Zardoz wrote:
Is this good?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001 ... CK80VY8WWALooking at getting a tripod that isn't too flimsy, too heavy or too spendy
Seems cheap for what it is, am I missing something?
From my experience Manfrotto make very good tripods and that seems very reasonably priced. I doubt that will be particularly light. The main problem with lighter tripods is the clamps that hold the legs getting worn out or coming loose and not locking the extensions - you can easily tighten these clamps with a small socket set.
There are a few principal reasons for having a tripod
1: that the camera you're using is too heavy to hold by hand for periods of time
2: slow shutter speeds.
3: taking panoramic or multiple bracket exposures for HDR blending where the camera has to be locked off in a position that you can accurately control.
4: you want to be in the shots and there's no-one to fire the shutter.
there are of course others you may think of but I'm not creating a list of diminishing reasons for why you need a tripod
My main point is this. Do you really need one? True, a Manfrotto tripod will hold it's value very well so you can view it almost like an investment. However, you're camera doesn't fit point one unless you strap a fucking huge lens on the front and even then a monopod would do, as it would do for point two - unless you're shooting lots of very slow shutter speed shots - a monopod would work fine down to about a 1/4 of a sec.
I suspect you'll soon tire of carry a heavy hard lump around "just in case".
As for carbon fibre, unless you're shooting video and consequently need a tripod that would weigh a fucking ton, then bear in mind that the heaviest part of a tripod is the head you attach the camera to making the weight gains of the legs a waste of money.