why blow so much money on simple things?

[chriszzz]

Buying things is always about satisfying your own needs and everyone's needs are different. If a $50 tripod serves your needs then great. But for somebody else, it just cannot make it for them and so a $500 one will make them happy. For example, I don't wear a watch and I'm happy with looking at the time on my HP, but for others they have to have a Tag Heuer.

Right on target.
My point is that some people spend alot of money for things they don't even know how to use, or why they bought it in the first place, except that it looks cool and feeds their ego in a crowd.

 

[RossChang]

.....why drink Coke when Pepsi is the same....

NO~!!! PEPSI IS NOT THE SAME, as a matter of fact, they are imposter...

I call upon the voices of Coke supporters... :bsmilie: :blah: :devil:

 

[dkw]

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.

Chriszzz, can I buy that tripod off you for $60?

I tried and tested a few tripods, quite simply, none of the lightweight aluminium tripods could take a DSLR and any decent lens. It literally wobbles with a touch. In the end I got a Manfrotto ball head and legs (don't even remember the names), both used, for less than $150 combined. So, of course I only spend what I need, so do most of the people here shopping in the buy-sell section hoping to pick up some bargains. Your point about CF tripod is wrong, it combines stability with lightweight, a dream combo and that's why its so expensive (I don't ever intend to buy one btw). So, only buy what you need, and a good DSLR system needs a good tripod.....

 

[crazypaladin]

Interesting thread...

I have always wanted to say this but got no chance... but now the chance is here:

"Why buy a ferrari and scrimp on the wheels?"

For those who dun get it, the literal translation is why buy an expensive sports car and then buy a cheapo wheels to limit its speed? Makes no sense right? :bsmilie:

 

[waileong]

1. Quality is very expensive, esp the last few % of quality. In other words, a 'L' lens may be only 5% "higher" resolution than a very good non-L lens, but may cost $2,000 compared to $500. You pay $1,500 just to get the last 5% of quality. That's the way life is, because the closer you want to get to perfection, the more it will cost.

2. Most camera equipment is free or near-free, if you buy second-hand and take good care of it. Lets say I buy a good L lens for $1,000 second-hand. If I keep it well, I can prob sell it for $1,000 5 years later, meaning I would have owned it for free. Even if I sold it for $800-- 5 years of usage for $200 is near-free. On the other hand, a cheapo lens may not even last 5 years of heavy usage, eg. if it has a plastic lens mount that will wear out, so even if I pay $250 for it, I would lose out.

3. The cheap stuff does not work the same. They have the same function (yes, a tripod's basic function is to hold a camera still), but the touch and feel of a quality tripod is vastly different from a cheap tripod. If you are taking pictures inside a studio, as long as your cheapo tripod can tahan the load, it would be sufficient. But if you had to take pictures on a mountain top, where the wind is blowing and the ground is uneven, your cheapo tripod would not be able to cope. So, it depends on your need.

4. There is a difference between $$ for quality and performance and $$ for luxury. If you buy a diamond-encrusted watch over a cheapo plastic watch, it's spending $$ for luxury. But in the case of tripods, most people would spend $$ not for luxury, but for quality and performance

Wai Leong
===

Hi,

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?

Discuss...

 

[Gymrat76]

I quote John Shaw, the famous nature photographer "Without any doubt, a tripod is the most important photographic accessory".

I did a test the other day and mounted my 70-200VR+D70 on a cheap $50 tripod I had at home. It was so flimsy I made sure I had the camera strap around my neck at all times :sweat: I tried taking a 2 second night exposure out my back window at night, no wind blowing or anything. Even used the remote to trigger the shutter.. guess what? Blurry pictures. From what? Mirror slap :bsmilie:

Its the same no matter what field, you get what you pay for

 

[Julian]

Think you guys scare him off

 

[nightwolf75]

Think you guys scare him off

typical of newbies lah. start a controversial thread. then when people flood his/her thread saying why he/she wrong to think this way, the newbies always run and hide one corner. :bsmilie:

 

[Dennis]

Ha ha you sure the camera strap is secured ??. :bsmilie:
Gymrat I think you are on the right track considering a good head even before having a tripot. Good for you.

Well most will learn thru making mistake themselves while others learn thru mistake made by others.

I quote John Shaw, the famous nature photographer "Without any doubt, a tripod is the most important photographic accessory".

I did a test the other day and mounted my 70-200VR+D70 on a cheap $50 tripod I had at home. It was so flimsy I made sure I had the camera strap around my neck at all times :sweat: I tried taking a 2 second night exposure out my back window at night, no wind blowing or anything. Even used the remote to trigger the shutter.. guess what? Blurry pictures. From what? Mirror slap :bsmilie:

Its the same no matter what field, you get what you pay for

 

[ST1100]

Hehe. i remembered when i first walked into CP to get a 'proper' tripod many years back, before they split into 3 shops at Peninsula. i saw the price tags on the tripods. (You know CP - the price tags are 'tourist prices'.) Some were 3 digits, some were 4. My eyes opened very wide. i kept a straight face bocz i didn't know to laugh or cry. i guess my sentiments were just like Bromba's - 'a tripod is a tripod is a tripod' - why the ridiculous prices?

And when they told me the legsets didn't come with a head, i couldn't take it anymore - just walked out of the shop shaking my head, wondering if it was time to change hobbies.

Anyway, the point is, Bromba, you're not alone. i'm sure many of us pass through that stage of wondering why photgraphy accessories are priced so astronomically. But you'd get used to it. Eventually.

 

[Wai]

It is also very strong and lightweight. Therefore the manufacturers can built a CF model that can bear the same load as a metal model but weighs less.

Carbon fibre is brittle, but it will be fine if u dun drop it. Or u can add a leg warmer to protect it.
lightweight...so light that I have to hang my minitrekker at the bottom to stablise it

Another advantage of CF is that it will not rust, my Gitzo CF tripod can probably last for a life time, love it air cushion locking system and the weight, and i have no regret spending close to $1k for my Gitzo CF tripod + ultimate ball head :embrass:

 

[Bromba]

There will always be people who will not understand the right equipment for the right job and it will be very difficult to explain.

Therefore the thread - to learn what job is right for expensive tripods. :think:

 

[Bromba]

Bromba,pls discuss.

Not everyone can afford (or is willing) to spend 24/7 in front of the computer, that's why I was quiet for a while :blah:

Anyway, I am still reading the replies to the thread. Wow, :sweat: it spurned a discussion much more lively than expected. But it's great :thumbsup: I am learning a lot from the thread.

 

[Bromba]

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+.

I'm using my $20 tripod with Nikon F60 with 28-80 lens. So yeah, that's
why I didn't thought about 200mm+ users when starting this thread

And I agree with chrisszzz - if it's just for better stability should be enough
to hang the bag on a cheap tripod.

But after seeing other posts from guys with *HEAVY* lens and bodies, I can understand that they might be concerned about cheap tripod "sinking" under the weight of their camera.

Finally, I am going to hijack my own thread now :blah: Any comments on using G5 (which is fairly heavy as compact digicams go) with a minitripod? I'm thinking about Steinzeiser Mini MT-38 available from East Gear. Specifically, what I worry about is whether it will topple under the weight of G5, or will it be stable?

 

[Bromba]

1. Quality is very expensive, esp the last few % of quality. In other words, a 'L' lens may be only 5% "higher" resolution than a very good non-L lens, but may cost $2,000 compared to $500. You pay $1,500 just to get the last 5% of quality. That's the way life is, because the closer you want to get to perfection, the more it will cost.

2. Most camera equipment is free or near-free, if you buy second-hand and take good care of it. Lets say I buy a good L lens for $1,000 second-hand. If I keep it well, I can prob sell it for $1,000 5 years later, meaning I would have owned it for free. Even if I sold it for $800-- 5 years of usage for $200 is near-free. On the other hand, a cheapo lens may not even last 5 years of heavy usage, eg. if it has a plastic lens mount that will wear out, so even if I pay $250 for it, I would lose out.

3. The cheap stuff does not work the same. They have the same function (yes, a tripod's basic function is to hold a camera still), but the touch and feel of a quality tripod is vastly different from a cheap tripod. If you are taking pictures inside a studio, as long as your cheapo tripod can tahan the load, it would be sufficient. But if you had to take pictures on a mountain top, where the wind is blowing and the ground is uneven, your cheapo tripod would not be able to cope. So, it depends on your need.

Sorry, your first two points I find irrelevant in this thread - I understand the exponential growth of prices for bodies and lens, especially the lens. What I wondering about was specifically tripods, because superficially they are just three legs connected at a common point and a gadget to fix a camera to it. So it's natural for a newbie to wonder what can justify the cost.

Your 3 rd point I find informational and convincing. But to have the last word :blah: : actually the heaviest tripod I've ever seen was in a studio (something like those massive tripods used for in-studio TV cameras, but they used it for middle format cameras).

 

[MatthewSCL]

i have seen my friends camera fell to the ground becos of his $20 tripod....the wind was hugh that day and i see his tripod just dropped onto the floor with his camera...hmmm...heart pain man....and mine still standing strong in the winds..hahhahaha :sweat:

 

[Bromba]

typical of newbies lah. start a controversial thread. then when people flood his/her thread saying why he/she wrong to think this way, the newbies always run and hide one corner. :bsmilie:

:kok: Beware of drawing conclusions without valid facts. I was just away from the computer for a while. :blah: Not so easy to scare me away (I can actually appreciate a nice flame war, so ya been warned )

 

[nickmak]

well... i was birding using a cheap aluminium tripod with the following:
1) 300D with BGE1
2) 300 f4L IS with 1.4x TC

With that i held onto my camera and with just a slight bit of weight put onto the tripod, one of the legs snapped... luckily I had the cam in my hands... :sweat: Now its a manfrotto type tripod and no other... won't wanna break heavyily priced equipement just because of a cheap tripod...

That's one lesson learned! :bsmilie:

 

[wilis128]

:kok: Beware of drawing conclusions without valid facts. I was just away from the computer for a while. :blah: Not so easy to scare me away (I can actually appreciate a nice flame war, so ya been warned )

yeah nitewolf... u draw your litesaber a little too quick.. bromba couldnt siam fast enough.. :bsmilie:

 

[erwinx]

Carbon fibre is brittle, but it will be fine if u dun drop it. Or u can add a leg warmer to protect it.
lightweight...so light that I have to hang my minitrekker at the bottom to stablise it

Another advantage of CF is that it will not rust, my Gitzo CF tripod can probably last for a life time, love it air cushion locking system and the weight, and i have no regret spending close to $1k for my Gitzo CF tripod + ultimate ball head :embrass:

have you tried dismantling the legs? you'll see that there are metal parts inside which are probably totally covered by rust by now. You might want to clean those areas and apply some sort of rust proofing film