Which Tripod?

[Patrick Dixon]

Thanks for all the advice (although I'm think I'm probably more confused than when I started ).

Anyway, I've ordered a Red Snapper aluminium tripod and ball head and I'll see how I get on. The good news is that it's only about £100 all in (buy cheap and you can afford to buy twice is my motto). Word on the street is that the tripod is about on a par with a 055 for rigidity and the ball head is 'very good' ... so we'll see.

http://www1.clikpic.com/Redsnapper/gallery_103792.html

BTW, how do you focus a camera on a tripod above head height?

[Joanna Carter]

BTW, how do you focus a camera on a tripod above head height?

You'll either need a pair of shoes with very high heels , or a step ladder.

Hang on, I just checked and the Red Snapper is only 1.6m tall with the centre column raised. How tall are you?

[Patrick Dixon]

I'm a short-arse, so it should be fine.

[jennym]

Oh! And as for maximum height, don't judge it by "how much do I need to get to eye height?" - when you are working on a hill you need another foot in order to acheive this. Also, the amount of times I've found a composition viewpoint that meant standing on something and been able to take the shot bought the extra tall tripod is far from insignificant

How tall is too tall? I would really like a tripod around 1m70 (no column) but can't seem to find one. Why is there such a jump in height between the 1341LS or similar at 1m48, and the 1341XLS? Probably better to buy too tall than too short, but do I really want a tripod that will extend to nearly 2m without a head when I am (or used to be!) 30cm shorter? But would the LS be tall enough on a slope? It is a lot of money to spend for a compromise!

Am I alone in this?

Jenny

[RichardP]

I would really like a tripod around 1m70 (no column) but can't seem to find one.

I have the Gitzo G1349 mk2 tripod and it goes from 90mm to 1640mm without a column, with the Manfrotto 410 head it goes up to 1760mm also I have a 20mm washer made to fit under the 410 head to allow it to tip right back without the turn knobs hitting the base, so I can get a height of 1780mm to the base of the camera.
But I would have to stand on a box to use it at full height, but if you are on the side of a hill it comes in to its own.

Richard

[timparkin]

Oh! And as for maximum height, don't judge it by "how much do I need to get to eye height?" - when you are working on a hill you need another foot in order to acheive this. Also, the amount of times I've found a composition viewpoint that meant standing on something and been able to take the shot bought the extra tall tripod is far from insignificant

How tall is too tall? I would really like a tripod around 1m70 (no column) but can't seem to find one.
Jenny

I've just done some measuring and with the stainless steel spikes on, the height to the top of my 3540XLS and BH55 is 2.04m. This makes it 2.26m up to eye level on my ebony.

If I do some trig (took me a while to get my math head on), if you are on a 30degree slope, you have 1.8m to eye level at full height which gives me eye level ... just

Tim

[timparkin]

BTW, how do you focus a camera on a tripod above head height?

You find a lump to stand on (a digital photographer is normally a right shape - although they do move around a bit much)

[Charles Twist]

if you are on a 30degree slope

Who on earth would want to set up on such a slope anyway?

Seriously, Calumet are having a clearance sale with a set of Manfrotto legs MN055Pro(black) for £35. Haven't a clue if that is good or bad, but that might be of use.
Best regards,
Charles

[Brian E]

What is all this talk about eye-level - I always thought LF photographers were the elite of the breed and SAT DOWN to take photographs

Any way if you need more height - Move the front up (if your lens allows).

Seriously though I have always thought a lot of photos could be improved by varying the viewpoint height of the camera - Try it

Brian

[joolsb]

I have this sneaky feeling that (male) photographers only buy big tripods for the same reason that certain other people buy big cars...

Seriously, I wonder if the expense is justified by the number of times the extra height is actually needed. I'm a strong believer in buying kit that covers the majority of my needs and then working around limitations, should I encounter them. So I'm happy with a tripod that goes to eyelevel and no further and if I need extra height, there's always the option of front rise.... Well, except for my 75mm lens which has a tiny image-circle but I use that so rarely that it's largely irrelevant.

So far, height (or the lack of it) has never been a problem and I feel absolutely no need to compensate for anything.

[Baxter]

there's always the option of front rise.... Well, except for my 75mm lens which has a tiny image-circle but I use that so rarely that it's largely irrelevant.

Hi Julian
Something I discovered as a workaround in a similar situation to gain more height for my viewpoint, is to use rear rise at same time as front rise, then image circle isn't compromised.

Bax

[timparkin]

I have this sneaky feeling that (male) photographers only buy big tripods for the same reason that certain other people buy big cars...

Seriously, I wonder if the expense is justified by the number of times the extra height is actually needed. I'm a strong believer in buying kit that covers the majority of my needs and then working around limitations, should I encounter them. So I'm happy with a tripod that goes to eyelevel and no further and if I need extra height, there's always the option of front rise.... Well, except for my 75mm lens which has a tiny image-circle but I use that so rarely that it's largely irrelevant.

So far, height (or the lack of it) has never been a problem and I feel absolutely no need to compensate for anything.

Personally, if I can see a composition with my eye - I get frustrated if I can't take it. I've found that I've used full extension on about on in four or five shots - obviously I could have compromised those shots or taken something else.

I too only want a tripod that lets me take a photo at a maximum of eye level but, like I worked out previously, on a 30 degree slope, you need a 2.3m tripod height to get a 1.8m (5'10") camera level (this ignores what happens if the view I've seen just happens to be with me standing on a ridge or rock).

With a typical tripod height of 1.6m, your camera would be at a height of 1.1m (or 3'8")... hardly eye level (at least not for me).

I am looking at a lighter tripod to use if I'm out on a very long walk and am happy to make compromises then (I'll take less lenses too).

In answer to Brian, I wanted a taller tripod so I could vary the height of the camera more... If you have a look at my website you'll see some interesting camera levels...

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/The%20l ... 0the%20pap

Out of interests, how does front rise give you more height? isn't it just viewpoint as tilting the camera up but with altered perspective?

Tim

[Patrick Dixon]

Well I've now got the Redsnapper tripod and ball head and I'm pretty impressed with the quality, the service and the cost. Of course, being a novice at this LF thing, it may be pants to all you Ebony users, but it fully extends to 1.9m with the ball head and the old Arca-Swiss on it, which is way higher than my eye line, and it seems a decent compromise between weight, size and rigidity.

I'll have to try it out in anger and see how I get on.

[timparkin]

Well I've now got the Redsnapper tripod and ball head and I'm pretty impressed with the quality, the service and the cost. Of course, being a novice at this LF thing, it may be pants to all you Ebony users, but it fully extends to 1.9m with the ball head and the old Arca-Swiss on it, which is way higher than my eye line, and it seems a decent compromise between weight, size and rigidity.

I'll have to try it out in anger and see how I get on.

Photos please

[Patrick Dixon]

I'll have to find a 30 degree slope first.