WTB: large heavy studio tripod, socal local pickup

[mkawa]

i'll take anything you have. let me know. building OFFICIAL GH MACRO RIG

[mkawa]

no seriously, does anyone have one of these sitting around in the closet?

[limmy]

If you are going to purchase a ball head with your tripod, be prepared to spend a lot because cheaper ones(~$100) tend to drift a bit even when tightened. I have both 486RC2 and 466RC2 from Manfrotto, and I strongly prefer 466RC2 for close up shots. I believe recent equivalent models are 498RC2 and 468MGRC2, respectively.

For indoor shots, I don't think super sturdy tripod is a must. I would recommend not-so-expensive tripod with decent ball head. Of course not-so-expensive one should be able to handle the weight of the ball head(good ones are pretty heavy) and the camera.

What camera and lens do you use?

[mkawa]

i am very familiar with tripod setups and have previously owned a 1k+ travel setup. i will be using the cheapest stable 3-way i can find.

camera setup will be a d700 + 55/f3.5 AI'd with tube (maybe a bellows if i can find one cheap) and cheap halogen flood/spotlights.

sturdy tripod is always a must with macro unfortunately. fortunately, indoor setups don't require lightweight legsets or fancy ballheads

[limmy]

I see. You probably know better than I do.

I didn't see the need for super sturdy tripod because there aren't many factors that may shake your camera indoors with non-moving object. Your object most likely be on a table, hence no need for fancy height adjustments and etc. However, I agree that heavy and sturdy tripods almost always give you better pics.

Good luck with your buy. I would be waiting to see good quality macro pics!

[mkawa]

the larger the production ratio, the more pixels will be affected by a small lateral shift in the physical position of the camera.

[f/64]

I've done a ton of macro work freehand. More fun that way IMO. In all honesty the high end Gorilla Pod is pretty stable and something I keep with me everywhere. With a low end 55 lens (very light weight generally), you can get away with a cheap tripod. I would look for a 3 way video pan head/kit off Craigslist or eBay and pick up a set of cheap (heavy) legs if you're really worried about it.

This is just me, but I would upgrade the glass first. That's dependent on how much you want to spend of course. Extension tubes are a GREAT addition to any kit and really a load of fun to play with. However if you were to upgrade to a true macro lens and shoot at 2.8, you wouldn't have to worry about lowering your shutter and picking up more blur nearly as much to make up for the stop difference of the tubes.

I'm not sure how many or what size tubes you'd be using of course, but you're looking at a 2 stop shift to use a mid tier tube, and you're already at 3.5. Oh, plus if you do upgrade the lens instead, you won't really need to buy floods either. A well placed flashlight provides plenty of light for smaller objects at 2.8; you can build light boxes super cheap too.

As an aside, being the internet, I don't want any of this to come off as condescending or taken the wrong way. Just wanted to add my two cents.

[mkawa]

I've done a ton of macro work freehand. More fun that way IMO. In all honesty the high end Gorilla Pod is pretty stable and something I keep with me everywhere. With a low end 55 lens (very light weight generally), you can get away with a cheap tripod. I would look for a 3 way video pan head/kit off Craigslist or eBay and pick up a set of cheap (heavy) legs if you're really worried about it.

This is just me, but I would upgrade the glass first. That's dependent on how much you want to spend of course. Extension tubes are a GREAT addition to any kit and really a load of fun to play with. However if you were to upgrade to a true macro lens and shoot at 2.8, you wouldn't have to worry about lowering your shutter and picking up more blur nearly as much to make up for the stop difference of the tubes.

I'm not sure how many or what size tubes you'd be using of course, but you're looking at a 2 stop shift to use a mid tier tube, and you're already at 3.5. Oh, plus if you do upgrade the lens instead, you won't really need to buy floods either. A well placed flashlight provides plenty of light for smaller objects at 2.8; you can build light boxes super cheap too.

As an aside, being the internet, I don't want any of this to come off as condescending or taken the wrong way. Just wanted to add my two cents.

no you have a good point. i have to shoot the old 55 at f5.6 or above to get decent sharpness, and the 27.5mm tube to take it to 1:1 makes that about an f8 equivalent, so yah, i'm forced to shoot mounted. i had a gpod SLR for a while but it wasn't beefy or flexible enough to justify keeping it. i haven't tried the focus, so i'd consider it, but in theory i should be able to find an old steel legset and 3-way for the same amount at a swapmeet or garage sale or something.

tbh of course i'd prefer to get a proper 105 macro or even better, the sigma 150, but i killed my lens fund recently, and i keep buying all these keyboards...