15th July 2004, 05:11 PM
why blow so much money on simple things?
The other day I noticed a thread about tripods. Some members were recommending tripods costing S$200+++.
Ballheads are S$100+++
I just saw a thread with MO for a ~S$100 quick release plate.
The mind boggles. Really. Or maybe there is something I don't really get.
Why blow so much money on things that are basically low tech? What's the advantage?
I am using a S$19 tripod bought in Carrefour. Since three years, the only problem was a plastic knob on one of the screws went away after I screw it too hard. But a drop of cheap super glue from HomeFix fixed it. It's as stable as the next guy's S$200+ tripod (I think, since both are stabilized by gravity ) . But mine's much lighter. The head is crappy, agreed. Panning would be very jerky. But I am using it for stills, not a movie, so it doesn't matter.
So, why? Why spend so much money on tripods+accessories, when the cheap stuff works the same??? Is it another aspect of "my camera is bigger/badder/more expensive than yours" games or am I just missing something?
15th July 2004, 05:15 PM
If you've own heavier camera and lenses, you'll soon find that those $20 tripods just don't cut out anymore.
15th July 2004, 05:20 PM
there's something called super-ego :P
15th July 2004, 05:36 PM
A $20 tripod will never support a DSLR body with a super-telephoto lens. Sometimes it's not just about super-ego. It's about getting the right equipment for the job.
If it was possible, who'd not want to buy a $20 tripod to use and lug a big heavy tripod around that costs $500 and up.
Your case is only valid if you have a small digital camera. I used to use the CP5700 and SB-80DX on a $50 tripod, it can't even sustain the weight. Also don't forget, when knocked into the tripod should be stable, given a $20 tripod doubt it would even be stable in the first place.
Ratio the amount you spent on the camera and then see if $300 is justifiable for a tripod or not. If you spend $600 on a digital camera, of course it's not justifiable. But for others who've spent $6K on a camera, $10K on a lens, I don't see why getting a $1K tripod is considered extreme (if I may paraphrase).
15th July 2004, 05:43 PM
when u have heavy dslr u definitely need somethng more stable..
when u shoot in extreme weather conditions, eg strong wind.. the stability of ur tripod is key to getting good pics..
or when u do say star trails and need to expose ur shots for hours.. etc etc etc.. the experts can justify better here
but for wknd & occasional shooters like u & me, yeah probably not worth it..
15th July 2004, 05:47 PM
It depends on individual needs and wants I guess. A sub $10 disposable camera can take pics, so why go for a digital camera that costs many times more, not to mention DSLR+lenses that cost even more.
15th July 2004, 05:48 PM
15th July 2004, 06:45 PM
I agree with dkw. Unstable tripod will affect the stability of the camera and in turn affect the quality of the picture. When you spent thousands of dollars for high quality lenses so as to get high quality pictures, having an unstable tripod will defeat the purpose.
15th July 2004, 06:52 PM
why? why in the first place u spent so much on a camera n lens, when a simple P&S can take nice n quality pics too ?
Originally Posted by Bromba
15th July 2004, 06:53 PM
15th July 2004, 07:13 PM
Yup. Not only that, can you imagine how top heavy that set up is? One small gust of wind or a careless bystander walking by........poof!
Originally Posted by jumbocrab
Why blow so much money on simple things? Well, why stinge on important things (like a good sturdy tripod!)?
15th July 2004, 07:23 PM
There will always be people who will not understand the right equipment for the right job and it will be very difficult to explain. It is not a matter of ego or mine is bigger and better than yours. You buy the things for your own use not for others therefore no need to explain. Anyway always buy within your means. As you get more influntial you buy better things to pamper yourself and there are always better stuff out there.
15th July 2004, 07:26 PM
15th July 2004, 07:32 PM
I have a $50 tripod that is stable enough for my old EOS 5QD + 80-200/2.8L combo. Not the heaviest combo, but a good 2kg+. Yes, heavier tripods are more stable, but if that's the case, why do people blow money on lightweight carbon-fibre tripods ? Isn't that counter-productive, in terms of stability. Strong winds ? Well, just hang your bag on the tripod.
As for reliability, this cheapo tripod ( which is fairly big ) has served me long and hard for 12 years ! Yep, I bought it in 1992, and its still working perfectly.
I think many people get caught up in the euphoria of buying more expensive stuff, and forget the purpose of the equipment instead. These are the same guys who buy 3GHz PCs so that they can run MS Word.
15th July 2004, 07:34 PM
15th July 2004, 07:35 PM
As long as its stable ENOUGH, then its good enough. The key word is ENOUGH. A cheap tripod can be stable enough if you don't overload it. OK, maybe not a $20 tripod, but you don't have to spend $300 to get a stable one.
Originally Posted by dkw
Problem is, some people buy all that expensive without any idea of how to use it.
15th July 2004, 08:52 PM
15th July 2004, 09:06 PM
15th July 2004, 09:18 PM
Aiya why buy a camera at all, so much problem. Make one yourself lah.
Like I say no need to explain why you buy this and you buy that. Everybody have different needs and ego to satisfy that is why we are all different. There will always be a different view point to it. Why buy a Nike when a $5 shoe will do, why buy a Tag when a Casio will do, why buy a $30 shirt when others are selling $10, why drink Coke when Pepsi is the same, why............there will be another 10000 to come.
15th July 2004, 09:19 PM
I tried almost every tripod in CP & Prime from the cheapest upward until i found the one that could support my camera and lens well. the price was 250+.. then i ask the steven for something similar in stability and cheaper price... I got my tripod. It cost me $185. It is the slik 700dx. i did not seek out the CF tripod because it was too expensive. it is not a senseless exercise.
Originally Posted by Bromba
you must come and try out camera weight and the environment we shoot in. I used to have a $20 tripod... everytime i press the shutter i can sense minute vibration. the bloody thing is too filmsy.
if you are shooting on a windy day... your tripod is not going to make it. neither if you are shooting in a factory (coporate shoot) with the machine thumping away...
you should specify what camera you are using to put things in perpective. If you are using a casio exilim or a canon A80... i can understand. You have not reach the need to invest in a heavier tripod. If you tell me you are using a 1D with 400mm L, and the tripod can cut it.... tell us. i am sure we will fly to buy it and sell off our $$$ trpod.
in fact, i decided based on the stability of the tripod for my system not because it is expensive.