why are some tripods so expensive?

S

snapper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
43
Edit My Images
Yes
Why would I want to buy an expensive tripod over something alot cheaper?
 
TomB said:
Go stand on a cliff and try and take a long exposure in gusting wind on a really cheap tripod.

Cheap
Stable
Lightweight

Pick any 2 :)
Click to expand...

You can certainly have cheap and stable. Lower extension will usually help if it is really bad. However if you pay through the nose you get fashionable carbon fibre sticks with designer label and a hell of grief when something happens to it.
 
Build quality. Here is a list of the tripods that I have used.

1st tripod.
My first tripod was a very cheap tripod, the cheapest I could possibly find. The problem with it was that the head that came with it couldn't hold my camera steady when I tried to hold the camera portrait instead of landscape. It was also very heavy and wouldn't keep perfectly still in windy conditions.

2nd tripod.
This was a more expensive tripod than my first. It was a carbon fibre tripod so it was lighter than my first. The head that came with it held my camera steady both in portrait and landscape positions. It wasn't rock steady in very windy conditions but it was a lot, lot better than my first one. One problem was that the plate that you put under the camera was made of two parts held together by screws, there were 4 altogether, two of them came off in the life of the tripod and the plate became unsteady.

3rd tripod.
This was more expensive than my 2nd. It is a carbon fibre tripod and is light. It also has 4 leg sections so it packs down into a small size whilst at the same time remaining ROCK steady in all weather conditions when extended 100%. The plate connecting to the camera is professionally made and will last a long time. The head is a gear head which allows me to make small micro adjustments really easily and at the same times keeps the camera held perfectly.

Summing up from what I have used the differences are
1. Weight of the tripod. Carbon fibre costs more.
2. Sturdyness. More expensive tripods keep the camera rock steady even in windy conditions.
3. Well made parts (head, plate and tripod legs). More professionally made parts last a lot longer (see about the plates in the 2nd tripod)
4. Size and portability.

With tripods you really do get what you pay for and it is best worth investing in a reasonably good one, not necessarily the most expensive one.
 
Last edited:
It also pays to use brain when parting with money. My stupid example of buying Manfrotto MAGNESIUM alloy speaks volumes. Or is it their nasty idea of making one that quickly finds its way to the bin? It corrodes really badly, and finally one leg section cracked in half last weekend. Goodbye s***ty 190XProB, hello spare one bought on ebay a couple months ago. More worryingly the 410 head doesn't seem to be made any little better.

Heavy but sturdy stainless steel is probably a far better choice if tripod doesn't get carried long distances. Carbon fibre is not fail proof and costs a lot more.
 
My Velbon bought some 30 odd years ago is still going strong.
It's worth buying the best you can at the time.
 
Michael D Beckwith said:
More expensive tripods keep the camera rock steady even in windy conditions.
Click to expand...
Could you define what you mean by 'windy conditions'? The context of my question is that I've known winds that I couldn't stand up in, and thus assume that neither could a tripod. Please be more definitive.
 
But in a world of mass production, why are they so expensive?
 
snapper said:
Why would I want to buy an expensive tripod over something alot cheaper?
Click to expand...


I bought an expensive tripod. As a result, I've only ever bought one tripod. I bought it over 20 years ago, and I simply don't need to buy another one, and probably never will.
 
Peter69 said:
But in a world of mass production, why are they so expensive?
Click to expand...

Sturdy = tight tolerances, decent materials, good build quality. Unfortunately that means a more expensive production process, and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of it is done by hand.

By all means get a cheap tripod, but the joints will be sloppy, the metal will be thin and flexy, and the head will be weak.

Buy cheap, but twice.
 
It's always a trade off between weight, height, rigidity and cost, with a good slice of brand marketing thrown in for good measure.

FWIW I've had a Velbon Sherpa 600r for 10-years, not expensive and it's been pretty good as a general purpose tripod though perhaps not as solid (or heavy) as a Manfrotto 055 that I used at work.
 
Last edited:
Carbon fibre is always expensive due to the manufacturing process, tripods and fishing rods being two good examples

Also when you buy an expensive tripod it should last for donkeys years consequently you are unlikely to be buying again hence the higher price.

One of those things that I believe is worth spending good money on, why perch your valuable kit on something crap that could send your gear tumbling to the ground. Same goes for a decent head, waste of money spending loads on a decent tripod if the head creeps everytime you use it

Good tripod/head combo is the price of one decent lens and will make an equally or greater positive difference to the quality of your photos
 
I had a velbon sherpa 750r and only sold it when i got rid of all my gear. I now have a manfrotto something or other which is heavy and seems really good to. Both of these were bought in used condition for between £50-£100 so i don't see the need to spend fortunes. Just buy them second hand.
 
The used bargains are Gitzo metal from a few years ago - £150 should get you a mint ione
 
build quality, production costs, R&D, material costs, even warranties.
would you trust £1000 worth of camera gear on a cheap aluminium £30 tripod that has legs that bend as soon as you look at em and cheaply made poor quality threads that hold the tripod head ( a head that as soon as you put anything heavier than a feather on starts dropping/
or would you rather a solid well built tripod with thick sturdy legs, a dampened head that can hold your camera and lens rock steady, solid leg clips that dont snap, high quality screw mount fo the tripod head. plus high spec engineering and design that has gone into the head.
saying all that even mid priced and expensive tripods can fail. and carbon fibre though light and strong can be very brittle in cold weather and have been known to pretty much shatter.
 
I was given a Velbon free as it was being thrown out because it had no plate for the top which I got off Amazon. Travelling the world with me now for £3!!!
 
Gary Coyle said:
So its a relativly light one to start with, i assumed it might have been a behemoth
Click to expand...

Nah... Manfrotto 190QCB with RC141 head. Sturdy as hell though... used medium format regularly with it.. no problems.
 
Peter69 said:
But in a world of mass production, why are they so expensive?
Click to expand...

Because you can't mass-produce something effectively where you might only sell a couple of thousand units a year. Mass production to keep costs down probably doesn't start getting effective until you're making 100,000, maybe even 1,000,000. How many models in a tripod range from, say, manfrotto? How many units must you sell to suppoert R&D, Marketing (probably several times more expensive than R&D) sales force, warehousing, distribution etc.


To the OP - have a look at Red Snapper tripods (the proprietor is a member of the forum). I have their cheapest model, meaning it's not very light and the head is acceptable at the price, but it's stable enough to use in flowing water, and there's a hook under the centre column to take weights for when it's windy enough to blow over lightweight carbon tripods (once you've dealt with slop, weight is the ONLY thing that will give stability).
 
I don't use a tripod much at all. But I have a decent Giottos one for the times I do. If I'm using a tripod, that means I want it NOT to budge when the shot is taken. I had a couple of cheap skinny legged ones in the past, had one where the legs would actually bend to an arc, with the lightest of gear on, only some weird physics stopped them snapping, but I don't think that was a special feature ...
 
Gary Coyle said:
Christ David, the tripod alone is almost 2kg, thats heavy.
Click to expand...


Ya big girl. that's 'nowt! :)

You can't have a sturdy pod that weighs as much as a bag of crisps. It's carbon equivalent is only 300 grams lighter.
 
Same reason bags, lenses, filters and strap's are cos they can and people pay it!

They will argue photography is a niche sector and manufacturing numbers are not big enough for lower prices.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Christ David, the tripod alone is almost 2kg, thats heavy.
Click to expand...

I wasnt sure if I would use a tripod due to disabilities and the way our house windows open for taking pics of birds in the garden, I didn't think it would have much use, so was planning on a monopod. Whilst looking on Ffordes for the Benro monopod I wanted, I noticed they had an old West Germany Cullman tripod with ball head for £25.00 and rated for 8.5kgs. Due to the shipping costs of Monopod it was a no brainer to add the tripod to the order, so effectively cost me 15 quid. Its probably about 25 - 30 years old and is built like a tank and weighs about 3.5kgs. It has, I suppose everything a modern tripod has except the lightness, As its' so sturdy I can leave it up all day on tiled floor, used out the backgarden all day last week with it's spikes and using phone/camera app etc.............

Mine wouldn't be suitable for climbing I suppose, but its fine for around the home and could be used when little walking would be needed if going out. I will never use outside our house hence monopod purchase.

Moral of story, depending on your use you can get cheap second hand sturdy tripods and you don't have to pay through the nose for them.
 
Last edited:
Expensive materials (CF), niche market, and, most importantly, because we'll pay it.

I know my CF Gitzos will have cost much less to manufacture than I paid, I wanted them for my photography, so I paid the money.

A good tripod will last you a long time, my main tripod (Gitzo explorer legs with Manfrotto 438, Novoflex panorama head and Manfrotto 405 with Hejnar Arca Swiss conversion) probably owes me a grand all up, but I use it on 99% of shots where I am within a mile or two of the car, so it is money well spent.
 
The reason I paid a lot of money for my tripod was simple.
I only wanted to buy one tripod.
Had to be lightweight be able to hold a 600mm f4(my main lens) & a wimberley mkii
Had to be able to get right down to the ground & at least 6' high.

Gitzo gt 5560sgt

Never regretted it for a second.
 
I have a Gitzo 5541LS tripod which suits my needs. It will hold my big 600 f4 with head and is rock solid, it gets used with a ball head for landscapes etc and works well for that as well. Not the lightest carbon tripod but I'm happy to carry it on my rucksack or over my shoulder on most outings. As said above I wanted to buy the best I could at the time as I have done with all my equipment. Never regretted paying the money for my tripod.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Why not? Mine is only 300g heavier than the new carbon fibre equivalent.
Click to expand...

when the head (410) is around 2kg alone, the 300g difference is irrelevant.
 
The 410 head weighs 1.22kg. (Manfrotto's figure.)
 
daugirdas said:
when the head (410) is around 2kg alone, the 300g difference is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I don't have a 410 head. They don't make any decent three way heads anymore since they stopped making the RC141.
 
if you put a cheapo tripod next to a solid expensive one then you quickly find out how much more robust and stable the expensive one is.

but theres nothing i can find thats high quality and sub 1kg including a decent head, so a cheapy one is a good option for small and light
 
Anything less than 1KG will be a compromise, no matter how expensive it is. A tripod's sole reason for being, is a sturdy, solid platform for your camera. A very light tripod will be OK for calm conditions, with a light camera in good light, but not much use for when it;s windy, or you need something rock solid for long exposures.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Anything less than 1KG will be a compromise, no matter how expensive it is. A tripod's sole reason for being, is a sturdy, solid platform for your camera. A very light tripod will be OK for calm conditions, with a light camera in good light, but not much use for when it;s windy, or you need something rock solid for long exposures.
Click to expand...

True. Unfortunately, weight is good - resists buffeting, and a heavy head kills mirror/shutter slap.
 
Gitzo 5532LS, 3kg, sturdy as hell. Worth £700 +. Yep, every penny

When youre carrying 500 + 1DX then another 1kg is nothing to worry about.
 
I use a Gitzo carbon fibre which is about 2kg and the Arca Swiss C1 Cube head which is about another kilo.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Anything less than 1KG will be a compromise, no matter how expensive it is. A tripod's sole reason for being, is a sturdy, solid platform for your camera. A very light tripod will be OK for calm conditions, with a light camera in good light, but not much use for when it;s windy, or you need something rock solid for long exposures.
Click to expand...

yeah, my medium small/light tripod im using with my sigma dp's, so assuming i can do 2 second delay and it isnt windy then its ok. i just found it interesting that sub 1kg high quality decent height tripod isnt a thing, no matter how much you could spend
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top