Tripods for Wildlife Photography

[Nicks Pics]

Hello folks,

Does any one here have any recommendations for tripods that are good for wildlife photography? Would you look at ball-head options? Light (or compact) is of course nice for wildlife photography, but I hope for something sturdier than my last "travelsmart" tripod. It was very thin, I slipped on some ice and broke a leg, (it's leg ).

I am making specifications for one for wildlife photography, but I hope to get one that works for general purposes as well. Cost is a factor as well.

It's great to be able to ask experienced people like those here!

Thanks in advance

[Mark von Kanel]

Budget?

[ajohnw]

I bought a Giottos Silk Road in carbon fibre with the articulated central column. I'm rather pleased with it. Only thing I would point out is that I went for the taller one - I'm 6-3 and can get the camera too high to use. They do 2 heights in the UK, For some reason the taller one is a lot cheaper than the shorter one. I'd guess it's older stock and most buy the shorter one. There is a video on you tube showing what can be done with them.

I also bought a Giottos ball head. I didn't want a head that weighs nearly as much as the tripod so I bought their smaller one. They help on the weight aspect as they make them with a hollow ball. I'm not aware of any one else doing that. The smaller one comes without a quick release plate fitting so at some point I will have to add one.

On the tripod itself Ted has one and rates it. Jeremy has a couple and also broke one of the leg clamps and it seems obtained a replacement clamp for it from them.

John
-

[loosecanon]

Like bags there is no one perfect tripod. I use a Manfrotto 055 as a heavy workhorse, lots of height, solid etc. I use a lighter carbon fiber model when I have to carry it any distance. However when you are out in the field, plenty of mud and water, uneven ground and so on then the Benbo and similar models is perfect. Sealed legs so they can be stood in water, easy to adjust for very uneven ground, and to adjust to ge tthe camera just where you want it.
The head is also important, I find the manfrotto pistol grip very good, still listed but difficult to find.

[tclune]

My main support for birds and wildlife is a sturdy monopod. I may have to hike to where I'm going to shoot, and the monopod acts as a walking stick while I'm doing so. When I get there, I need to steady a long telephoto, possibly for an extended period of time, while waiting for the shot. A good monopod, used correctly, gets me what I need without being a complete pain to carry with me. I have a good hefty ball head on it. On those occasions that I don't need to lug the equipment very far, I use a good heavy tripod with a Manfrotto gimbal. It's great once it gets set up, but I sure don't want to carry it very far (the legs and head alone weigh something like 11 pounds.) If I were shooting wildlife with a lens that was 300mm or less max FL, I wouldn't bring any 'pod into the field at all. Of course, YMMV -- these things are all pretty individual and matters for religious zeal.

[Polar01]

Well Nick you have stepped into a hornets nest with this one so to speak. To start I would look at carbon fibre, I prefer 4 section leg to the usually 3 section leg as if breaks down to a shorter overall length. Get one that is tall, taller the better to my way of thinking because if you are shooting BIF you really do not want to be bent over trying to look through the camera that is pointed skywards, if you need something lower than lower the legs. Remember you want a very strong and sturdy tripod when you load it up with a $7M camera and an $19+M lens you want sturdy as is may sit there loaded up for a few hours while you wait for that critter to come along.
If you are using prime lens 400mm and up then I would go with a gimbal style of tripod head very good for BIF you would be looking in the $600.00 range or so. If you were using zooms than a top of the line ballhead again in the $250-500 range.
A very good well made high end tripod will work just as well for wildlife, landscapes or studio work.
I use a FEISOL CT-3472LV with their CB-50DC ballhead,
Gitzo 5561SGT is excellent, a newer maker is the Oben CT-2491 4 section, anything for Really Right Stuff, and Manfrotto which I myself do not really like because I do not like there quick release plate I instead use the clamps and plates (L-bracket) from RRS.
Now Really Right Stuff have a really good write up on what one should look for in a tripod which I will supply a link to:

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Be-a...sing-a-Tripod/

All the brands are excellent at the upper end of their lines, it comes down to personal choice. Just remember when you have a Nikon D750 ($2600.00) married to the new 80-400mm ($3000.00) you do not leave it sitting atop of a $150.00 tripod+head combo that is unless you have lots of spare change laying about.
Well those are just my thoughts, good luck with the search.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

Here you are Nick but you''ll need the beard to go with it.




Personally I would avoid 4 section legs. The Y shaped centre column on these is interesting. It's very rigid. They also do aluminium models.

The biggest problem I have with mine is no one in the UK stocks the correct bag for it. I'm going to try and get someone to order one for me and return a Manfrotto one which is too big and floppy.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

Ah yes, tripods...

I actually paid for a degree in tripod design and application. The course work and associated cost went like this:

Introduction to tripods 101: buy the cheapest thing you can find and use it until it breaks - $75

Tripod mechanics 201: this course also involves extensive lab work requiring multiple different head/quick release designs - $450

Tripods senior project 301: CF tripod and ball recommended by expert reviews; extensive travel and field use - $450

Having earned a degree in tripodology, I went out and got something that fit my needs and actually works - $1000

Moral of the story, you can spend a lot of money figuring out that you need to spend a lot of money to get a good tripod, or you can just go out and buy the tripod. Pros don't use what they use just because they have money burning a hole in their pockets.

All that said, my recommendations are as follow: 1) get one that tall enough for you to stand upright and look through the viewfinder without hunching over. If you get into serious wildlife photography you can spend hours in a day with your eye to the viewfinder. 2) For simplicity, durability, and stability, I highly recommend a pod without a center post. 3) Get a gimbal. One of the kind that attach to a ball head can work.

[Brownbear]

Hi Nick,

All I can say is listen to the great advice you'll receive here. I purchased a quick release tripod which at $300 CAD I thought was very expensive and I assumed high quality. In low light landscapes I have to be extraordinarily careful to avoid motion blur. It is very versatile for positioning, including low positions which I really like. For birds in flight it is impossible to use, ie; whenever I try using tripod I ultimately end up going hand held. I need to invest in different type of head.

My tripod weighs 3.5 kg (about 8 or 9 pounds) which for me is a lot of extra weight to carry on long hikes as I live in a mountainous area with steep terrain... So I recently purchase a lighter weight tripod to take on my hikes but in low light and/or with my heavier lens I mange better hand held with using something else for stabilization.

So I will be saving up to buy a more expensive, hopefully light weight tripod, with a different type of head for wildlife.

All that said, my less than perfect tripod is better than no tripod for now.

[Nicks Pics]

Just want to drop in and say thanks for all the helpful recommendations and advice. I need to spend some time researching those suggestions. Lots to look for I see!

[Manfred M]

Have fun researching Nick

With tripods; much like shoes, cars, backpacks, purses, etc. there is no "one size fits all" solution.

I own four different tripods (and unlike Dan's scenarios), each one was bought for a very specific purpose / photographic (and video) purpose.

1. One is tiny and lightweight and definitely not as sturdy and stable as the others, but it is the one that came with me on a recent trek into the Himalayas. I wouldn't ever consider using it with my full-frame camera.

2. The second one is medium duty and it comes along in the backpack on hikes and walks; either with crop-frame or light duty full-frame camera use. It's been all over the world too, and has been used for wildlife photography, albeit with crop frame gear..

3. The third one is similar to Allan's, but the three section, carbon fibre design and with the RRS BH-55, it is expensive and weighs in around 6 lbs / 3kg; so while I have travelled by air and car with it, I've only done so in North America.

4. Video tripod for use with a pro video camera (fluid head is part of the setup).


I also have a cheap ancient alumimum monopod that I haven't used in years and a Manfrotto car window clamp with a Benro ball head that I use as a quick and dirty setup (i.e. my car is actually the "tripod").

[rpcrowe]

There at least two types of wildlife photography (probably more but, two come to mind). First is wildlife photography in which you are required to hike long distances over perhaps rugged terrain for this type of photography, you need a tripod which, while stable enough for your needs, is light enough for you to carry. That weight depends on your age and physical condition. The other type photography is where you might not have to tromp the boonies that much but, in which you need heavy long lenses. In this case, the operational term is stability.

In actuality, two different tripods will probably suit the wildlife photographer best but, it could be possible to find a mid range tripod which will bridge the gap between the two needs. My Giottos MT8180, at about 5.7 pounds, is an example of a tripod heavy enough for long lenses yet, light enough for all but the most frail of us to carry.

Tripod heads are another thing. Many photographers, Including myself, prefer ball heads for general purpose photography. However, I don't consider ball heads as best for following moving subjects, especially birds in flight.

Two types of tripod heads are quite useful for following fast moving critters. First is a gimbal head which is available in many price ranges and second is a fluid dampened pan head which was designed for video or motion picture panning.

At one time in order to consider a gimbal head you needed to be willing to drop several hundred dollars. However, lately there have been a plethora of Chinese made gimbal heads running from about sixty-five dollars and up. I have not researched these heads since I use the unique Manfrotto 393 Heavy Telephoto Lens Support which costs about $175 ( http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-393-...nfrotto+gimbal ) but. can often be found used for around $100.

Another solution to following fast moving birds and some other animals is the Fluid pan head. While one of the best of these heads is a Miller DV DS20 which is a fairly expensive (about $150 used and fairly heavy head), the Bogen Manfrotto 3126 Micro Fluid Head can be had for around fifty dollars plus shipping on the used market and does a dandy job with most still cameras and long lenses.

The capability of your head depends on the weight, length and bulk of the lenses you will use. However, my Manfrotto Gimbal will accommodate just about any size and weight of lens. See Romy Ocon's website in which he generally uses the Manfrotto Gimbal for his wonderful Philippine bird images shot with some very-very heavy glass. http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone

[rtbaum]

I am currently at three stabilizers. My Manfrotto monopod with a simple hinged head allowing up and down movement is the most used when hiking the trails looking for birds. My tripod was a Promaster FW23T, still light enough for carrying in the field but not stout enough to support my 400mm reliably. Newest acquisition is an aluminum Manfrotto 055, heavy and very sturdy! This will be my work horse, most of my shooting is close to the car and I really wanted something to fit my 6' without stooping. I chose aluminum as I experience windy conditions a lot and I felt that the added weight would be more stable. The carbon fibre option is considerably lighter.

I join with others in recommending that you not scrimp in purchasing a tripod. I believe that a tripod is under-rated by many, they will spend large amounts of cash for lenses and the latest body and plop it on a cheap support. My $400 tripod will now support whatever my NAS* comes up with next, far into the future.

*Nikon Acquisition Syndrome

[NorthernFocus]

...I own four different tripods (and unlike Dan's scenarios), each one was bought for a very specific purpose / photographic (and video) purpose.
...

To clarify I still have the Manfrotto CF pod from my 301 class described above. It's a nice tripod but pretty useless for wildlife. I use it for landscapes and flowers, though I rarely do them. Then I also picked up a little CF travel pod that is my favorite of the bunch. Mini ballhead included it weighs less than a kilogram.

If we want to keep going, then there's the monopod for traveling light and the Bushhawk for shooting from the boat. Jeez when I list them out like that it sounds pretty bad. Better not let my bride see this...

[Manfred M]

To clarify I still have the Manfrotto CF pod from my 301 class described above. It's a nice tripod but pretty useless for wildlife. I use it for landscapes and flowers, though I rarely do them. Then I also picked up a little CF travel pod that is my favorite of the bunch. Mini ballhead included it weighs less than a kilogram.

If we want to keep going, then there's the monopod for traveling light and the Bushhawk for shooting from the boat. Jeez when I list them out like that it sounds pretty bad. Better not let my bride see this...

Dan - I suspect we are both charter members of the "toys for boys club".

We just rationalize slightly differently.

[terrib]

I would concur with what Dan said. Personally I use a manfrotto 055x tripod with a Jobu Jr gimbal head for wildlife.

But I really think we need more info from you to make meaningful recommendations. What kind of wildlife shooting do you do? I do a lot of different types of wildlife photography. In many cases, I'm not using any kind of support. A lot of the time, I'm shooting at wildlife refuges from the car and using a beanbag or jumping out and using nothing but my shoulder. Other times, I'm hiking out and setting up with a tripod. How far you hike might make the difference between carbon fiber or not. But when I do use a tripod, I use a sturdy one with the gimbal for wildlife. But I don't find the gimbal to be the best choice for landscapes or macro. If you want something that will do it all, you will compromise. Jack of all trades, master of none kind of thing. So the first response to your question was "Budget?" Is it more important for you to get one that will work OK in all types of photography or to get one that works best for wildlife?

[NorthernFocus]

...We just rationalize slightly differently.

Today one of my co-workers and I were waxing philosophical about the nature of man. He is a math major by education. By the end of our potentially world saving conversation we had concluded that by our very nature as emotional beings and having egos as we do, man is incapable of truly logical decision making. The only difference between technical people and liberal arts majors is that we feel compelled to take the time to rationalize decisions that we've already intuitively(aka emotionally) reached. The feelers of the world don't burden themselves with that.

Getting back to the topic of tripods for wildlife photography, in many ways I think this is one area that we are saddled with conventional wisdom held over from film days. When shooting wildlife, the vast majority of the time you need high ss due to the activity of the subject. So the decision whether to go handheld, monopod, or tripod, is largely for practical reasons rather than for optimizing image quality. I've only used a tripod for the past couple of seasons. Prior to that I used a monopod or shoulder stock. The monopod was not intended to steady the camera so much as to support the weight of heavy gear for long hours. The shoulder stock facilitated shooting BIF early on because I had a history of proficiency with a shotgun so was able to follow birds on the wing better with the motion of the stock.

The only time I use a tripod to shoot wildlife is when I am going to set up in a stationary position for an extended time while watching/waiting for something to happen. For example the eagle images that I post here come from two locations. The fishing shots are made on Prince William Sound and shot from a boat. I don't even bring the tripod along on those trips. When the action occurs it only lasts seconds. So the camera/shoulder stock lays on a table until something happens, I pick it up and shoot, and put it back down.

The other location is on a riverbank in Haines during the salmon run. There is totally different. There is something happening every few minutes and always eagles in sight. There I set the pod up in a spot and stand there for hours with my hands rarely leaving the camera. Same lens and camera body as on the boat. But totally different conditions.

So give it some thought. It's a good idea to spend your money on the things you will use the most. You can always get by in a pinch on the rare occasions.

As several others have pointed out, be sure you're clear about what you need the pod for before you look for one.

[ajohnw]

My personal feeling is that image stabilisation replaces tripods to a large extent and I am not the most stable person about but find that it generally does up to 600mm FF at far higher pixel densities than full frame but it's lighter gear.

A few cautions might be worth adding.

I have a Benbo and a hefty UniLock, same style tripods. They are very versatile but need some care in use otherwise the lot may fall over. Avoiding that needs some thought. It's not a design problem. Like all tripods hefty ones are heavy but they are good in this respect for what they are. One thing I have noticed is that the side arm which can be extended rather a long way has a long damping time so I part see it as most usable for studio shots when it's used that way. It's pretty easy to get a camera over a table at any old angle. For that sort of use the UniLocks are a better option in some ways but I have only handled a Benbo Trekker.

There is carbon fibre and carbon fibre so it's best to look and see what is being gained weight wise over aluminium. Carbon fibre is made up of that and resins. Some make up the resin content and keep the carbon design and amount down. The weight saving isn't really that apparent. This is why tripods like Gitzo are more expensive also in part the name.

Aluminium also varies. This is why Manfrotto of old, not sure about now were far more rigid than other makes. Mine is 20 years + old, no light weight and probably indestructible.

2 tripods sound great one for travel etc. It may be better to spend more on one carbon fibre tripod as many of the aluminium travel tripods aren't that much lighter. Gitzo's best one on that score is light and rigid but will set people back several hundred quid. About 5 of them I think in the uk.

There was an interesting link in a post one here when the Tamron 150-600mm was being discussed. To a video of a lady that shoots birds using a 600mm canon prime using a tripod and gimbols. It can involve skipping round the tripod while missing the legs when the birds are in flight. Results from that lens better than the Tamron but that aspect no where near as apparent when the shots were reduced. Shots where taken with the Tamron hand held that would have been missed by the main set up.

I don't think monopods need to be super rigid just reasonable and the legs need to lock well. The main thing for many uses is easily adjustable height. I find if I lean rather than adjusting the height they don't help much at all.

Increasing the number of extenders on the legs just seems to reduce the diameter of the final leg making the whole thing less rigid when they are used. It needn't if they also increased the diameter of the top leg but as that would cost none of them seem to. If given it's worth comparing diameters of the top leg as it gives an idea of rigidity all other things being equal.

Good heads tend to be expensive. One make that is more reasonably priced is Olivon but as with most very robust heads they aren't light. Part of there business is tripods and heads for bird spotters. The requirements as far as stands and heads are concerned are in some ways more extreme than a camera's. Google digiscoping to see why but high magnification with hands on a scope for focusing and zooming can be a bit tricky at some point.

Personally if a head has a quick release plate I would buy a couple of those to go with the head as well. They can't be bought for some makes and some companies keep changing them. The so called standard that's about at the moment isn't really, only the style. I have 2 Olivon heads and 4 quick release plates. One pan tilt the other 3 way.

Good luck with your search. My choice was the Giottos. Is a Gitzo better ? Maybe but only at a cost and from the ones I have seen the difference would be marginal. Same for the other rather expensive ones. I am also including weight, material and size in that comment so that I am comparing like with like. Gitzo's mountaineering tripod is unique as far as I am aware. I've seen the short super light one 2nd hand and in perfect order but £300 no way as it wouldn't get used much. I do have a very short tripod I carry about. It extends to about 300mm with 2 section legs and has a ball head built in. I'd like to find a better more pro one but there is often something around that a tripod like that can be stood on.

John
-

[Shadowman]

I would think optimal tripod purchasing would be based on how it will be used. Wouldn't most wildlife photographers use a tripod at it's lowest height (or even lower if lying horizontal) and for those standing what is optimal for your specific height. Do you want to shoot in a bent over position or risking more chances of camera shake by extending the center column?

[JR1]

Hello folks,

Does any one here have any recommendations for tripods that are good for wildlife photography? Would you look at ball-head options? Light (or compact) is of course nice for wildlife photography, but I hope for something sturdier than my last "travelsmart" tripod. It was very thin, I slipped on some ice and broke a leg, (it's leg ).

I am making specifications for one for wildlife photography, but I hope to get one that works for general purposes as well. Cost is a factor as well.

It's great to be able to ask experienced people like those here!

Thanks in advance

What is the best car for a family, there is NO answer, it is what is the nearest to the best for you.

Look at this thread on this forum.

tripod for wildlife photography

You ask but say no budget

Personally I use a number depending on what I do, my main one is my Manfrotto Mag 055 CF, with Benro FC gimbal head, just under £1000.

Go and TRY many.

Personally I think nothing beats a good gimbal head.

However if I was limited by funds (1) I would NOT get a cheap CF as they do not stand up to wind well, and (b) I would always look at pre owned from a reputable supplier, I love my Giottos mtl9271b legs and will not be parted from them