• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Lightweight good tripod (1 Viewer)

Binastro

Well-known member
I have a request.

Someone just asked for my advice for a lightweight tripod for a mirrorless full format camera, with probably the standard zoom or 50mm f/1.8.

This is for long exposures.
The camera has body stabilisation for shorter exposures.

Not initially for binoculars, but I have not yet used the Birdforum photography section.

6ft tall person.

Can somebody recommend something for U.K. purchase.

I use the Ergorest, which is great, but not for outdoors and old Slik 88s.
I don't have experience of modern tripods.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Alexis.

Budget is variable.

I would consider 2kgs lightweight.
My Slik 88s weigh 2.5Kg approx with pan and tilt head.
I think pan and tilt safer than ball head, is this correct.

I think camera has a tilting screen, so 170cm viewfinder height could come down to 155cm tilting screen.

I would keep tripod very low for stability.

Maybe air travel transportable.
And buses and shanks's pony.

P.S.
Is anything suitable and good quality available for around £250.
 
Last edited:
Lightweight and rigid (good) are conflicting requirements, and materials with high stiffness and good damping are required.

These materials can be exotic and costly, which often results in a high(er) price.

Telescoping or folding introduces a requirement for very close tolerances, and increased manufacturing difficulties.

And on and on it goes.
 
You want it to be light weight but also 155 cm tall AND lack vibration for long exposures? No way.

In fact, depending on what you mean by long exposures, and whether a breeze is ever involved, my first thought (no matter what your budget) is to instead make the tripod short and buy a stool to sit comfortably next to it (just like for most astro). A short tripod can be cheaper and can be stable/vibration resistant. Do you already have a suitable head?

Tripod material doesn't matter for short rigid tripods. For a tall tripod, you're best off with carbon fiber (or wood, when weight and set-up convenience are less important) rather than aluminum. It damps vibrations better. But for long vibration free exposures, it's going to have to be heavier, or super expensive, and even then will not be as reliable as a short tripod.

--AP
 
Here's my sage advice, not based on false modesty but been there, done that.
As I'm writing I'm thinking that you are sure to ignore it, everyone does. Something about tripods and heads makes people think there's a magic formula, and they can find it. There isn't.

1. You don't need to spend $1500 (Gitzo tripod and a RRS head) to get 1st class performance. But you do need to spend about $800. More on this later.

2. Buy a tripod taller than you think you need. You can always go down but you can't go up. You may have to set up on irregular ground, set up in an area below where you can stand, set up with the tripod downhill from you, want to use the tripod for a scope and/or binoculars and want to look "up", and so on.

Another reason for a taller tripod is you'll want to use the center column as the last way to gain height.


3. Collets (twist locks) are better than flip locks. They lock up better (stiffer) and that don't get hung up on things, and they make for a more compact unit to carry when folded and stowed. They never get out of adjustment because you adjust them everytime you use them.

4. Leg diameters and collets make more difference for stiffness than materials or even the number of leg section. Taller tripods tend to have larger diameter legs.

5. Carbon is nice stuff but somewhat overrated. The weight saving is actually not that much. In equivalent sizes, that you are most likely to be interested in, the weight savings is usually about 1/2 pound, sometimes 3/4 pound. There's no free ride here. Whether it's carbon or aluminum, more material makes for a stiffer tripod.

Does carbon damp vibration quicker? I suppose but it's a minor point IMO. Carbon is nicer to touch, warmer in cold weather and cooler in hot weather. It's also quieter which helps with wildlife photography

6. Ball heads. I like them. The advantages of a good ball head very much outweighs all other heads, within limits. Obviously if one were using a 600mm f4 lens on a 1Dx you would want a gimble head. But for smaller telephoto lenses and everything else, sans maybe serious macro, a ball head it great.

I've used a Canon 400 f5.6 on a 7D with a ball head for years and wouldn't change a thing. Just be careful about walking away from your rig w/o tightening the clamp knob. After all, you only have one knob and not three in the case of a pan head. BTW, video heads are out because they're only two axis, for conventional photographic purposes.


Benro tripods are just excellent. Very tight specs. Very stiff joints and collets.
Markins heads are frankly amazing. They lock up in a quarter turn like the rock of Gibraltar. There are others, Induro, Arca Swiss, and so on, but they aren't better.

So here's a brilliant $800 kit that I alluded to earlier. It is 1 pound heavier than your 2 kg estimate, but tall.


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1157821-REG/benro_tma38cl_mach3_9x_carbon_fiber.html

https://www.markins.us/product-page/q10i-with-quick-turn-knob
 
Last edited:
Here's my sage advice, not based on false modesty but been there, done that.
As I'm writing I'm thinking that you are sure to ignore it, everyone does. Something about tripods and heads makes people think there's a magic formula, and they can find it. There isn't.

1. You don't need to spend $1500 (Gitzo tripod and a RRS head) to get 1st class performance. But you do need to spend about $800. More on this later.

2. Buy a tripod taller than you think you need. You can always go down but you can't go up. You may have to set up on irregular ground, set up in an area below where you can stand, set up with the tripod downhill from you, want to use the tripod for a scope and/or binoculars and want to look "up", and so on.

Another reason for a taller tripod is you'll want to use the center column as the last way to gain height.


3. Collets (twist locks) are better than flip locks. They lock up better (stiffer) and that don't get hung up on things, and they make for a more compact unit to carry when folded and stowed. They never get out of adjustment because you adjust them everytime you use them.

4. Leg diameters and collets make more difference for stiffness than materials or even the number of leg section. Taller tripods tend to have larger diameter legs.

5. Carbon is nice stuff but somewhat overrated. The weight saving is actually not that much. In equivalent sizes, that you are most likely to be interested in, the weight savings is usually about 1/2 pound, sometimes 3/4 pound. There's no free ride here. Whether it's carbon or aluminum, more material makes for a stiffer tripod.

Does carbon damp vibration quicker? I suppose but it's a minor point IMO. Carbon is nicer to touch, warmer in cold weather and cooler in hot weather. It's also quieter which helps with wildlife photography

6. Ball heads. I like them. The advantages of a good ball head very much outweighs all other heads, within limits. Obviously if one were using a 600mm f4 lens on a 1Dx you would want a gimble head. But for smaller telephoto lenses and everything else, sans maybe serious macro, a ball head it great.

I've used a Canon 400 f5.6 on a 7D with a ball head for years and wouldn't change a thing. Just be careful about walking away from your rig w/o tightening the clamp knob. After all, you only have one knob and not three in the case of a pan head. BTW, video heads are out because they're only two axis, for conventional photographic purposes.


Benro tripods are just excellent. Very tight specs. Very stiff joints and collets.
Markins heads are frankly amazing. They lock up in a quarter turn like the rock of Gibraltar. There are others, Induro, Arca Swiss, and so on, but they aren't better.

So here's a brilliant $800 kit that I alluded to earlier. It is 1 pound heavier than your 2 kg estimate, but tall.


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1157821-REG/benro_tma38cl_mach3_9x_carbon_fiber.html

https://www.markins.us/product-page/q10i-with-quick-turn-knob

I found this to be a very interesting and informative read! Thanks for taking the time to do this KC!!!

CG
 
Thanks CG.

There is something I forgot to add.
To make a reasonably sturdy tripod punch well above it's weight class, for stability, hang something from the hook at the bottom of the center column.

Almost all good tripods have this hook and a backpack or loaded camera bag, for instance, is an option.
Some carry a nylon stuff sack to put a rock in.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for the great advice.

It's not for me but for a young man.

I told him already to go low.

I have used the Slik 88 with Vivitar solid Cat 600mm f/8 with 3x teleconverter at 180x visually and easily split Epsilon Lyrae, both pairs, but it moves even in no wind.

My heavy 12.5inch Dall Kirkham with custom tripod was steady at 600x on planets.

The Broadhurst Clarkson single mahogany legs garden tripod with simple pillar head supported 3 inch and 5 inch refractors and 6 inch Maksutovs. Easily at 150x.
I used wind shields when necessary.

The 150mm f/10 Maksutov was supported on a wonderful ex gov aluminum box section 2 stage tripod with custom aluminum single arm altazimuth head.
The bottom had a long link chain wrapped around the three legs, noisy but great.
The scope was used at 95x with the English E59 Erfle eyepiece or similar taken from soviet 8x30 monoculars. English had hundreds of dead eyepieceless monocular bodies strewn around the large warehouse.
It was far cheaper to buy the monocular than to attempt to get just the eyepieces. I tried this and failed.
Probably copy of a Zeiss eyepiece.
The Maksutov was set up by the seashore for anybody to look at ships, islands etc.
I was an early sidewalk astronomer I suppose.
This tripod maybe weighed 10 kgs or more and could easily support the weight of a 70 kg man.
It went in the back of the car.

So for me, I know, but I cannot advise properly on modern tripods.

Connecting the bottom of tripod legs is far better than the middle or higher, but few do this.

Thanks again for the replies.
 
For 50mm lenses the problems are not that great.
My standard exposure for night sky was 15 seconds at f/1.4 on the almost fully extended Slik 88 but no centre column extension.
160 to 400 ASA film.
Using a cable release the photos were invariably sharp.

With the 12.5inch Dall Kirkham, the exposures for Saturn and Jupiter were 1 second at f/72 at 23,000mm focal length. Cable release.
Photos were all sharp, only atmospheric turbulence meant that say 4 on a roll of 111 exposures on 1/3rd frame were very good.

The problem with the Sony A7S is that it doesn't have body stabilisation.
The maximum exposure here at 51,000 ISO is 1/13th second at f/1.4 with 85mm lens. However, hand held the images are blurred.
With the Ergorest the images are very sharp with 8th magnitude stars shown in 1/13th second. At the edge only 7th magnitude stars. This is with severe light pollution.
I only take single exposures, no stacking and only use JPEGs.

So something like a Manfrotto Befree 1.6kg tripod might be O.K. if used at a low height, possibly with body stabiliser on, and out of the wind, using self timer.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top