Tripods - You decide

Lisa was busy tonight, the kids were in bed, and I felt the need to get out of the house.  I ended up going to the nearest Value Village (thrift shop).  I tend to visit thrift stores a little too much, but I keep finding awesome deals.  Tonight was such a night.

I've recently run across some cheap tripods, and I've thought that I'd like a second tripod.  The problem with cheap tripods though, is that they're flimsy.  The two reasons I've wanted a second tripod is to have something to hold an off-camera flash, and just perhaps something lighter than my existing tripod.  The existing tripod is a Manfrotto 055CL with a 141RC head.  I bought the pair new at Henrys almost 10 years ago after my father got me a Mamiya 645E for Christmas.  Medium-format camera = bigger camera = bigger tripod.  So I bought the 055 as something sturdy enough for medium format.

However, for most of my shooting these days (especially since I don't really use the Mamiya since almost nobody touches the film any more), the 055CL is overkill.  So tonight's find was great - a Manfrotto 190SH tripod for a mere $6.99 (in the box).  Google suggests people want about $100 used for them.  SWEET.  The 190SH is smaller than the 055CL, and weighs in 3 lbs lighter.  Despite this, it's a very sturdy little tripod.  According the Manfrotto, the 055's go to 178cm tall, and the 190's go to 146cm.  It's rare that I need all that height (but it does happen, especially shooting over objects).

Here's the 055 and the 190 together.  You can see that the smaller 190 looks much friendlier for transporting around.  The two major drawbacks with the 190 are the screw-legs (instead of the clips) and the quick-release-less head.  I can easily put the 141RC head on the 190, so the latter point doesn't matter so much.

So, what is the right tripod.  Let's ask the professionals:

Ken Rockwell:  Tripods went out with the film cameras.
Thom Hogan:  Spend $1000US on your tripod.

So there we have it, two well known reviewers/professionals.  Ken Rockwell says that high ISO digital cameras and VR lenses have made tripods obsolete.  Thom, what about VR?  "...it's designed to take equipment movement out of the shot. It does, but it's not infallible, nor does it solve every problem..."

I suggest actually reading the articles instead of just the quotes and paraphrases that I pulled out.  Quite frankly, I disagree with both of them.

Thom:  Really, I need a $1000 tripod?  For the few times a year where I actually want/use a tripod, I need an ultra-light carbon fiber model?  I'm not exactly out in the safari carrying equipment for hours.  Thom seems to have generalized that ALL photographers will eventually want a $1000 tripod.  I assure you that these Manfrottos albeit a bit heavy, will last me for years to come.  Perhaps if I ever become serious about nature photography, or hiking with equipment all day, then I'll consider such an expensive tripod.

Ken:  Ken, Ken, Ken....   The tripod is obsolete?  Seriously?  Ok, he says it can be used for moonscapes.  First of all, the tripod is a necessity just for shooting repetitious shots.  I'm sure when he shoots lens comparisons, they're all on a tripod.  Ok, so I'm sure he wouldn't disagree that tripods are good for studio and other repetitious situations.  Shooting in low-light, that's where he's really arguing they're obsolete.  First off, not everybody has a full-frame DSLR.  Ken points out elsewhere that a "f/1.4 lens on a (cropped DSLR) should perform about as well as an exotic f/2.8 zoom will on a (full frame DSLR)".  That's 2-full stops of difference!  Also, what about loooooooooong telephotos (like the 150-500mm Tokina that I recently sold).  Even with VR, that lens would be awful to try to keep reasonable still handheld, and that's a short lens (compared to the Sigmonsters for example).  A monopod would help, but I'd still rather a tripod.

One thing that I will say though, is that I used to use my tripod to save money.  If I'm shooting at say 1/8 or 1/15 of a second, I'll fire a bunch and one should be sharp enough.  In the days of film, that equates to a lot of wasted film/money.  So the tripod was great for increasing the odds of a good shot - thus saving money.

I'll conclude by saying, if you love your fast VR lenses and think they replace tripods - then great.  If you want to use your tripod all the time (even though Ken will think you look like an 'idiot'), then do it!  Use a tripod however it will help you take the best photos.  Are you really going to care if you looked like an idiot with your tripod when that photo has made your thousands from stock sales?