"bullshit! half the pro camera people i know would refuse to work with inferior equipment, the other half would bitch their way through every pan and tilt."

You're just not dealing with the right pros.
:>))

v

I'm wondering just which part does it describes?

I'm not Bob but I'll give it a shot :-)

Striction:
The act of constricting, or the state of being constricted.

Constrict:
To draw together; to render narrower or smaller; to bind; to cramp; to contract or cause to shrink.

Mike

OK Vic, so just where does the budget<>use<>value balance happen? When the value of the tripod is within £500 or £1,000 or £2,000 of the camera? And yes I realise that I appear to be making a "meal-outta" this but I can't advise NOT using a better tripod than maybe the value £££ of the camera? Should the ratio of value be 2:1? 1.5:1? And yes these are spurious values. PLUS, most here will be upgrading their cameras more often than their tripods.

Grazie, you've hit the nail on the head (directly or indirectly), the one everyone seems to be afraid to address here. I've tried, but...

There is no ratio, not that I'm aware of. As I said above, in "Hint #2," for example, if you zoom all the way in on a subject and you're holding the pan arm and the camera/image is NOT steady, then you're tripod system (legs and head) is too light for your camera regardless of it's weight or price tag.

If when you pan and tilt and it sticks at the start and end, whether the head has warmed up or not, it's a cheap head that will ruin your shots, not matter what you do.

Frankly, I'm surprised at some of the advice being given out here. If you want to be really cheap and save your money (in shootings weddings for example) don't buy a tripod at all. Heck, just go to the church or synagogue, grab a stack hymn books and set your camera on top of that. The end result will be the same and you will have saved at least $300! This all assuming you are NOT moving the camera.

If it takes a $1,000 tripod system to steady a $1,500 camera that is being moved, then so be it! Why deny it? Why avoid it? Why not advise it if that's what required? I strongly advise it! If you want steady shots when you pan, tilt, zoom in or out, then you are going to have to let go of some money, and it might even cost as much as your camera did, maybe more, like it or not. In my mind, telling anyone anything less is doing them a disservice.

I would NOT trade my CC balance for the shots I'm now getting with my Miller!

OK it hurt when I - as you quaintly say, over that side of the Pond - "Put my money down" - it hurt. But I had/got jobs that within a few months diluted the monthly charges and now it is but a dumb ache . . somewhere.

BUT the shots!!!

Look, prior to getting the Miller, and there are far far more expensive trips than that too, I used to salivate over trips at video shows which would accelerate my need to possess one. So I kinda "knew" the difference and it was only the money that was holding me back.

If you can have the experience to visit shows maybe then follow up by "hiring", for a day/week, a tripod of your fancy. That's the only right-on advise I can give. But be prepared! You might just want to buy one after that. LOL!!!

What I would ALSO say is that which Vic is ALWAYS saying we should do - and that is GET OUT THERE and shoot the stuff. However you do .. just DO IT!!! . . .. with or without a stack of Bibles or Prayer books!!

Grazie

Grazie,
striction = sticky friction?

What I was referring to was your comment about trying to get smooth pans with cheaper heads.
I think what happens is the 'bearing' sticks at first so the initial force twists the tripod legs, then the force overcomes the stickiness / friction and not only does the head start turning quicker than you intended but the 'spring' that you just wound up lets go as well.

A few weeks ago I was reading some good oil on tripods for still cameras. Now I'd have thought for a still camera they wouldn't matter so much but I was wrong. In a SLR film camera when you push the shutter release the mirror flies up and on poor tripods the whole show vibrates as the shutter opens, not good if you've got a long lens / slow shutter speed. Some of the better SLRs use damping on the mirror / can delay the shutter opening / lock the mirror up to counteract this. But it shows the importance of what the camera rests on.

But heck, why even delve into the technicalities of all this just think of the money side of it. There's very few bits of gear that aren't just an expensive if you buy wisely:

1) Good Tripods
2) Good Microphones
3) Very Good Lenses


So really to me the question is do I want to invest $1000 on a tripod or spend $300 on one. Even IF the $300 one was every bit as good as the $1000 one over say 10 years the $300 one has cost me $300 (assuming it lasts that long), over 10 years the $1000 might have even appreciated in value.

Now the original question was by a gent who owned a VX2000 and a fine camera it is. I'd hardly call it a cheap camera though, not for a casual user. And I'm certainly not knocking the choice of camera however I doubt if the great unwashed mass of viewers could tell the difference between footage from that camera and one costing half the price. But I bet a goodly percentage of them will notice a jerky pan or an off level shot.

I mean this is a bizzare business, 1000s of posts on dozens of forums about HVX 200 versus XL-H1 versus Z1 etc and not a word about what they sit on, the very foundations of a good video. Wierd!
And then you read the ones (elsewhere thankfully) that go, "I've just bought camera XYZ and I've got no money left so I need a cheap tripod, any recommendations?"

Bob.

Thanks for all the advice guys...this was certainly an interesting conversation.

Just for fun I'll let you know what I decided to do. First of all...I am an amaeture, not a professional. Since this is a hobby for me I've also made the decision that I'm not going to buy anything that I can't pay for in cash...so I'm not going to go put a $1,000 tripod on a credit card. (Not saying that is bad...cash is just the way I want to go). That being said, I want a decent tripod to support my 4pound VX2000.

With all that in mind, I purchased a Manfrotto 501 head, and a 3021 Pro tripod. I ended up spending just under $250.00. Obviously this is a weak setup for a professional, but for me I think it will do exactly what I need it to do. There is always room for upgrades later :)

Thanks again for all the comments...these forums are great!
-Matt

Matt! Well done! Go video .. NOW!!!

There's loadsa stories to tell .. .

Grazie

> That tripod (Bogen/Manfrotto 3021) is a still camera tripod. It is nowhere as stable as a cine tripod--wasn't designed to be.

So Jay, what “Pro cine” tripod would you recommend for $300?

Because the questions was NOT, “What is the best tripod that money can buy?” The question was, “I don't want to pay more than $300”

Hint #3 Learn to read the question and work within the parameters.

I stand by my recommendation. For $300 the Bogen/Manfrotto 3021 with the 501 head is probably his best choice.

BTW, I didn’t see your recommendation. I agree with you to buy the best tripod you can, but you still didn’t answer the question with a make/model.

~jr

First let me be super clear about one thing. I met Mr Jay Gladwell via this forum - I looked at his site - I recognized skill, talent and perfection, and I hired him and PAID HIM MONEY (not as much as he's really worth, but he was smiling when he left) and would use him again in a heartbeat. Nothing but good vibes and respect there.

That being said - vis a vis the "tripod controversy" - 90% of my last 5 years of shooting has been on that Bogen tripod with the not-so-nasty, but not supremo, Bogen head. Ninety percent - geez Jay, YOU were using that head to shoot with (and probably hating me for it) but the footage looked great.

Does it occasionally "bump" - you betcha - I cut away in editing.

That's the price I pay, mainly because I hate carrying that Gitzo/Miller setup - too damn heavy for a guy that spent most of his life with a good assistant.

Now I used to shoot all the jet takeoffs and landings for the national USAF commercials ("Aim High" - you've seen 'em). There's the test of a head. I'd personally go in and test a half dozen O'Conner 200's to get one that was PERFECT. Shooting F-114's at 350 mph taking off with a 600mm telephoto lens takes some serious skill. So I can be very picky (my clients certainly are).

If I were shooting a TV commercial where only perfection is allowable, and I had a tight story board, I'd definitley get a Great Tripod.
If I were shooting a wedding tomorrow morning, I'd personally opt for the Bogen over the Miller (mainly because of weight).

So Stanley - relax - don't do any super long lens shots with that gear - er - correction - Try Some. If you see that it sucks - COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATE PLAN.

Don't worry - yer gonna be fine.
And two years from now, when you're shooting a wedding a weekend, spring for the bucks, buy yourself a beautiful carbon-fiber set of legs and ask Jay what head he recommends.
Meanwhile (to quote myself - thanx Grazie) - GET OUT THERE AND START SHOOTING!!!
Have fun guys.
v