I have a tripod that I bought off Amazon, I think it cost me somewhere around the £15.00 mark.
When I look at other tripods in camera shops, online etc, I notice that there is a significant difference in cost as some are around the £100.00 region.
So my question is this, what is the difference in the cheap ones compared to the more expensive ones? Is it purely the names or is it construction, build material based etc?
Basically, is it worth purchasing an expensive one when there are cheaper alternatives available? Will my cheap tripod be letting me down in obtaining quality photo's in any way?
I ask because it's my birthday next month and the wife & kids are struggling for gift ideas.....
I have recently upgraded from a velbon that cost about £40.
The main reason I decided to upgrade was that my velbon would not support the weight of some of my heavier lenses.
I purchased the Slik 700 pro dx that came complete with head. I am very impressed with the build quality, it's very solid and sturdy and easily supports the weight of my heaviest lenses. It's heavy compared to some tripods but I can live with that. Some are carbon fibre so are lighter.
The more expensive tripods are more likely to have more feature s which may let you get the camera lower to the ground or even invert it.
The Slik I bought was on offer from £300 to £120 and I'm very happy.
It's worth remembering that some tripods come with heads, and some don't so have to be bought.
Hope this helps.
i had a cheap tripod i got when i had a small a640 it was ok for that but when i got a DSLR it couldnt take the weight especially in portrait mode so just got a giottos vitruvian light and easy to take on my travels but it does support 9kg