Opinions on tripods and heads
When I first started photography, I was a big available-light nut. With fast enough film and fast lenses, I thought that I could obviate any need for a tripod; besides, you never saw the heroic photojournalists of the past (whom I'd tried to emulate) shackled to these three-legged beasts. Several things conspired to change my attitude (but maybe the most compelling reason was leafing through John Shaw's Nature Photographer's Complete Guide to Field Techniques and realizing that a photographer and a tripod work together beautifully).
Picture/Optical Quality
Fast lenses aren't very good wide open. My otherwise excellent 85mm lens is soft and dull at full aperture and gets much better by f/4 or f/5.6. I also like to take pictures at "the edge of light", i.e. twilight and sunrise (although I really have to start getting up earlier if the sunrise is to be a realistic goal for me), so even with fast film, I'd be on the brink of hand-holdeable at these times. If you're paying extra to get a better lens, why not use better/sharper (i.e. slower) film to record your images with? If you plan to enlarge your images to any significant degree, you'll want to use slower film anyway. All of this, of course, adds up to slower shutter speeds.
Framing and Composition
I was always dissatisfied with the way my shots were coming out -- the subject would be dead center in the final shot and thus give me a static, dead composition or I'd invariably include random objects on the side of the frame. After all, I did pay a bit extra to get a camera with 100% finder coverage; I might as well compose in the body while I'm at it, rather than cropping later. Working with a tripod forces me to evaluate the effect of focal length and distance on a scene I want to record, as well as what elements I want to highlight. A side benefit to this, I've found, is actually less wasted film; before the tripod, it was easy to walk around and take careless snaps here and there and shoot off several rolls in an hour. Now that I have more time and effort invested in each picture I take, rolls last longer (which means that, as a graduate student, rent and food also last longer ...).
Weight
Fast lenses are heavy! Telephoto lenses are particularly susceptible to obesity: the Nikon 200f/4 AI weighs 510g and the 200f/2 weighs 2 400g. I know that there are people out there who uncomplainingly lug along the big 80-200f/2.8 zooms all day long; more power to them. I am a lazy, weak photographer who appreciates being able to stick heavy lenses on a tripod in order to take pictures with them. I can't imagine taking such heavy lenses hiking without a tripod to set them up on
Depth of Field
You want depth of field? You need a small aperture and you need a fine-grained film to make sure that your circles of confusion don't become blobs of ugliness. You want a tripod. 'Nuff said.
Products I've had reasonably extensive experience with
Bogen 3036 (Manfrotto 075) Tripod
After first getting this beast, I tried out its strength by climbing on top of it (with no extension), like the guy in the Bogen ads used to do. It is amazingly strong and stable. Unfortunately, it is also amazingly heavy, bulky, and awkward. The legset alone weighs about 4 400g, which is not so bad in itself, but a lot of the weight is tied up in the geared center column, which I've never had the opportunity to use. I am short enough (180cm) that I rarely have to extend all three leg sections, let alone crank the camera up to someplace I can't reach, so every time I felt my back twinge in anticipation of lugging it (with head and lens/body, the total is about 9 300g) I found myself finding excuses not to go out and take pictures. I'd like to avoid accessories that discourage me from taking pictures.
I think that this tripod has the worst leg-angle setting I've ever seen; the legs have additional bracing connecting them to the center column. This bracing consists of two concentric tubes, so the length of the brace can be set via thumbscrew to give a continuously variable leg spread. I appreciate the sentiment, but I never got the hang of setting it up quickly; if I was shooting from a blind and never had to move the tripod, this tripod would probably be all right, but carrying such a tripod around and trying to set it up over and over again quickly becomes an exercise in frustration. Yes, it has those great flip-locks, but trying to get a consistent leg spread angle negates any time savings you might get over a twist-lock leg. I ended up painting marks on the leg brace corresponding to my most-used leg angle, but I'm still not satisfied with it. Because of the braces, the 3036 will not get too close to the ground (and when it's there, you'll have to contend with the nearly 100cm long legs sticking out). The thumbscrews themselves are too compact for me to grasp comfortably, whether wearing gloves or bare-handed.
The perfect place for this tripod is probably in the studio, or indoors where you can load it onto a dolly, fix the leg angles, and never worry about resetting it. In fact, the only other 3036 I've seen outside of the store was living a very contented life as a wedding videographer's tripod. The oft-recommended 3021 legset, with click-stopped legs, is miles ahead of the sturdier 3036 in terms of ease of use. The 3021 would be my pick for a decent all-around field/short hike tripod. However, this is probably the sturdiest tripod you can get for under $200 US new (I actually got mine for about $70 US used); if you never use it again, it can be the most expensive tripod you ever bought, though.
Bogen 3038 (Manfrotto 268) Ball Head
When I got the 3036, I wanted a similarly cheap heavy-duty head. As it turned out, I got exactly what I paid for. When the tension on the ball was high enough that a 3 600g lens didn't immediately flop over, the lens would begin to rotate around the mounting screw on the QR hex plate, because the hex plate does not have a lip (or adequate friction) to keep the foot from sliding. Whenever I had something nicely framed, I would lock down the head -- and half of the picture would disappear (I was using a 600mm lens). It was possible to not lock down the head before shooting the picture, but I couldn't see a benefit in that over hand-held shooting (besides not having my arms get too tired).
In its defense, the product itself is fairly well-built (i.e. massive) and the locking lever has a nice feature where you can set the angle to any one that is convenient for you. It is quite impressive-looking and can be put to good use as a bludgeon, if need be. Having levels on the camera platform (rather than on the tripod) is a good idea, since it lets you level out the picture immediately, regardless of how your tripod is set up.
All in all, I was quite disappointed. There are better heads on the market for not much more money. The motion of the ball was never smooth enough for me -- if you haven't used it in a while, all of the grease collects at the bottom of the socket and you'll get a "stick-slip" behavior for about ten minutes when you're first using the head. After the grease has spread over the ball completely, the tension is too low to prevent head flop. Worst of all, the QR on mine seemed defective (but more on that later).
Bogen 3039 (Manfrotto 229) Pan Head
In my opinion, this might be the greatest-value tripod head available. Although the similar 3047 is half the price and some 450g lighter, I discovered (while playing with a friend's 3047) that a physically long lens formed enough of a moment arm to flex the casting of the 3047; the 3039 has a slightly different design, is built somewhat heavier, and has a shorter casting, all of which means that the same lens is rock-solid on the 3039 (the lens in question weighs 3 600g and is about 60cm long; the casting that flexed was the L-shaped bracket at the top of the head that contains the quick-release).
Why would you want a pan head instead of a ball head? For one thing, I am not as paranoid about keeping the $120 US 3039 out of grit and water as I would be about a $400 US Arca-Swiss B1. This head is not nearly as compact and neat as the Arca; the 3039 weighs close to 1 900 g while the Arca is a mere 700g. With the pan head, it's much easier to crop with the viewfinder in whichever direction I choose, without inadvertently changing the composition, since I get to decide which axis to move, independent of the others. Basically, it boils down to how much you are willing to spend to get an excellent head and what you are going to be photographing -- macro work almost demands a panhead.
Although a lot of Bogen/Manfrotto products seem to have a cheesy reputation, this is an extremely solid and well-designed head. I can compose and then tighten the controls without the lens moving, something that was impossible with the more-expensive 3038. If you are looking for a pan head, the 3039 is probably the best on the market.
Bogen Hex Plate System
I really like the feel of snapping a plate into this system, assuming that the QR is working correctly. The 3039's QR works great, and the additional safety lock engages quickly and reliably; the 3038's QR works sluggishly, which is another reason why I stopped using the big ball head.
The sluggish operation also points out another worry I have with the Bogen system. The locking strength of the system depends on the strength of the torsion spring used to rotate the locking cam. Although I am a mechanical engineer and should know better (at the temperatures in use, the spring should not fail for better than a million cycles), I worry that it will one day fly apart and leave me with no way to attach my plates. The old hex plate attachment used to be a screw-driven lever, similar to the Arca-Swiss system; it looks infinitely more durable, but hasn't been in production for at least fifteen years.
The plates themselves are nothing special, either. Having six sides just means having a point coming back from your camera body to jab you in the side. I am reluctant to saw off the corner, since it's has a hole which I plan to tap and add a plate to keep the camera/lens from twisting around the screw. On the other hand, they are dirt cheap and you can easily assemble a complete QR system without selling your firstborn. For what I have done with QR's, the Bogen system has been adequate, but I'm too paranoid about the locking spring to completely trust it.
Gitzo 326 (w/ short column)
This Gitzo is the four-section "standard" 3-series legset (i.e. no wing locks on the upper section) with a double-lift center column, which again, I never used. Gitzo sells various replacement columns; I replaced mine with the short Gitzo 3-series column which also saved me 450g (the total final weight is about 2 500g for the legs and center column, or just over half the weight of the 3036). It also goes down fairly low, about 34cm off the ground, which I've found useful in getting the right shot of low-lying fungi and plants.
Yes, the twist locks are annoying. Yes, I hate having to lock and unlock legs in a certain order. No, I won't give it up. I got used to the locks in a matter of minutes, and if you're wearing gloves, they really aren't that hard on your hands. The tripod is somewhat weighty but not unbearable for day-hikes and provides immense stability. It has four sections, but I've never used the lower ones for anything beyond clearing various hazards (water, snow, mud, etc.). This tripod is so much more manageable than the 3036 that I have to admit to not actually using the Bogen after getting the 326; setting up the legs is usually just a matter of pulling them out to the appropriate spread-stop, rather than fiddling with spread-locks. Having two distinct positions is actually a benefit to me, like not having a zoom lens on a compact camera -- yes, the thought is nice, but it ends up being too fiddly otherwise. Only having two spread positions, I should say, is not as limiting as it sounds.
I haven't had the opportunity to try any Sliks, but right now, the only tripod I'd pick over the 326 would be a 345, which is the same tripod with an additional legspread angle of 80 degrees, to go even lower. Then again, I wouldn't turn up my nose at one of the carbon fiber Gitzos, especially the ones coming out without center columns (G1325, 1348). The 326 is a tripod that really works for me, and I hope that you have as good luck finding one for you.
Products I've not had extensive experience with (but am interested in)
Arca-Swiss QR system
Both Kirk and Really Right Stuff (RRS) market custom-made Arca plates at significant prices (appox. $40-60 US as of late 1997). What are the main benefits of such pricey items? Custom plates are usually tailored to the size and weight of the item needing support, so there's less wasted material and no bulky corners digging into your side. I have heard that it is possible to dump your equipment if the clamp is fairly dirty and jams. I am probably going to migrate to this system before much longer, as the hex-plate QR is not too confidence-inspiring (of the two hex QR's that I own, one works well and the other one doesn't).
Arca-Swiss (and similar) Monoballs
Because of my bad experience with the 3038, I have been tempted to get a nice ball head, but my experience with the 3039 has eased the temptation considerably. A good head should work with the photographer unobtrusively, rather than demand that various controls be fiddled with constantly, and controls should fall naturally in place. The Arca reputedly delivers these in spades. I have heard that, though Arca claims the standard B1 will hold better than 82 lbs (37 kg), they will not stand behind their product when you use a 13 lb (6 kg) 600f/4 on it, and that is not too confidence-inspiring for a head that goes for around $350 US. On the other hand, it is light and compact ...
Wimberley Tripod Head
The basic idea behind the Wimberley is to put the pivot point above the lens, rather than below (as is in monoball designs). Basic physics says that this is inherently more stable: which is in stable equilibrium, the ball in a valley or the peak? The head itself resembles half of a yoke-mount, and is probably the closest thing you can get to a large (Palomar, Keck-class) telescope mount for photographic purposes. Well, Bogen does sell their 3421, but it really looks disreputable. Besides the weight and price (4 lb/1.8 kg, $450 US), I haven't heard anything negative about the Wimberley.
Benbo Tripods
Benbos are very flexible and seem to be designed for extreme conditions in mind -- the leg-locks are big enough to be grasped by gloved hands and the bigger cross-section on the telescoping leg is on the bottom, so you can sink the Benbos into fairly deep puddles and streams without harm. Unfortunately, the "bent bolt" which holds everything in place reputedly fails under use (abuse?).
Gitzo 410, 500
I am thinking about replacing the 3036 with one of the 4xx or 5xx Gitzos, based on my experience with the 326. The 500 does not seem too much more (expensive, weighty) than the 410 but offers a larger load capacity. I really need to play with them before making up my mind, though, since a couple of things differ between the 4 and 5-series and my 326, not the least of which is the wing-locks on the upper leg sections.
Comparison Chart (Bogen-Gitzo)
My philosophy with regards to tripods is that equivalent tripods have equivalent weights and weight capacities, rather than such details as friction or geared columns. For me, the usefulness of a tripod depends on how heavy a tripod I'm willing to lug around (which in turn depends on the number of candy bars consumed that day, the distance I'll be going, and the lenses I'm taking along with me) and how easy it is to set up. Since I tend to do a lot of macro shots, it's also important to get a tripod that will get very low.
The following table was culled from the current (late 1997) Bogen and Gitzo catalogs. The categories listed, in order, are: (1) Manufacturer and Model Number, (2) Maximum Height, (3) Maximum Height with No Column Extension, (4) Minimum Height, (5) Tripod Legs' Weight, and (6) Maximum Sustainable Weight (Load).
The short story is that for smaller tripods, neither Bogen nor Gitzo holds a strong weight advantage. Around the 3021-class of tripods (medium-duty), you begin to have the choice between the standard (3021), lighter tripods (carbon fiber (CF) Gitzos) that hold slightly less weight, or slightly heavier and heavier-load tripods (Gitzo 3-series). From that point on, the Gitzos will give slightly better load/tripod weight ratios with a few exceptions (Bogen 3036). The CF Gitzos start to look more and more attractive when you get into the heavy supports (>= 10kg loads).
However, note that (1) you should try setting up and taking down the tripods a couple of times in-store before making any final decisions, (2) Gitzos tend to be about 2-3x the price of equivalent Bogens, (3) almost all of the Gitzos will get lower than the equivalent Bogen (exceptions: 3021 and the accompanying 3021S), and (4) the Gitzo 34x, 4xx, and 5xx all have interchangeable center columns, so if you decide you love/hate the geared/rapid/no column, you can always switch it later.
in/cm in/cm in/cm lb/kg lb/kg man/mnum max hgt hgt nce min hgt weight max wgt -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Bog/3001 54.3/138 46.5/118 12.3/31.1 3.8/1.7 11.0/5.0 (Manf/190) Git/120 58.3/148 45.8/116 11.4/28.9 3.3/1.5 10.0/4.5 Git/1228 60.9/155 52.1/132 12.5/31.8 3.0/1.4 13.5/6.1 Bog/3011 67.3/171 52.8/134 22.3/56.5 5.1/2.3 13.3/6.0 (Manf/144) Git/224 73.8/187 56.3/143 14.6/37.1 5.0/2.3 13.3/6.0 Git/1227 63.4/161 54.5/138 12.5/31.8 3.0/1.4 13.5/6.1 Bog/3021 70.5/179 54.0/137 10.5/26.7 5.8/2.6 13.8/6.2 (Manf/055C) Git/224 73.8/187 56.3/143 14.6/37.1 5.0/2.3 13.3/6.0 Git/1227 63.4/161 54.5/138 12.5/31.8 3.0/1.4 13.5/6.1 Git/320 73.5/187 61.3/156 16.4/41.6 6.5/2.9 19.8/9.0 Git/340 -- 60.5/154 5.1/13.0 6.0/2.7 22.0/10 Git/326 71.3/181 58.6/149 13.3/33.7 6.0/2.7 19.8/9.0 Git/345 -- 57.8/147 3.8/9.5 6.0/2.7 22.0/10 Git/1325 -- 59.9/152 4.0/10.2 4.4/2.0 26.5/12 Bog/3033 66.5/169 56.8/144 25.3/64.1 7.5/3.4 17.5/7.9 (Manf/074) Git/312 69.9/178 61.9/157 17.1/43.5 7.3/3.3 19.8/9.0 Git/341 75.8/192 62.8/159 6.3/15.9 7.0/3.2 22.0/10 Git/1329 77.8/198 66.0/168 15.9/40.3 5.3/2.4 26.5/12 Bog/3036 80.8/205 70.0/178 15.5/39.4 9.8/4.4 26.5/12 (Manf/075) Git/411 78.5/199 66.4/169 8.5/21.6 9.8/4.4 22.0/10 Git/412 75.8/193 66.4/169 8.5/21.6 11.5/5.2 26/11.8 Git/1349 78.5/199 66.8/170 15.9/40.3 5.5/2.5 26.5/12 Bog/3046 68.5/174 48.8/124 29.3/74.3 8.2/3.7 26.4/12 (Manf/028) Git/342 74.0/188 62.8/159 6.3/15.9 8.3/3.7 22.0/10 Git/410 -- 64.1/163 6.4/16.2 8.5/3.9 26/11.8 Git/515 -- 47.8/121 7.3/18.4 8.3/3.7 44.0/20 Git/1348 -- 65.8/167 4.0/10.2 4.6/2.1 26.5/12 Bog/3051 63.3/161 54.0/137 16.5/41.9 12.7/5.7 26.4/12 (Manf/058) Git/410 -- 64.1/163 6.4/16.2 8.5/3.9 26/11.8 Git/502 74.0/188 65.5/166 8.8/22.2 12.5/5.7 33.0/15 Git/1325 -- 59.9/152 4.0/10.2 4.4/2.0 26.5/12 Bog/3058 103/262 93.3/237 17.3/43.8 18.0/8.2 44.0/20 (Manf/161MK2) Git/509 108.8/276 100.3/255 8.8/22.2 15.3/6.9 33.0/15 Git/1548 -- 58.6/149 5.6/14.3 6.8/3.1 39.5/18
Take me to a great tripod information site.
Bogen Photo distributes both Manfrotto and Gitzo products in the US. You can call them up or email them for the latest brochure.
ToCAD imports and distributes Slik tripods and heads. Apparently, the products that the US gets aren't the same as those in the rest of the world -- I have heard that some of the high-end Slik tripods are actually quite good compared to the equivalent Gitzos.
Saunders imports and distributes Benbo tripods and heads in the US. I like the design of the Benbos but have heard bad things regarding the durability of the "bent bolt" at the heart of each one.
Of course, no tripod review would be complete without a mention of the Ries wooden tripods, which look attractive (and quite expensive). On the other hand, they are probably even lighter than the Gitzos and definitely less hand-pain-inducing on cold days.
Please supplement my banal comments with comments of your own.Take me back to Mike's photo page