Tripod

[Maris]

I often use a Manfrotto 390 Junior tripod (yes, the one with the diabolical leg locks) with my RB67 system. The tripod is light, cheap, and rigid enough. The real reason it works well is because the RB has a waist level finder so the tripod can be much lower; less extension, more stability.

[Akalai]

Originally Posted by sun of sand

... Apug will hate me but I turned down a NOS Ries Jr tri-lock w/o head for $75. There were 4 of them. :/

Wow, great offer.... wish I could find something like that here in OZ right now... I need a tripod!!!

[Sparky]

Stiff is all well and good.. but there's really no substitute for mass. Nobody really seems to consider the vibration of tripods. They should. That's the big problem, IMO, with the carbon fiber tripods. The heavier the tripod, the more stable, and the lower it's resonant frequency is.

[Greg_E]

I made mine out of 1 inch square hardwood (3 pieces per leg) and finally stuck a great big Bogen ball head/leveler/spacer on top of it. It's pretty heavy, along the weight of our carbon fiber video tripods/heads, somewhere in the more than 10 pounds range.

[panastasia]

The total mass (weight) of the camera/tripod combination is what's important; the RB can work well with relatively light tripods because the RB adds the needed weight for stability. There was an old rule: heavy camera/light tripod, or heavy tripod/light camera - same result. The wind direction and speed can also be a factor - the harmonics of each combination will differ.

[Ralph Javins]

Yup, Sparky is right.

When you are concerned with any vibration of your camera, whether from you hitting it, the wind, the shutter or mirror, or other stimulus, a tripod with mass, rigidity, bracing, and a reasonable cross section should have a lower frequency natural resonance and help damp any vibration. Simple basic physics.

It is also good exercise for you.

Enjoy;

Ralph Javins