Sony Landscape on a budget...

Both [emoji6]

I reckon I'll end up compromising on both though.

I was looking at iFootage as the bowl thing seems like a good idea rather than the faff of trying to level the legs.

That Henry.... Whatshisname on YouTube landscape vlogger kid has just got one of those. He's not reviewed it yet though.

And yes, levelling legs can be a bit of a faff.
 
Both [emoji6]

I reckon I'll end up compromising on both though.

I was looking at iFootage as the bowl thing seems like a good idea rather than the faff of trying to level the legs.

The feisol I suggested is just that :)

I haven't yet found anything that's as light, sturdy and as tall without center column all in one column
 
Last edited:
I imagine you'd hate my 645z to use - it is everything your Sony isn't. It's slow, ponderous, big, heavy but to me it is utterly lovable and intuitive. I cannot wait to get out there with it for real :D - and aye - the 28-45 and 45-85 - stupendously good edge to centre. No difference that I can see. But it's a 4:3 aspect ratio which I really like.

So everyone is happy and that's something rare on TP :D
Glad to see you went for the 645z, I remember you posting about it. As an ex Pentax user, I'm well jell.
 
Both [emoji6]

I reckon I'll end up compromising on both though.

I was looking at iFootage as the bowl thing seems like a good idea rather than the faff of trying to level the legs.
I’ve recently bought a three legged thing Brian, good compromise between portability and stability.
 
I use a cheap Rollei, carbon fiber legs, extremely light (980g Inc ball head) and packs up small.
Been there done that with bigger ones from bigger brands, they always got left at home because of the weight and size.
 
I use a cheap Rollei, carbon fiber legs, extremely light (980g Inc ball head) and packs up small.
Been there done that with bigger ones from bigger brands, they always got left at home because of the weight and size.
I have one like that (different brand) too - quite functional although the small size means there are lots of leg sections to open out when putting it up.
 
I have one like that (different brand) too - quite functional although the small size means there are lots of leg sections to open out when putting it up.
Yeah I don't think I've ever used it at full height. I feel like I'd wasted my money on the big brands ones, as I'm still getting sharp photos with a £100 tripod.
Especially when I realised is gone from using a heavy DSLR to a tiny mirrorless camera you just don't need the same bulky tripod.
I can carry my tripod in my jacket pocket now.
 
To the OP - I'd be wary about anything too light and cheap...

If you intend to shoot coastal (IIRC you are in Northumberland so coastal will be something you will do) you'll want something that won't fall down in the wind and keep your new expensive camera safe.

Furthermore although mirror-less camera's are light, the lens's aren't. This makes them more front heavy and likely to tip forward so there's an argument that actually a heavier tripod should be used to distribute the mass of the tripod/camera/lens more optimally. Don't go too wild on super expensive gitzo's...but don't go cheap either. Manfrotto 190 is honestly a great compromise.
 
Last edited:
Mostly a Markins head but I also use gimbles and geared heads from time to time. when I say bowl it isn't like the video ones but one that allows the centre to rotate slightly to get level before locking off.

Edited as I found the base I use. Bowl was the wrong word it is a levelling base. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Feisol-LB-7567-Levelling-Base-Black/dp/B00573NDOA

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I want. I'm not sure which head would be best. Probably not a ball head as no point having a level "base" but then having to mess on with my ball too.

Saw someone on YouTube using an Acratech Long Lens Head but they're pretty expensive.
 
I don't use a tripod much, hardly ever in fact, but when I do it's a Benbo which although rather old tech in materials isn't IMO too heavy but does seem just about indestructible. I think one thing that can be overlooked is the head. I've only had a few but one did add to the bulk and weight and was noticeable when carrying the kit. These days I just have a ball head but the best I've had was a pan and tilt which I stupidly gave away.
 
His 20mm f1.8 is pretty light tbh

Later down the line the 24-70 and 70-200 could appear, they aren't so light and Northumberland is bloody windy. I wouldn't pearch £3k worth on something cheap just to save £100 or so. False economy.

I don't use a tripod much,

Do you shoot landscapes or seascapes - the shutter speeds involved mean they are but essential for a lot of shots. Particularly for coastal shots where you might want to render some movement in the water.

_DSC0190 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

All the IBIS, VR, SR 5 axis stabilisation wouldn't make this do-able without a tripod.

Ok Skye - not NE England but 25mph plus winds are quite normal at the coast, something sturdy is definitely in order.

I'd ask @Steelo for his view - a) he has a similar system b) the OP intends to embark on shooting Northumberland - which is very coastal and our very own Martin shoots this area extensively and his thoughts on tripods would be good.
 
Last edited:
I bought a Manfrotto 290XL recently. Less than a hundred quid and it’s fantastic. Bit big when folded down and not the lightest but having messed around with small travel tripods, I really appreciate the stability.
 
I don't use a tripod much, hardly ever in fact, but when I do it's a Benbo which although rather old tech in materials isn't IMO too heavy but does seem just about indestructible. I think one thing that can be overlooked is the head. I've only had a few but one did add to the bulk and weight and was noticeable when carrying the kit. These days I just have a ball head but the best I've had was a pan and tilt which I stupidly gave away.
Easy enough to level with modern camera on a ballhead with the live view display. If you are shooting a pano the levelling bases are very useful so the camera remains level across the frames.. You can get levelling baes that fit on top of the tripod too. I have a Manfrotto somewhere in the cupboard. They give really small and accurate movements but are too fiddly for my liking
 
Later down the line the 24-70 and 70-200 could appear, they aren't so light and Northumberland is bloody windy. I wouldn't pearch £3k worth on something cheap just to save £100 or so. False economy.

the current best 70-200mm option for Sony especially for landscape is actually the Tamron 70-180mm/2.8. the 24-70mm option is the sigma ART. both weigh slightly over 800g. Not particularly heavy either (compared to DSLR standards that is).
 
the current best 70-200mm option for Sony especially for landscape is actually the Tamron 70-180mm/2.8. the 24-70mm option is the sigma ART. both weigh slightly over 800g. Not particularly heavy either (compared to DSLR standards that is).

Not heavy but if out in a wind...

I tend to shoot in still, clement conditions so it's a non issue for me...but coastal shooters need that stability. I'd probably have the 055 or some super expensive Gitzo if doing coastal work combined with long expo but I don't need that so make do with a humble 190....
 
Back
Top