Cant swing the cash for a carbon fiber tripod right now(kids) but either way not sure what to cap it off with Manfrotto grip or somebodies ball head etc...

@ crizman The Induro impresses me. I have a Induro CT213 CARBON 8X CT SER. 3-SEC TRIPOD with a Manfrotto 468MG HYDROSTATIC BALL HEAD w/RC2, but have changed the head to an ARCA Swiss design.

I had that exact same Star D tripod (its a Tiltall copy! the new Tiltalls are"nt good anymore/different company)That was a great tripod,got mine used from a co worker for $20. back in '86,87 and it finally crapped out about 3 years ago.Wish i still had it!I also have a Cullman traveler? its smaller & light weight for landscapes or macro. then I have the monster Bogen 3047 W/ 3046 pan/tilt head wich was more of a studio tripod Had it since 1985,bought it from my old photo instructor for about $60. Still going strong! But thinking of replacing my Star D with either an Induro or a Manfrotto 055x pro b. Any suggestions?

Gitzo said:

So the next time you have your new D-4 ( with 400mm / f 2.8 tele lens attached ) sitting on a tripod, mounted on an L-plate, ask yourself, "how sure am I of what kind of material that "bargain" L plate from "where ever" is made from the proper, high strength alloy that good old RRS (and other U.S. companies) use in THEIR L-plates" ?

In other words, when it comes to L-plates, you get what you pay for............

Now...........if you want "the best", and have unlimited patience.............you don't "always" have to fork out $ 150 for a RRS L-plate; I very recently bought the one on my D-300s on eBay for $80 (+ $10 shipping) They rarely go for less than $100.........(but that's where the patience is required).

Mmmm.... the "L" plate I am using was forged and machined from one piece...a complete knock off of the RRS as best I can tell. However, I do appreciate the suggestion of purchasing one used on eBay or other used market place. I will do a search for this and see if it is possible to find a D4 RRS L plate for my camera.

I would suggest, a 400mm and D4 on a tripod would be mounted by the lens mount in most circumstances.

And, whenever the camera is mounted on a tripod, monopod, and in a precarious location, such as overhead, it always has a tether on it in case of mounting failure.

Why are L-brackets so expensive ? Here's why............

Take a VERY close look at one; essentially two quick release plates that are at 90 degrees to each other; now take a very close look at the two rather small "connecting" pieces of aluminum that hold them together.

The L plate fastens to the camera body with one "captive" 1/4"-20 machine screw in the bottom QR plate..........but the "end" plate, the one used for portrait format, has nothing holding it.........except that that same small machine screw, and those two small connecting pieces; ( and it's holding a camera body that may cost up tp 8K or so, plus a lens that may even be worth more than the camera ); so obviously, L-plates MUST be VERY strong ! And they are; I can only speak for Really Right Stuff plates, as they are all I use for the most part, and I'm very familiar with the company that makes them.

The old "saying"........"you usually get what you pay for".........for any RRS product, you pay a premium price in order to get a premium product. Now.......to make a flat "bottom" Q. R. plate, it only requires a short length of aircraft grade aluminum alloy, and a bit of machining on a CNC machine. Aircraft grade aluminum costs "considerably" more than, say, the aluminum in your lawn chairs.

To make an L-plate, they start out with a large, solid block of that same high grade aircraft aluminum alloy, and the same CNC machine turns about 95% of the block into "shavings"; I might add, where a flat plate might only require 10 or 15 minutes of machining, ( by a machine that costs maybe 100 K ), the same machine may require an hour (or more), to machine away 95% of that block of expensive metal in the process of turning it into an L-plate.

Here's something else to think about; any one intimately familiar with the aircraft industry can tell you, that there have been more than a few fatal airline disasters that were found to have been caused by "counterfeit" fasteners, made from sub-stardard material, which "failed", causing planes to crash and passengers to perish. I don't wish to "call names" or "name" sources, but NONE of these sub standard fasteners ( bolts, rivets, etc ), were manufactured in the U.S.

So the next time you have your new D-4 ( with 400mm / f 2.8 tele lens attached ) sitting on a tripod, mounted on an L-plate, ask yourself, "how sure am I of what kind of material that "bargain" L plate from "where ever" is made from the proper, high strength alloy that good old RRS (and other U.S. companies) use in THEIR L-plates" ?

In other words, when it comes to L-plates, you get what you pay for............

Now...........if you want "the best", and have unlimited patience.............you don't "always" have to fork out $ 150 for a RRS L-plate; I very recently bought the one on my D-300s on eBay for $80 (+ $10 shipping) They rarely go for less than $100.........(but that's where the patience is required).

spraynpray said:
I reckon you are still young NSX - for those of us who have got to the stage where we struggle to hold a camera still, our tripod is our friend!

I used to be able to pan a 200 at 1/60th - not anymore!

@ Paul: My Slik goes to 6ft without using the centre column then if I do it goes on to about 7ft6".

£80 on eBay...

Haha, I hope I stay that way!

But honestly, my style of shooting doesn't jive well with tripods. I take photos of children, usually at family gatherings, street photography, cars, and a lot of times flowers and bugs in my garden. I don't do much of long exposure or landscape photography, so I'm lucky in that sense.

Children move much too fast for a long 105mm macro, and unless I'm taking family portraits, I don't really need a tripod.

tcole1983 said:
Honestly I haven't ever put my 105 on a tripod...I shoot all my macro handheld :X

I have now found my monopod a more easily usable piece. There are a few times I wish I had my tripod when I didn't bring it, but it is always low light for long exposures. Plus those types of shots take a while to setup and shoot so I don't do them often. I obviously haven't had enough cases of not having it to warrant always having it :)

Good to hear that you don't use it on your cheap tripod, because I would never use or trust the 105mm on my cheapo $20 tripod either. It barely is stable enough to carry a D40 with my 18-135.

The investment for a tripod is a bit steep for me in comparison to the amount I would actually use it. I feel like I could more out of a D7000 for the sheer ISO performance- at ISO 800 that's really maxing out on the D40, any higher is really no good.

I agree about the weight and the idea of the money. I thought about having a 1/4" x 1" aluminum bar bent into a 90° angle, then adding a Manfrotto plate to each side. It would work nearly as well, unless one wanted the access to the connections on the end, and also, charging the battery.....

But, when using the PC Nikkor, having the camera balanced on top of the tripod as opposed to off to the side, it just makes it easier to be stable, especially when on uneven ground.

I am not concerned about camera weight issues, mainly because I do not carry things that far... no hiking at my age...

And, the cash cow....could be, but with the machining they do on the L-plates...seems to be a large amount of work. My stuff is from Sunwayfoto purchased at B & H. They appear to be very well done products, for about 1/3rd less than RRS.

The added weight, and size are why I'm not rushing out to get an L-Bracket. I like the concept, and the use in practice. For me the extra $100-150 is hard to justify, there isn't that much more metal used to make the L-bracket over the normal plates. To me the L-Brackets are the Acra-Swiss compatible plate makers cash cow.

PB PM, I figure having the L plate on my camera/grip all the time turns it into a bludgeoning weapon for those self-defense moments ;)

It certainly adds some weight.

Enjoying the L-bracket are you? I don't have one, I find them to be too expensive and bulky for the limited use it would get. I just use standard (camera or lens specific) Arca-Swiss compatible base plates.

Out with the ARCA Swiss head on the top today....Wow, makes the verticals so easy to get....

I would have never obtained my Paris night shots if I didn't have a tripod. I always felt so bad for the people that came along side of me at the Tour Montparnasse without a tripod. They tried to rest their camera on the railing and even that doesn't compare. Even though a tripod is a pain to carry around, invest in one that is lightweight and know when you need it.

My newest Tripod is a Vanguard Alta Pro 263AGH with a GH-100 pistol grip head.

I have been happy with this one and like the pistol grip.

NSXType-R said:
Have you used that tripod with your 105mm macro Nikkor?

I don't own a tripod because I know I wouldn't use it. It's a big cumbersome piece of equipment that would probably slow me down.

I know that it's a necessary piece of equipment, but for most of what I do I don't need it.

Honestly I haven't ever put my 105 on a tripod...I shoot all my macro handheld :X

I have now found my monopod a more easily usable piece. There are a few times I wish I had my tripod when I didn't bring it, but it is always low light for long exposures. Plus those types of shots take a while to setup and shoot so I don't do them often. I obviously haven't had enough cases of not having it to warrant always having it :)

NSXType-R said:

I don't own a tripod because I know I wouldn't use it. It's a big cumbersome piece of equipment that would probably slow me down.

I reckon you are still young NSX - for those of us who have got to the stage where we struggle to hold a camera still, our tripod is our friend!

I used to be able to pan a 200 at 1/60th - not anymore!

@ Paul: My Slik goes to 6ft without using the centre column then if I do it goes on to about 7ft6".

£80 on eBay...

We sure are Msmoto, Now who's got the biggest {Sorry Best Head}, I have a Manfrotto 268 and I love it, can take anything, and a
bargain at £60 00 on Ebay

We are a very diverse group. Some of us have used tripods, actually camera stands, about 10 feet tall. And others are strictly hand hold folks. No one is right or wrong. Like whether one likes a motorcycle or a dually. Love the variety on the forum.

tcole1983 said:
I have a pretty inexpensive tripod that was purchased from best buy, but I really haven't ever had a problem. I just used it last weekend and it worked wonderfully. It is pretty light weight and after handling my friends manfroto one a couple times while we were out it made me glad to have mine.

I do have a manfroto monopod though.

Have you used that tripod with your 105mm macro Nikkor?

I don't own a tripod because I know I wouldn't use it. It's a big cumbersome piece of equipment that would probably slow me down.

I know that it's a necessary piece of equipment, but for most of what I do I don't need it.

msmoto said:

This post is just for information purposes in case someone wants to switch to ARCA Swiss which are IMO much better overall.

The Arca standard should be enforced by international law.

Well, for those who may have a desire to change from one type of quick release to an ARCA Swiss style, i can say it is possible. Of course, not for the faint of heart...and one must have a drill press, proper drills, countersink, adequate clamps for the press, and a strong desire to be very careful and measure properly.

I switched out the RC-2 clamp on a Manfrotto 466MGRC2 Ball Head, and replaced it with a Sunwayfoto DLC-60. Works very nicely and the Sunwayfoto clamp appears to be very well made. We will see. Of course one has to attach the ARCA Swiss plates onto everything, lenses, etc. but the big advantage is that nom, instead of two tripods using RC-5 plates and two using RC-2 clamps, all now use the same style clamp which makes it easier to interchange the tripods with the big lenses and smaller camera/ lens combinations. And, I have now a collection of RC-2 and RC-5 mounting clamps which I will dispose of at some point.

This switch was precipitated by a new gimbal mount by Induro which has the ARCA Swiss mount.

This post is just for information purposes in case someone wants to switch to ARCA Swiss which are IMO much better overall.

Very well said elvishefer. Best post yet.

I try to take as much pleasure as I can from shooting. If I can take some pics to help someone out, I'll do it. If someone tries to pay me for it, I'll take the cash. I'm thrilled if other people like my photos. Sitting here at my computer and looking at the prints on the walls, I'd say that ultimately I do it for the selfish pleasure of looking at my photos and reflecting on some of the best moments of my life. Photography is a technical skill that can't be perfected, but I'll pursue it to the grave. I love it.

Quote:

"I wouldn't even try to separate shooting from processing.

I would try to master both.

My best,

Mike"

+1......

Some of us on the forum grew up with film and were also privileged to process the film, and then produce in the darkroom what we thought we saw when we shot the image. This to many of us is photography. Very rarely, I will have an image in the computer I am fully satisfied with. I am always looking at what is in front of me and then seeing what might be done to improve it.

And, I see my self as a "snapshot" photographer. I like available light and in particular those situations where the venue is difficult and challenging. But in the field, I am always thinking about how this may be processed in the "darkroom". In the days of film, I shot Plus-X at ASA 80 and short processed in D-76 1:1, printed on #3 contrast paper. It was a complete process from start to finish. Today is no different except my "darkroom" is in my computer.

My goal in every photo is to make it look like anyone could do it. Yet, to have a high level of technical quality present. I did this for money many years ago...today...a different situation as I explained above. But, each photo is looked at as art in my book.

I agree, but is this prosess the craft or art of photography? I say it falls into the craft folder. Its not untill you do this sort of stuff does it become art. http://maggietaylor.com/

earthsea said:
Is it not an art-photograph only when the photo taken is manipulated in some way ie; In software programmes or in the darkroom?
Lets say I take a picture of a really amazing sunset for example, or capture an athlete in an expressive pose, blow it up and print it on canvas without any software enhancements, are these then works of art? Are they not just captured moments in time regardless of how they look? They might look really cool images but I don't think it is art. If they are works of art then that surely makes the really amazing sunset or athlete in the expressive pose a work of art not the photograph. I think 'Art' is an over cooked term used to often these days.
If however the photographer has applied his or her interpretation by enhancing or manipulating the image in some way and the photograph is different from the subject, only then I think it can be put in the art folder.
Lets say I created a painting, a work of art, then I photographed it and had prints made on canvas for sale of the painting with no software adjustments. Are the prints works of art too, or is this for money?
Does not a photograph only enter the art folder when it has had software manipulation and not when it has been shot? If the image is sold after the manipulation prosess then it goes in the art/money folder.

Hi,

I'm not sure you're for it or against it, but either way, the darkroom process (digital or otherwise from Ansel to today) has _always_ been a part of making a photograph.

I wouldn't even try to separate shooting from processing.

I would try to master both.

My best,

Mike