Flash or tripod?

JSER said:
Disagree, you are wrong, sorry, when I was 18 (52 now) my first camera was a Nikkormat FTn new followed by a Nikon F Photomic FTn, new, I never bought cheap, I saved to get the best.

The reason I bought the F was the mat was stolen, so I did not and have not bought twice.

I still have my original Sunpak Auto zoom 4000 I bought when younger and it now gets used with my just bought Nikkormat FTN :love:

I have four flashguns none have been "bought twice" all for a purpose.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with above sorry. in general terms I think buying cheap or reasonably cheap at the beginning is very sensible. and what 90% of all of do in every thing in life you don't buy a 6 bedroom house when you move out do you.
when I was looking at getting into photography and moving form a bridge, I had the spare money to get a new Nikon D3x with handle full of lenses but I didn't that would of been silly as I didn't know what to do with it!
instead I bought the new D3100 as I read its good for first time SLR users, when I feel im being held back by this ill upgrade.

likewise with tripod think my first was a £20 job which was fine, i upgraded due to it being very light! and felt my camera needed more support i also needed the freedom to get very low to the ground and have fully adjustable legs for hills etc. my £20 jobbie had those bars which restrict the legs from going flat.
So yes at first buy cheap understand what you need etc and if you feel your being held back the change :)
 
redddraggon said:
Now you are talking twoddle. An SLR from none of the manufacturers can be considered cheap junk.
Click to expand...

And nobody advises buying cheap "junk", or expensive "junk" for that matter. There is a lot of affordable, solid kit out there to exhaust before splurging on the lifetime investment.
 
Quanosaur said:
And nobody advises buying cheap "junk", or expensive "junk" for that matter. There is a lot of affordable, solid kit out there to exhaust before splurging on the lifetime investment.
Click to expand...

Especially in the Sub £70 tripod market.

redddraggon said:
As I'm a student with limited income I personally would rather the money wisely in the first instance. Sure, If you have plenty of money, go for expensive buy multiple times option.
Click to expand...

redddraggon said:
I don't think you can get a tripod&head or flash that is truly worth getting for £70.

Buy cheap buy twice.
Click to expand...

Also is this a recent mantra from a recent experience? because that would explain why 17 days ago you purchased cheap. :cautious:
 
Last edited:
Ive just bought a mark 1 benbo tripod for £20 ... theyre like a tank as a tripod, very pleased. if will be used outdoors in the wet and mud, I will get fit lugging it about, but if theyre good enough to mount machine guns then theyll do me as a 'cheap' tripod :) the redsnapper will be used indoorsand in clean places
 
Quanosaur said:
That is such a cliché and I never understand why people keep reiterating it.

What on earth is wrong with 'buying twice'?

<large snip>
Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said and I couldn't have put it better. You should write professionally, if you don't already.
 
Mac123 said:
Agree with everything you said and I couldn't have put it better. You should write professionally, if you don't already.
Click to expand...

Aw, thanks! I ... sort of do, it just doesn't pay (hence venturing into photography to subsidise!) - Linguistics PhD student. ;)
 
My tripod is a relatively cheap Jessops jobbie, paid about £30 for is 4 years ago. I have no doubt that there are a lot more expensive tripods that will do the same/better job but considering it's an item I rarely use I accept that if it's blowing a gale it may not be very stable BUT I don't want to tie up £100+ in a piece of equipment that I rarely use.

Dare I mention my monopod that cost £10? :LOL:

As for the Jessops' flashes, again there are better (a lot better out there) but for 3 years I made do with a very basic Jessops flash which while not perfect, with the use of a stofen diffuser did the job admirably. I would also stick my neck on the line and say even a cheap flashgun will out perform the pop up flash most of the time. It just depends if you think you're going to use it a lot (or not).

When I decided I wanted to get a little more creative I got the next Jessops flash in the range which was on special offer at aroudn £70 (I think). This offered me swivel & bounce and wireless functionality even though my 400D didn't support it.

Admittedly that flash was replaced with a Nissin 866i after a couple of months but mainly because I upgraded from a 400D to a 7D and the Jessops' flash didn't work that well wirelessly.

So what do I have now? 3 flashguns that have cost me around £300, a little more than a mid-range speed light? But more to the point, I've got 2 spare flashguns to get me out of a hole if needs be ;)

IMO photography is just like any other activity where you have to buy equipment, there's a whole range of stuff, some expensive, some cheap and somewhere in the middle.

It all comes down to personal preference, budget and requirements.

A professional sports photographer would be a little foolish if he/she bought a 1000D knowing that they would be using the item day in, day out and possibly in damp conditions but in the same respect, an amateur (unless completely loaded) would be just as foolish to spend £3K+ on a 1D and L-glass just to get a few happy snaps of his/her family opening Christmas presents.
 
On that note, my studio flash kit cost me around 300 quid from ebay for three 300w units. It's the 'best' of the chinese ebay kits - after some research - but of course it's nothing compared to the 'real' thing (Elinchrom, Bowens, etc...). I've had it for over a year now, I have approximately one studio shoot booked per week and do quite a few of my family in between. The kit does the job. It allowed me to practice. It made me confident enough to pursuade my other half for us to invest into a 10k garage studio conversion because I eventually knew it would be something I'd use regularly. All that money spent on my studio and I still fare fine with my cheapo flash kit.

Researching these ebay kits online before buying made me come across countless forum debates telling people what a waste of money those are, that they would instantly make me wish I'd spent good cash in the first instance. A bit unsure, I bought the kit anyway. Can't say I've had a moment of regret. Instead, I've had a studio flash kit that even made me a bit of an income on the side and the knowledge that I enjoy studio photography enough to make my garage conversion well worth it.

I'm thinking of upgrading next year for one of the big brands along with a ceiling track system maybe, now that I've got the space sorted out. I have not had a moment of regret about my cheap purchase. I'll probably keep the kit around as back-up.

I find that the comments against buying cheap tend to come from people who have never tried cheap, who assume something is only good when a well-known brand makes it. Sure you tend to fare somewhat more safely with the big name brands, but that doesn't make everything cheap necessarily crap.
 
Quickshooter said:
I do not agree with above sorry. in general terms I think buying cheap or reasonably cheap at the beginning is very sensible. and what 90% of all of do in every thing in life you don't buy a 6 bedroom house when you move out do you.
QUOTE]

Sorry but i think you are missing the point, and the above is a pointless case, if I were from some families who have a large income then yes I would, why because I could.

My sixteen year old son has the D3100 and Nikkor VR 28-300 zoom, a total of about £1,200, it is not the best camera but far from cheap. He has it not because I am rich, I wish I were, or because he is spolit, but because he is into photography, it is the best choice for him and because I refused to buy cheaper gear for him to say, six months later, thanks dada but I need "x" now, this outfid does what he wants.

No one has said go mad and buy a Rolls, but don't buy, no perhaps thinking about it we are getting confused, we are tlking cheap as apposed to crap

I fully agree with the student he is 100% right he wants to buy shall we say a Morphy Richards toaster as opposed to a Tesco.

He wants to buy a good outfit at the offset NOT the most expensive, but rightly sees getting a "cheap" for want of a better word tripod is pointless when perhaps even a montyh down the line finds it flimsy and has to lose out selling it on.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Russ77 said:
My tripod is a relatively cheap Jessops jobbie, paid about £30 for is 4 years ago. I have no doubt that there are a lot more expensive tripods that will do the same/better job but considering it's an item I rarely use I accept that if it's blowing a gale it may not be very stable BUT I don't want to tie up £100+ in a piece of equipment that I rarely use..
Click to expand...

This I do agree with, however, none of us use a tripod 24/7, but when we do we (or me at least) like to know its capable.

The other week we all went out with a local pro camera club trip etc, it was ok as a day but most was landscape.

You immediately knew all the people who bought a tripod either because they think they needed one or with no research at all.

I took my Unilok and light Manfrottos for my son and my Giottos with Gimbal for me, all take seconds to set up and less time to use, the cheapies with flimsy legs which need leg bracing to support them, no attachments for weights, poorly designed leg locks and more, sorry, you tend to get what you pay for, I was more than concerned for the cameras people were putting on these cheap tripods, and by that I mean £50-70.

Mine was at 5' 6" for me, and firm as a rock as was my sons Unilok, some of the Jessops were at 4' simply because any more was scary. Why spend £1000 on a camera and £50 on a mount.

I have two bikes, £800 and £1600, the cheapest lock I use is £60, yet I have seen people in Halfords buying a £300 bike and £20 lock they deserve it to be stolen.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
My sixteen year old son has the D3100 and Nikkor VR 28-300 zoom, a total of about £1,200, it is not the best camera but far from cheap. He has it not because I am rich, I wish I were, or because he is spolit, but because he is into photography, it is the best choice for him and because I refused to buy cheaper gear for him to say, six months later, thanks dada but I need "x" now, this outfid does what he wants.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that rather neat lens will have him crave full-frame in no time, because the D3100 is well under-spec to utilise the 28-300's full potential. That aside, of course the D3100 (particularly with good glass!) is a great starting point in photography, but it's also at the bottom end of the entire DSLR market. I challenge you to find a significantly cheaper DSLR on the current market. So it is 'cheap' (looking at only DSLRs), but it's most definitely not 'crap'. Which is precisely the point of this debate. You can and - depending on your circumstances - should make do with 'cheap' for quite some time so that you'll learn what kit you really need.

It's a common thought that people have with photography - "I only need this and maybe that and then I'm set.". No, in order to exhaust the infinite possibilities in photography there is an infinite "need" (or rather want) for new, different, better kit. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean you start photography with a D3s or a Hasselblad, you don't get into primes and low light via a 24mm f/1.4, your first tripod doesn't need to be a carbon fibre Gitzo, and your first flashgun can be something well below an SB900. It's just one of those fields where 'buying twice' and many more times simply comes with the territory, for as long as you stick with it.

Even with cheaper kit, it takes time to exhaust its options. It gives you the opportunity to learn and progress now rather than when you can finally afford something you won't even know how to use to begin with.

I'd prefer buy a Tesco Value toaster now than go without toast until I can afford something better.
 
Last edited:
Back to the OPs question.
I think people have pointed out a few options for tripods, and I think thats the best way to go if you want to do landscapes, however I feel you are restricted by the 50mm lens for that.

Maybe head over to MPB Photographic and get yourself a 18-55mm "kit" lens to help you get the wide angles you crave. If you can afford the IS version then this will help you achive slower shutter speeds without a tripod.

As for the flash, head over to Amazon, and look up on camera flash difffusers, just to help you achieve a better light from your on camera flash. (Ok, Here is the link , I did the work for you :p)
I've never used one, but for £5.47 its worth a shot, especially if you get the 18-55 IS lens.
I would maybe even consider selling the 50mm F1.8 on here for around £60 to help you get the 18-55 IS


And as for everyone else arguing their points about "buy cheap buy twice", I think it is both right and wrong.
When I started out, I bought a Canon 350d with 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. I also bought a Jessops 360AD flash. This was the best kit that I could afford. I had no other options, I wanted a camera, but I couldnt afford a 30D with some nice glass for it and a 430EX or 580EX.
However, since then I have bought numerous lenses to get what I want. Sometimes its just not possible to buy the best to start with, however it does mean slowly upgrading your kit over time.
 
edited to another txt
 
Last edited:
Quanosaur said:
Hmm, that rather neat lens will have him crave full-frame in no time, because the D3100 is well under-spec to utilise the 28-300's full potential. That aside, of course the D3100 (particularly with good glass!) is a great starting point in photography, but it's also at the bottom end of the entire DSLR market. I challenge you to find a significantly cheaper DSLR on the current market. So it is 'cheap' (looking at only DSLRs), but it's most definitely not 'crap'. Which is precisely the point of this debate. You can and - depending on your circumstances - should make do with 'cheap' for quite some time so that you'll learn what kit you really need.

It's a common thought that people have with photography - "I only need this and maybe that and then I'm set.". No, in order to exhaust the infinite possibilities in photography there is an infinite "need" (or rather want) for new, different, better kit. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean you start photography with a D3s or a Hasselblad, you don't get into primes and low light via a 24mm f/1.4, your first tripod doesn't need to be a carbon fibre Gitzo, and your first flashgun can be something well below an SB900. It's just one of those fields where 'buying twice' and many more times simply comes with the territory, for as long as you stick with it.

Even with cheaper kit, it takes time to exhaust its options. It gives you the opportunity to learn and progress now rather than when you can finally afford something you won't even know how to use to begin with.

I'd prefer buy a Tesco Value toaster now than go without toast until I can afford something better.
Click to expand...



Of the majority of posts here I will go with yours as one of the most common sense.

BUT don't you DARE let my son know he needs a better camera, as a singe dad, if I didn't smoke, drink or gamle he wouldn't have that.

However I would like to add that too few people actually join clubs where you can try out other members equipment, ok not a camera or lens but certainly people are free to try my mounts, hides etc.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
BUT don't you DARE let my son know he needs a better camera, as a singe dad, if I didn't smoke, drink or gamle he wouldn't have that.
Click to expand...

:LOL: When did he start? I'd say you have around 2 years from starting out, that would make him 18 when that "need" becomes pressing. And then you tell him to get a job. ;)
 
Getting rid of the 50mm is a none starter for me as i love it! After looking around i may look at the Tamron 17-50. Not sure about VC or not though.

Still dont want to spend tons on a flash or tripod.
 
intel86 said:
Getting rid of the 50mm is a none starter for me as i love it! After looking around i may look at the Tamron 17-50. Not sure about VC or not though.

Still dont want to spend tons on a flash or tripod.
Click to expand...

But you are willing to spend more money on a lens?
 
intel86 said:
Yea. I do need a better range of lenses. You cant use a tripod with a lens!! Or can you? :D
Click to expand...

What I meant was, you are willing to spend the money on a good lens, but not on a good flash or tripiod?
 
intel86 said:
I dont have the money to spend on all top gear.
Click to expand...
Fair play to you. Photography can be a very expensive hobby, or it can be done for a reasonable price, but not cheap. As I said earlier in this thread, I picked up a 430EX for £80 second hand last year and a decent Velbon Luxi tripod for around £70. Yes, I could have spent more, but I've not used the flash much. The tripod has been very useful, and I certainly don't plan on getting rid of the flash and do not feel the need to upgrade.

If I wanted the more expensive kit, I am in a position where I could afford it, but I don't think I'd justify the use of a £300 tripod and £300 flash.
 
I'll disagree on the 'can't get anything decent for cheap' as well.

Bought the Manfrotto 190XDB and 486RC2 ball head for £70 on these forums and it's really sturdy and more than I'll ever need.

For the flash, bought the Yongnuo YN468 for £55 1 and a half years ago and it's been brilliant. No problems with it, easily powerful enough for starting and seems to be well built and durable. The only flash I've bought so far and still using it.
If this breaks I'll probably buy another one or maybe the YN565 for a bit more power. Or if I need off-flash, then I'll probably buy the YN560.
 
nothing wrong with the on camera flash for indoor shots of people. i've been pleasantly surprised by the shots i've achieved using the on camera flash.
 
Northstander said:
nothing wrong with the on camera flash for indoor shots of people. i've been pleasantly surprised by the shots i've achieved using the on camera flash.
Click to expand...

I find the onboard flash too harsh. Nice to have a flash that i can bounce the light off of the ceiling etc.
 
I bought a Manfrotto compact tripod in Jessops - £50 and it is fine, supports my D90 no problem, especially indoors for pictures of my family etc. It may not be ideal for a studio but I am not a pro. You do not need to double your budget to get a worthwhile tripod. I know you are a Canon used but I also have an SB400 (Nikon's cheapest flash) and that is also fine, it may have limitations (can only be used on the camera, not remotely) but I find a work around.
 
To the OP,

If you shoot people mostly, get a flash first. In which case, save another £30 and get a 430ex mk1. I don't think spending a little extra here will be wasted. Non-Canon flashes may frustrate you, and you'll likely pine for one very soon.

As for a tripod, I bought my Slik Pro 340DX in 2006 for about £55 iirc. I wanted a proper made tripod that was light and sturdy enough to do the job and not be a burden.

I haven't even looked at tripods since I bought it. It does the job well enough for me, without breaking my back. And even where space and weight was at a premium, it came with me when I went to live in Australia for two years.

There may be better options available now, but you certainly don't need to break the bank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top