Flash or tripod?

I

intel86

Suspended / Banned
Messages
439
Edit My Images
No
Just bought my first DSLR and was wondering what i should invest in next, a flash or a tripod?

Got a bag and flash cards. Only got one lens at the moment, a 50mm 1.8 i picked up for £60.

I know the camera flash is useless but i also know a tripod is handy to have.

I only have enough for one, not both. Max £70, ish.

I do shoot indoors with the family as the subject and inside my local church etc.

What would you suggest and what model? Thanks
 
Last edited:
Not long been through this myself....I bought tripod first...then realised if you want to get well lit sharp pics indoors, a good flash is more important. your camera on a tripod helps a lot, but without a good flash, if the subjects arent inanimate objects, your shutter speed or iso are compromised dealing with less light and end result is poorer image... not had much experience of makes of flashes, however when I was looking nissin kept coming up. In the end I went for the canon 580 ex ii which cost a lot more than your budget, but so far im very very happy. Im glad I went the ttl route...makes the 'just need to take a quick picture' all so much easier.

edited to say...sorry Ive assumed its a canon youve gone for...probably worth saying what the model of camera you have is..
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can get a tripod&head or flash that is truly worth getting for £70.

Buy cheap buy twice.
 
It really depends on your style of shooting so I would suggest that before you spend any more money you go out there and shoot shoot and shoot some more until you know what is limiting your style of photography.

That way you'll have saved a little more as £70 isn't really enough to get a decent level of either of the things you mention.
 
Depends what you want to shoot tbh

If its landscapes and long exposures you want to do a flash isn't much use.

But if you want to take photo's of people, pets etc... indoors a flash would be better.

Have a think about what direction you want to try first. Then you can always get the other further down the line :)
 
I agree with the above, only you know what you will need first as already said it depends on what you are mopre likely to be shooting. I would use your camera as normal & see what you feel you need after a few weeks. The pop up flash is not quite useless as you said, far from good, but not useless if you control it right.
 
Why have you only got a 50 1.8 lens? It's good for some things, but has a very limited range of uses.

Getting a kit zoom 18-15 IS will expand your photographic horizons far more than either a flash or tripod.

And your pop-up flash is not useless, if you work within its limitations. It's very good for fill-in flash outdoors, and indoors too if you balance it carefully with the ambient light and learn how to adjust the compensation controls (as you would have to do with a separate flash also).
 
If you have a 50mm 1.8, its pretty good indoors when fully open.

What camera is it?

As Mank says it depends what you shoot.

The Nikon SB400 is their budget flash and its great as its tiny, but this is £100. Or Jessops do a flash that is cheaper.

If its mainly people and you want them frozen, then the flash will help.

if you are shooting landscapes or inside with no people in or you want to play with movement, a tripod will help.

For tripods - look at the Redsnapper tripod and head combo, works out around £60 inc shipping.
 
redddraggon said:
I don't think you can get a tripod&head or flash that is truly worth getting for £70.

Buy cheap buy twice.
Click to expand...

I know it's horrible to hear but this statement can absolutely not be disputed by probably anyone on this forum. If really short of cash a Joby GorrillaPod (one of the bigger ones) could help you in the short term and would be useful for hillwalking/trekking/mooching when a full tripod would be too big. You could then buy a decent ballhead (when funds allowed) to put on the Joby and finally get a good tripod.
 
Last edited:
redddraggon said:
I don't think you can get a tripod&head or flash that is truly worth getting for £70.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I think this is probably the answer. Either a rubbish flash or a tripod that isn't really safe to support a DSLR.

Do you actually want one for any specific reason? You haven't specified what results you're seeking to achieve.
 
intel86 said:
Just bought my first DSLR and was wondering what i should invest in next, a flash or a tripod?

Got a bag and flash cards. Only got one lens at the moment, a 50mm 1.8 i picked up for £60.

I know the camera flash is useless but i also know a tripod is handy to have.

I only have enough for one, not both. Max £70, ish.

I do shoot indoors with the family as the subject and inside my local church etc.

What would you suggest and what model? Thanks
Click to expand...


I suggest you wait till you can add another £70 to that for either one.
 
I would disagree with all the comments above about not getting anything that's any good for around £70. A year ago, I got a Velbon Luxi L tripod for around £70-£80 new and about the same time I picked up a 430EX flash (mk 1) for £80 off the classifieds at AV Forms, although I think I was lucky with that as they usually tend to go for around £100-£110.

As has been aid above, it all depends on what you want to photograph. For your people shots, you should go for a flash. I do a lot of railway photography and cities when on holiday, and a tripod was a priority for me.

I also have the Gorillapod SLR Zoom which is very useful as a lightweight tripod.

Hope this helps.
 
I will want to photograph outside too, landscapes and buildings but only have a 50mm at the moment.

Lots of family shots indoors in the near future so i guess a good flash is a must. Do i really have to spend mega money on one? Open to suggestions and any advice.
 
You don't HAVE to, there are alternatives (look into Metz or Nissin flashes) but this forum is full of people who've spent hundreds of pounds more than they needed to because they bought a cheap version first.

As has been said: buy cheap, buy twice.
 
redddraggon said:
I don't think you can get a tripod&head or flash that is truly worth getting for £70.

Buy cheap buy twice.
Click to expand...
I disagree, i bought the Redsnapper RS-284 for £56 and its very good as a first step, ok its not the lightest around but very sturdy and i would recommend it to anyone starting out.
 
Well I just bought a Yongnuo YN565EX speedlite and it's great. £110 though!
 
Buy once buy cheap, we aint all made of money and some of the cheaper stuff is ideal to get started, same with cars, i bet you didnt go out and buy a £20,000 car as your first motor.
 
The sensible thing is to buy second hand, with pretty much anything other than camera bodies you can nearly always get your money back if/when you sell it on.
 
I f you go REALLY cheap, you could buy both......I've seen dirt cheap tripods in Asda for roughly £15, and the ETTL Yongnuos are decent enough performers for the money, just make sure you don't drop it, or it WILL smash in to a thousand pieces!!!!

These (or similar) are also available in store for collection: http://direct.asda.com/Vivitar-VPT-2457-57Inch-Tripod/000630793,default,pd.html

Make sure you buy a flashgun specifically for Canon's ETTL system.....otherwise, it won't work properly!! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Yongnuo-Y...ories_CameraFlashUnits_JN&hash=item43aa7b4160

If you're just getting started, these will do fine.....you can always upgrade at a later date and pass these on, or keep as spares.

The other alternative, is to look out for 2nd hand stuff in the classifieds.....there's always some bargains about, and it's usually been very well looked after!! ;)
 
Maybe go for something like this Hama to start off with. It seems to get good reviews and when you upgrade at least you won't feel bad that you've spent loads on this one. Plus it will give you time to decide whats most important, weight, height, size, stability etc.
 
redddraggon said:
I don't think you can get a tripod&head or flash that is truly worth getting for £70.

Buy cheap buy twice.
Click to expand...

That is such a cliché and I never understand why people keep reiterating it.

What on earth is wrong with 'buying twice'?

When people start out in photography, they'll buy a low-level consumer DSLR. If they stick with it, they're likely to upgrade to something at enthusiast or pro level. Does that mean they should have splurged on full frame straight away? No, because they're unlikely to reach the limitations of their cheaper purchase for quite some time.

It's pretty similar with any accessory or lens.

My first tripod was a Hahnel Triad 80, cost me 50 quid. As sturdy as they come, but super heavy and a bit tedious to put up. Did the job perfectly at the time though. I kept it as a back-up and after 2 years, when my bank balance looked a bit healthier, I invested 350 quid in Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 legs and a 322RC2 head. Sure it's better, sure I'm unlikely to upgrade again, but would I have wanted to spend 2 years tripod-less until I could finally afford it? No way.

I didn't have an immediate requirement for a flashgun, so when I did buy it I went for a not-so-cheap Nikon SB600, because that's what was in my pricerange at the time. Now, a few years on, I'm considering an upgrade to an SB900. Does that mean I bought the wrong thing in the first place? No it means I still had a decent flashgun in the meantime.

There is nothing wrong with buying cheaply, it just takes a bit more research when you still want something good for whatever money you do have. With tripods - first and foremost - make sure it's a sturdy one, because anything flimsy and light is likely to fall over and destroy your gear in the process.

Another advantage of buying cheaply to start out is that you'll figure out whether you really need that piece of kit at all. No point blowing 350 quid on a tripod or 250 on a flashgun that only get used twice a year because you find you mostly shoot handheld in broad daylight.

That aside - I'm with all the others who have stated that it very much depends on what you're shooting whether you have more of a requirement for a tripod than a flash or the other way round.
 
Last edited:
Quanosaur said:
What on earth is wrong with 'buying twice'?
Click to expand...

As I'm a student with limited income I personally would rather the money wisely in the first instance. Sure, If you have plenty of money, go for expensive buy multiple times option.
 
Slimbert said:
I f you go REALLY cheap, you could buy both......I've seen dirt cheap tripods in Asda for roughly £15, and the ETTL Yongnuos are decent enough performers for the money, just make sure you don't drop it, or it WILL smash in to a thousand pieces!!!!
Click to expand...

+1, a Yongnuo TTL flash can be perfectly reliable, although they won't stand the abuse of a heavier built OEM flash. For occasional amatuer use they are perfect. You could replace it twice and still not get up to the cost of the equivilent OEM model.

A cheap tripod won't be the best, but it's better than nothing. I still have my 10+ year old Hama Star bought for £10 to use with a compact, it kicks around the car boot and still finds use as a lightstand from time to time. It's not going to be a wasted investment. At that price it's pretty much disposable if you take it on holiday and realise that the stuffed donkey for Auntie Liz isn't going to fit in the case unless something else gets left behind.
 
redddraggon said:
As I'm a student with limited income I personally would rather the money wisely in the first instance. Sure, If you have plenty of money, go for expensive buy multiple times option.
Click to expand...

Funny, I'm a student with limited income, too. But I'd rather have a low-end tripod and flash now than wait a few years till I can afford the good stuff (and it did take me years to be able to afford my current kit).

Not having something at all is more limiting than not having the ideal version of something.

I presume you bought your D90 with that 1000 quid lens, cause, you know, eventually replacing your kit-lens would - in your world - be such a waste of money...

Whatever you buy now you can sell and replace later. At a loss of course, but then you did get to use it in the meantime, which - in my ("poor student") world - is a plus.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, just looking for a nice flash now that is not going to cost the earth but work well with my 50D.
 
Quanosaur said:
Funny, I'm a student with limited income, too. But I'd rather have a low-end tripod and flash now than wait a few years till I can afford the good stuff (and it did take me years to be able to afford my current kit).

Not having something at all is more limiting than not having the ideal version of something.

I presume you bought your D90 with that 1000 quid lens, cause, you know, eventually replacing your kit-lens would - in your world - be such a waste of money...

Whatever you buy now you can sell and replace later. At a loss of course, but then you did get to use it in the meantime, which - in my ("poor student") world - is a plus.
Click to expand...


Difference being you didn't "buy cheap" in the first place, by no means is the SB600 a cheap piece of junk (I have one and it's all I'll ever need and if for some freak reason it isn't and I need more I'll just get more SB600's not an SB900, thing is for most of my flash needs the SB400 is more than enough).

You bought the level of kit that is required so that you won't feel the need to upgrade it almost as soon as you've bought it as the limitations quickly become apparent.

All that is meant is that there is a threshold at which point the kit becomes decent enough to last you for as long as you'll even need unless you become specialist in an area.

Perhaps you'd prefer it if people said "don't buy cheap crap, it's not good value"?
 
Nawty said:
Difference being you didn't "buy cheap" in the first place, by no means is the SB600 a cheap piece of junk (I have one and it's all I'll ever need and if for some freak reason it isn't and I need more I'll just get more SB600's not an SB900, thing is for most of my flash needs the SB400 is more than enough).

You bought the level of kit that is required so that you won't feel the need to upgrade it almost as soon as you've bought it as the limitations quickly become apparent.

All that is meant is that there is a threshold at which point the kit becomes decent enough to last you for as long as you'll even need unless you become specialist in an area.

Perhaps you'd prefer it if people said "don't buy cheap crap, it's not good value"?
Click to expand...

As I said, I didn't need a flashgun instantly, so with that I was easily able to wait until the SB600 was an option for me. If the genres I was active in at the time had required a flash gun, I would have intermittently settled for a cheap one a lot sooner than I ended up buying my SB600.

If you read the whole thing however, I did spend two happy years with a 50 quid tripod before upgrading to a 350 quid head and legs combo.
And I had no regrets - in fact I kept the 50 quid tripod as a back-up.

I would always advise people not to buy "cheap crap". Even small amounts of money shouldn't be treated as disposable. But there are perfectly adequate 'cheap' options out there - both for tripods as well as for flashguns, just takes a bit of research. And there's nothing wrong with going into a purchase fully aware that what you're buying isn't going to last you a lifetime.
 
Quanosaur said:
.............Not having something at all is more limiting than not having the ideal version of something. ............
Click to expand...

and your post above make sense too

i bought my first Manfrotto MN 019 tripod from Ffordes --who often have a good range of used tripods...:thumbs:

it was a beast of an alloy job but was solid in Scottish gales...:lol:

came with a cheap 3-way head [£15 IIRC MN105.?]
sold it here and bought a Giottos 3-way here too when i could afford it

still use the Manfrotto ...outlay £100
 
Quanosaur said:
I presume you bought your D90 with that 1000 quid lens, cause, you know, eventually replacing your kit-lens would - in your world - be such a waste of money...
Click to expand...

1000 quid lens? I have to add the cost of all my lenses together to hit that!
 
redddraggon said:
As I'm a student with limited income I personally would rather the money wisely in the first instance. Sure, If you have plenty of money, go for expensive buy multiple times option.
Click to expand...

100% so wise.

I don't buy twice or three times, I research what I need not what I want, and would rether spend what is needed the first time than repeat buying.

Agree with you all the way.
 
Quanosaur said:
That is such a cliché and I never understand why people keep reiterating it.

What on earth is wrong with 'buying twice'?

When people start out in photography, they'll buy a low-level consumer DSLR. If they stick with it, they're likely to upgrade to something at enthusiast or pro level. .
Click to expand...

Disagree, you are wrong, sorry, when I was 18 (52 now) my first camera was a Nikkormat FTn new followed by a Nikon F Photomic FTn, new, I never bought cheap, I saved to get the best.

The reason I bought the F was the mat was stolen, so I did not and have not bought twice.

I still have my original Sunpak Auto zoom 4000 I bought when younger and it now gets used with my just bought Nikkormat FTN :love:

I have four flashguns none have been "bought twice" all for a purpose.
 
Last edited:
Its keeping things in proportion.

The right tripod for a Nikon D3100 may not be the right lens for the D3s. The D3s and big lens would be heavier and a more sturdy tripod needed.

Then there is spending £300 on a set of legs for a camera body that cost £350.

A redsnapper or similar around £60 will be a good starter.

You can go cheaper, but you can get some real tat beneath this.

The Jessops flash will be a good starter, and you can go from there. The jessops might not be as good as a Nikon or other expensive flash, but you are already off camera (might need a trigger), can angle the flash and have a more powerful flash. After that you are fine tuning.

Don't buy the really cheap stuff, buy the cheapest of a recognised brand. You can get a good tripod for £70 or you can get a Jessops flash or similar for £70.

Second hand you might get both for £90.
 
It has been said before consider what your photographic applications are and which you actually need or would rely upon.

I prefer landscapes so I rely upon my supports.

Don't spend £££'s on equipment when you are starting out, a £70+ tripod isn't going to make your photos any better. I still use a £10 Hama tripod and it does exactly what it should even two year later with 10 days in -21oC weather and 12 days in constant sea spray. It supports my camera safely and it holds my camera still so unless a Manfrotto is capable of holding the whole earth and my scene still I don't see the cost justifiable.

If the "Buy cheap, Buy twice" rule was anything but twoddle then we would see every person on this board owning a Canon 1D/5D or equivalent right from the very start when they have taken to photography.
 
Last edited:
Jin said:
If the "Buy cheap, Buy twice" rule was anything but twoddle then we would see every person on this board owning a Canon 1D/5D or equivalent right from the very start when they have taken to photography.
Click to expand...

Now you are talking twoddle. An SLR from none of the manufacturers can be considered cheap junk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top