, the better.
You may be able to escape with that Ambico and cheaper stuff.

But you'll have an easier time with pricier Bogen and others.

Go to a pro photo/video store.

[vitualis]

For stills, if you're that shaky pressing a button or jerky enough using a hand-bulb (heh, Jerky with hand-bulb ) then use the timer. If you don't have a timer or other fancy equipment with your camera, it's cheap and not worth getting anything expensive for it.

Obviously you're not a still photography buff.

A cheap tripod will be less stable so even if you use a timer, the effects of things like WIND and creep from the head will affect your shot, especially for longer exposures. This basically means less sharp images... and it make a difference if you are going to enlarge the image.

It (e.g.) makes no sense to buy a high end SLR and an expensive sharp lens only to stuff up the sharpness of your images by a cheapo tripod. At least that is one school of thought (read my other post).

Regards.

[Capmaster]

In addition to a tripod, there's a whole new crop of digicams with image-stabilized long zoom lenses. The IS won't replace a tripod, but used in conjunction with a decent tripod, even the loooong shots should be reasonably sharp.

Check out the Panasonic Lumix cameras - they come with long zooms (12X), Leica optics, and are reasonably priced They're not SLRs, and not as nice as a Canon 10D or Digital Rebel, but they're about half the price.

[vitualis]

IMHO, there's no point for the high end "prosumer" SLR-like digicams. Bite the bullet and get the Canon 100D or Nikon D70. Much better optics, much better photos, much better camera all round.

Image stabilisation on the fixed lenses of digicams are useful (compared to non-image stabilised digicams I suppose), but there is still the underlying problem that these cameras have smaller sensors and generally limited max apetures. Basically, it means that these cameras are slower and you need to use lower ISO speeds to keep down the noise (and thus longer exposure times with the higher risk of camera shake) when compared to digital SLRs.

Digital SLRs are "faster" so you are less likely to have camera shake problems in the same setting. Image stabilisation on SLR telephoto zoom lenses is where the technology shines...

Regards.

[Capmaster]

Sure you can "bite the bullet" and buy a Nikon D1x for three grand too. We have one at work and I'd love to have one. I'd also love to have a Dodge Viper, as long as we're dreaming here Toss in a fast 28 - 80 zoom, and another f3.5 IS 100 to 300 zoom. You're talking a larger piece of savings account than the average person is willing to spend for casual shooting.

I was making the point that for about $400 you can get a Lumix with impressive specs. Just a nice Nikon gadget bag would cost you that much

[Conquest10]

Bite the bullet and get the Canon 100D or Nikon D70. Much better optics, much better photos, much better camera all round.

Yes they are much, much better. Its Canon 10D, Mike. Nikon is the D100. The cheapest are the 300D(Digital Rebel) and D70. From what I've heard, the D70 is better.
For still photography, IS on a tripod is not a good thing. The lack of movement confuses the lens and it actually tries to compensate for the lack of movement.

[tekkieman]

The lack of movement confuses the lens and it actually tries to compensate for the lack of movement.

Sounds like it could have been done by M$!

"We will take you where we want you to go today!"

FWIW - You can't beat SLR with fixed length lenses (telephoto, not zoom). And none of those pansy ass mirror lenses either! Alas, a fast 450 or 600 costs more than my car!

[vitualis]

Bite the bullet and get the Canon 100D or Nikon D70. Much better optics, much better photos, much better camera all round.

Yes they are much, much better. Its Canon 10D, Mike. Nikon is the D100. The cheapest are the 300D(Digital Rebel) and D70. From what I've heard, the D70 is better.
For still photography, IS on a tripod is not a good thing. The lack of movement confuses the lens and it actually tries to compensate for the lack of movement.

Sorry, meant 300D as opposed to 100D...

The high end "prosumer" models of digicams (i.e., basically all the 8MP models and a few other ones) are all pretty close to the price of the Canon 300D and Nikon D70. In fact, with the price drop of the Canon 300D, is is cheaper than a few of the 8 MP digicams. IMHO, the 8MP digicams are obsolete from the word go.

There isn't too much of a difference BETWEEN digicams in terms of quality though some may have nifty features you like. You can pick up something like the Canon G3/4/5 for pretty cheap now and these are fantastic digicams...

Regards.

[ChrisX]

I like to pick up a strong tripod to use for both the camcorder and the camera.
Both camera and camcorder seems to have the same size hole on the bottom for the tripod but I should try it out first at a local store (Ritz).


Should I invest in a $50-$80 tripod or is it a waste of a money for such a low-end tripod? I am looking for something in mediocre size that I can carry along and take group pictures once in awhile and take videos.

I am using a tripod right here for the camera facing at me and the cam is connected to the computer's video card.

I too have trouble holding still when capturing with the camera around and there is nothing wrong with getting one in a reasonable price and light to carry.

In fact, I am right now transferring a home video into DVD and some parts are a bit wobbly.

A tripod for the camera is a good idea for long recording sessions at one place such as outdoor family events or special family occasions.

Chris

[lordsmurf]

Sports photography is the only real place you'll see IS useful on large 300mm 2.8 or 400mm lenses. And even then, you should have a high enough shutter speed and good film/ISO so that IS becomes a moot point.

Just learn to not be a shakey shooter.

[Doramius]

For stills, if you're that shaky pressing a button or jerky enough using a hand-bulb (heh, Jerky with hand-bulb ) then use the timer. If you don't have a timer or other fancy equipment with your camera, it's cheap and not worth getting anything expensive for it.

Obviously you're not a still photography buff.

A cheap tripod will be less stable so even if you use a timer, the effects of things like WIND and creep from the head will affect your shot, especially for longer exposures. This basically means less sharp images... and it make a difference if you are going to enlarge the image.

It (e.g.) makes no sense to buy a high end SLR and an expensive sharp lens only to stuff up the sharpness of your images by a cheapo tripod. At least that is one school of thought (read my other post).

Regards.

The most still photography I do is for eBay or on vacation. I have a 3 megapixel camera for that and I'm inside most of the time. I doubt my A/C blower is going to be strong enough to affect the pictures. I also have a Sony video camera that's been doing very well. With steady-cam and night shot, I am happy. Only thing I need a tripod for is to keep my arms from getting tired from holding the camera. I get pretty good shots as it is. If the wind is strong enough to affect what I'm getting a video of, it's too windy and I wouldn't be out taking a video.