> I'm
> thinking about buying a fairly small, fairly cheap tripod. Is that a
> smart thing to do?
Two recommendations here:
1. Ultrapod. This _really_ is pocket-sized -- it won't hold much
bigger/heavier than a 35-70/3.5-4.5 / 24/2, but it's so small you don't have
any excuse for not having a tripod again.. It's mostly useful if you have a
solid surface to put the camera on that's not at the right angle,
admittedly, but when you do, it can save the day; depends on what sort of
terrain you're hiking in. Also, very cheap.
http://www.pedcopods.com/products.htm -- maybe the ultrapod II if you have
bigger pockets..
2. Slik Compact. Bigger, with adjustable legs, so you can use it on rougher
terrain. As someone else said, yes, you're going to be crouching/lying down
to set this one up, but, again, if it's the option of that or not getting
the shot, then it's not a hard decision. Cheap, light, and compact enough
when folded that if I have my backpack with me it'll go across the bottom
thus being effectively invisible. Also, the center column reverses to get
down low, which can occasionally be useful.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/product/147126/SLCT/REG/2635
Neither of these are 'real' tripods -- they're not particularly rigid,
they're not as easy to use as they might be, etc -- but they're small and
cheap and the only time I've tried carrying a 190+308RC with me, I regretted
it..
-- dan
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|