The photography thread

boogieman

Personally I wouldn’t want to be lugging anything heavy around. Carbon fibre is ideal, light but rigid. 

beed84

strumjoughlamps said:

beed84 said:

What are people’s thoughts on vintage tripods vs modern? As an amateur mostly interested in landscape photography I’m looking to buy a one on a budget (around £50-100) but unsure if the vintage stuff, despite doing the job, is potentially money wasted. For reference, I have my eye on an old Linhof. Any advice would be appreciated.

All I know is the day I moved to a carbon fibre tripod was a good day.

boogieman said:

Personally I wouldn’t want to be lugging anything heavy around. Carbon fibre is ideal, light but rigid. 

They are more expensive but I suppose it’s the most sensible option in the long run. Thanks chaps, I’ll start researching models 

RaymondLin

Can’t really go wrong with Manfrotto.  You can go other brands like 3 legged things and whatnot but Manfrotto is like the staple of that tripod world.  Very good brand.

Gitzo if you want to go nuts.

boogieman

You can always go second hand, that’s what I did when I got my Manfrotto. They are very good as Ray says but maybe a bit outside your budget I think. Looking at used ones on eBay the prices seem to have jumped up enormously, I only paid about £70 for mine. Benro is a cheaper option and still reasonable quality.  

Haych

I was recently given an Alta Pro 263AT tripod, which I was very grateful for since I didn't have a tripod.  I have never heard of the brand, I have no clue if it's well respected or not.

I'd hardly call it light but it's not like carrying a boulder around.  It is quite sturdy, though.  On a recent trip to take some long exposures with a friend (ironically, the same friend who bestowed said tripod upon me), he was using a very nice, lightweight, CF tripod, but it was quite breezy.  He was unable to get any good shots due to his tripod being buffeted by the wind.  The Alta Pro didn't budge.

For my needs it's very good.  I'm unlikely to carry it up a mountain and I like that it's firm even in windy conditions.  It's also very agile and can get into positions that would make a porn star blush.

If I didn't have the Alta Pro, I'd probably buy something from Kent & Faith.  For my needs anything truly expensive would be a waste of money.  K&F seem to make some pretty decent stuff for the price.  Other's opinions may differ, however.

RaymondLin

CF tripods, or most tripods normally have a hook in the centre column so you can hand weights on to weight it down for those windy conditions.

Tannin

Benro is a cheap Chinese knock-off. You have got exactly two chances of getting spare parts for a Benro tripod. (Err ... that's Oz-speak for "no chance at all"). 

On the other hand, they are pretty well made and you can buy a Benro, have something break you can't get the part for, throw it away, buy another one, blow £100 on a horse race, and still have spent less than the price of a Gitzo.

I have a top-of-the-range Manfrotto (last model you can buy before stepping up to their expensive brand, which is Gitzo) and a Benro. They both work just fine. Neither one was cheap though. Cheap tripods are a really bad idea. I'd rather use a cheap lens than a cheap tripod.

Lodious

Just as important as the weight is that carbon doesn’t feel nearly as cold when it’s freezing outside. Trying to reposition an aluminium tripod with gloves off in the middle of winter is not pleasant.

dazzajl

Only a Manfrotto Neotec with a geared head is a tripod. Anything else is an archaic waste of time, space, or both. 

Genuinely, they are so much nicer to use than any of the regular leg clamp mechanisms and so easy to adjust to the perfect position. I have several tripods for different jobs but all the others make me very frowny. I think I’ve been using this particular set of legs for about 20 years and one insomnia filled night I worked out that each leg has been adjusted around a quarter of a million times. It’s as rock solid today as the day I bought it and there is no play anywhere. 

Tannin

My Manfrotto has a geared head. It is great. And it's dreadful. Both.

It is great because adjusting the height on the fly is really practical, and you can adjust it a long way. Nothing else is as effective when you are using a big lens (600/4 for me) in thick bush or jungle and trying to get a good angle on the bird. 

And it is bad (a) because it is very heavy. Too heavy for my old bones. And (b) because you can't lower it properly. The lowest it can possibly go is about half a metre, so it's pretty much useless for waterbirds, and also in various other situations. 

So sometimes I use it, sometimes I use the other one. 

ThePrettyDamned

beed84 said:

What are people’s thoughts on vintage tripods vs modern? As an amateur mostly interested in landscape photography I’m looking to buy a one on a budget (around £50-100) but unsure if the vintage stuff, despite doing the job, is potentially money wasted. For reference, I have my eye on an old Linhof. Any advice would be appreciated.

Old ones are going to be heavy. What's your camera? I have a vanguard tripod that I picked up off ebay quite cheap, that folds down to tiny but is sturdy enough for a mirror less camera and decent sized lens, or my nikon D700 (which is a huge tank) and a smaller prime lens. It also let's you invert the centre post to hang the camera below - very stable and good for macro and other interesting viewpoints.

https://www.vanguardworld.com/products/veo-2-s-235ab

That is also available in carbon fibre. Typically, carbon will be more fragile but much lighter. The fragile thing only matters if you don't take care of it, so carbon is basically just more likely to come out with you because it's easier to carry. 

ThePrettyDamned

With above post said, a tripod like that won't be good for telephoto landscapes - if you mount a 300mm or 400mm lens to it, it won't be stable enough. Look at the vanguard alta range or a standard manfrotto for that. You may also want a weight to hang on the centre column. 

Wide-angle close up landscape you'll probably be fine, even with a fairly heavy prime. The weight is more centralised and the tripod should be okay unless it's windy. Again, so much depends on what you need. I don't mind if my D700 and 50mm 1.8 blow over because the lens is mega cheap and the body is probably one of the toughest ever built. 

beed84

ThePrettyDamned said:

beed84 said:

What are people’s thoughts on vintage tripods vs modern? As an amateur mostly interested in landscape photography I’m looking to buy a one on a budget (around £50-100) but unsure if the vintage stuff, despite doing the job, is potentially money wasted. For reference, I have my eye on an old Linhof. Any advice would be appreciated.

Old ones are going to be heavy. What's your camera? I have a vanguard tripod that I picked up off ebay quite cheap, that folds down to tiny but is sturdy enough for a mirror less camera and decent sized lens, or my nikon D700 (which is a huge tank) and a smaller prime lens. It also let's you invert the centre post to hang the camera below - very stable and good for macro and other interesting viewpoints.

https://www.vanguardworld.com/products/veo-2-s-235ab

That is also available in carbon fibre. Typically, carbon will be more fragile but much lighter. The fragile thing only matters if you don't take care of it, so carbon is basically just more likely to come out with you because it's easier to carry. 

ThePrettyDamned said:

With above post said, a tripod like that won't be good for telephoto landscapes - if you mount a 300mm or 400mm lens to it, it won't be stable enough. Look at the vanguard alta range or a standard manfrotto for that. You may also want a weight to hang on the centre column. 

Wide-angle close up landscape you'll probably be fine, even with a fairly heavy prime. The weight is more centralised and the tripod should be okay unless it's windy. Again, so much depends on what you need. I don't mind if my D700 and 50mm 1.8 blow over because the lens is mega cheap and the body is probably one of the toughest ever built. 

Thanks for this. I currently use an Olympus OM-D EM-10 for digital and Nikon FM2n for film. Lens wise I'm using the stock 14-42mm and 50mm prime respectively. I've no intention of venturing into telephoto just yet, although I'm keen on getting a wide-angle at some point. I suppose my main aim is to improve with the equipment I've got. But I do know I need a tripod for what I want to do – slow ISO and shutter speeds.

Having read through the comments it seems the general consensus is: the lighter the better. Since I don't drive it makes even more sense to get a carbon fibre one. The one you suggested certainly ticks the boxes and has now been shortlisted – there are just so many to choose from!

Thanks again for everyone's advice. It's definitely saved me from buying a hunk of old heavy metal! 

Tannin

I was idly flipping back through some previous pages today and noticed that in May one member was making particularly good sense on the tripod question, saying pretty much exactly what I said yesterday. "Who is this intelligent person?" I asked myself and glanced at his handle. 

Oh. A young chap named "Tannin". 

Someone bump this thread just after Christmas, I'll probably write the same posts a third time.

RiftAmps

Anyone have a recommendation for a Superia 200 replacement now that it’s discontinued? 

boogieman

RiftAmps said:

Anyone have a recommendation for a Superia 200 replacement now that it’s discontinued? 

There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of choice nowadays. Kodak Gold looks like the easiest to get hold of  (And a bit like when I saw what a packet of cigarettes cost….. how much???!!!) I always used Gold when I shot film rather than digital. it’s a bit biased towards the red tones but it’s ok otherwise. 

Looks to be a lot more choice in b/w films, presumably that’s what the majority of people are using in their 35mm cameras.  

RiftAmps

boogieman said:

RiftAmps said:

Anyone have a recommendation for a Superia 200 replacement now that it’s discontinued? 

There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of choice nowadays. Kodak Gold looks like the easiest to get hold of  (And a bit like when I saw what a packet of cigarettes cost….. how much???!!!) I always used Gold when I shot film rather than digital. it’s a bit biased towards the red tones but it’s ok otherwise. 

Looks to be a lot more choice in b/w films, presumably that’s what the majority of people are using in their 35mm cameras.  

Thanks, although I've always leaned toward the Blue/Green depth that Superia 200 (and other Fuji stocks) had.

I've noticed Cinestill 400D looks like a good contender. If I'm going to spend ££ then I'd like to support a small firm