marc (12/06/82)
I'm in the market for a reasonable but inexpensive ( <= $40 ) tripod for a Canon AE1P. Any suggestions, features to look for, etc. appreciated. I've been looking at the SLIK units but really have no idea as to what features are useful or necessary on a general purpose tripod. thanks, marc pucci (mhtsa!mh3bs!marc)
whaley (12/07/82)
#R:mh3bs:-22500:uiucdcs:20900002:000:272 uiucdcs!whaley Dec 6 21:02:00 1982 And I am looking for a cheap small collapsible tripod that I can put in my camera bag and use to take pictures in low light. When I travel I keep discovering myself in dark buildings with no handy way to steady the camera. I'd rather have it be not cheap than not small.
bryan@sri-unix (12/07/82)
Zone VI of Newfane, VT has been selling a tripod that intrigues me. It is basicly a surveyor's wooden tripod with a Bogen 3047 head. It should be very sturdy; those tripods have been in use a long time in a business where a premium is placed on freedom from vibration (ever try to sight through a telescope on a shakey mount?) and I believe the Bogen head to be very well made. So whats the problem? Their price!!! Zone VI wants $195 for a tripod that I have seen on retail for just over $100 at an engineering supply store and $60 for a head that you can buy for $32 through N.Y. City. Question is: Does anyone know a wholesale distributor for surveying tripods? I would think that you should be able to buy one for about $50. At that price I will run out and buy one. Doubt if there will be massive mail on this matter but just in case mail responses to me and, if interest warrants it, I will generate a summary. -Bryan Lyles (allegra or seismo)!rochester!bryan
wm (12/08/82)
For a small tripod to keep in your camera bag for "emergencies", try a monopod. It provides alot of steadying for just a little weight. The only thing you can't use it for is REALLY long time exposures, or taking pictures that include yourself. Wm Leler - UNC Chapel Hill
heliotis (12/08/82)
I once found an item in a mail order catalog that would be a good substitute for a tripod, if you need something compact. It was a clamp, for use on a tree,table, etc. Anyone got one? You like it? Jim Heliotis
malcolm (12/09/82)
#R:mh3bs:-22500:pur-ee:8400007:000:280 pur-ee!malcolm Dec 8 22:14:00 1982 How about using a small beanbag? In a pinch I have substituted many things of that nature and had good results. Of course it is slightly inconvient having to line up a shot off the corner of a table but what do you expect for CHEAP. Malcolm Slaney Purdue EE Dept.
vhm55611 (12/09/82)
My favorite method is *very* light, small, portable, etc. and just about as good as a monopod. Find an eyebolt that has the same thread as a tripod (so it will fit in your tripod socket-- careful you don't thread it in too far though-- you might want to cut it short or put a locknut on it so that it won't go in far enough to break anything, but it will go in far enough to hold on...). Anyway, then take a piece of cord, string, light chain, or something else handy like that (it's best if it doesn't stretch too much) a little longer than you are tall, and tie one end to the eye on the bolt. Put the bolt in your tripod socket, step on the other end of the cord at an appopriate spot, pull up enough to get the cord tight and the camera to your eye, and voila, a support good enough for at least 1/4 sec exposures, if you're careful. This is really great for places that don't let you use tripods (museums, etc.) and times when you really don't want to carry anything you can't fit in your pocket (aside from your camera, of course.) Another way you could use this (though I've never been brave enough to try) is to hang your camera upside down from a tree branch or something like that, when you want to take a self-portrait type shot and there's nowhere to put your camera down. Vic Mitnick BTL-IX ihuxk!vhm55611
kerns@trwrba.UUCP (John G. Kerns) (12/19/85)
I'm looking for a tripod that is light enough to be carried on day hikes in the local mountains. What are the best tripods that have lever leg locks and quick release camera mounts? Is a ball head better than a pan/tilt head? John
rjn@hpfcla.UUCP (12/31/85)
re: "... tripod that is light enough to be carried on day hikes ..." I keep a small sandbag in my gadget bag for this purpose. It is a small ZipLock bag full of sterilized beach sand. The ZipLock bag is further enclosed in a sewn denim bag. It hasn't leaked in five years. Sandbags are much better than tripods at damping mirror slap and shutter vibration. They are not as steady as tripods for long exposures. I used this bag once to photograph Minot Light (MA) from three miles away on a windy day. The lens was a Bushnell 60x spotting scope with camera adaptor for my Canon A-1. Even though this was effectively 2200mm at f32 on ISO100 film, I caught a wave splashing halfway up the lighthouse and seagulls in flight; a stunning photo. Regards, Hewlett-Packard Bob Niland 3404 East Harmony Road [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn Fort Collins CO 80525
sasaki@harvard.UUCP (Marty Sasaki) (12/31/85)
Tripods are always too heavy, especially if you have to carry them any
distance at all. Unfortunately, I have discovered that they are useful
in all picture taking situations, especially if you aren't using flash
or are using shutter speeds less than 1/125.
An interesting exercise is to take pictures of resolution charts at
various shutter speeds hand-held. Then do the same with a really
sturdy tripod. I think that you will be surprised at how poorly you
do. I found (when I did this a long time ago) that I needed a speed
of 1/250 to come close to the tripod mounted speeds. If I really
concentrated I could go down to 1/60 with only slight degradation, but
for quick shooting 1/250 was the slowest.
This makes the answer to the question about tripods a difficult one.
I've settled on a Bogen 3040 as my tripod until I finish the one that
I am making. For me, going any lighter isn't worth it once I've
resigned myself to carrying a tripod at all.
I also like ball heads over pan heads for still photography. I don't
do any panorama or multiple shot photo's, but if I did, then a pan
head would make more sense.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138rmrin@inuxa.UUCP (D Rickert) (01/03/86)
> Tripods are always too heavy, especially if you have to carry them any > distance at all. Unfortunately, I have discovered that they are useful > in all picture taking situations, especially if you aren't using flash > or are using shutter speeds less than 1/125. In answer to the question about light tripods, I bought a gadget for about six bucks that isn't a conventional tripod. Instead it just has a screw clamp on the bottom and some 3-D adjustments so you can get the camera pointing where you want it. Very light and, provided you can find something in the world to screw the clamp onto (OYY, such grammar), it works well. -- You are Beautiful, Dick Rickert my manufactured love;- AT&T CPL but it is only Svengali, Indy, IN talking to himself again. Reward is its own virtue!
dkw1@hou2a.UUCP (D.WOMBOUGH) (01/03/86)
A cheap replacement for a tripod is a bean bag . You can place it on any uneven surface and it will hold your camera in any position that you desire. It may not replace a tripod but it is small so it will fit into you camera bag .
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (01/05/86)
> An interesting exercise is to take pictures of resolution charts at > various shutter speeds hand-held. Then do the same with a really > sturdy tripod. I found that I needed a speed of 1/250 to come close > to the tripod mounted speeds. If I really concentrated I could go down > to 1/60 with only slight degradation, but for quick shooting 1/250 was > the slowest. **** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh Assuming that Marty was using a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera this translates into the following: 25mm lens use 1/125 or faster 50mm lens use 1/250 or faster 100mm lens use 1/500 or faster 200mm lens use 1/1000 or faster 400mm lens and longer use a tripod. Actually, most pros recommend using 1/xth of a second with a xmm lens. In other words use 1/50th of a second with a 50mm lens. But this is the absolute slowest exposure you should try to get away with. For normal landscape photography the affects of hot air movement and other differences in air density just about have the same affect as blur at that speed. Of course for close work like resolution chart photography higher speeds are necessary.
sasaki@harvard.UUCP (Marty Sasaki) (01/06/86)
I should have mentioned the camera and lens. The camera was a 35mm SLR
and the lens was a 50mm.
I used to use the the 1/focal-length rule, but found that for the best
results this was too slow for me. Of course I occasionally get lucky
and get really good results under trying conditions, and for most of
the pictures that I take the rule is good enough, but when I want
really sharp pictures, then I put my camera on a tripod.
I encourage all net.rec.photo readers to perform an experiment. Take
your camera out on a sunny day with Kodachrome or some other high
resolution film. Take some photos hand held, then take the same photos
using a tripod. Take the pictures using different shutter speeds. Then
look at the photos carefully. I'm sure you will be surprised with the
results.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138anand@utastro.UUCP (Anand Sivaramakrishnan) (01/07/86)
... The '1/focal length(mm)' rule seems to apply to photojournalistic shots... extreme crispness of the image is rarely acheived that way. I can see differences between hand-held and tripod-mounted shots at 1/125s speeds without trying too hard. And not just in my pictures either. That's for SLR's with mirror slap and shutter-curtain slam. I can handle the leaf shutter on my (massive) 6x6 much better ... some knee-rested shots at 1/30 come out sharp. Not all, though. I hate tripods: mine is particularly vicious, it snaps at my fingers all the time, but I hate blurry pictures even more.