[naldopr]

Hi there I will like to know what tripod you guys use for your macro photography? Any suggestion will be appreciated

[jatrax]

Manfrotto 055cxpro3

[LensBeginner]

Manfrotto 190XPRO3, 90° center column is nice for macro.

I suggest you change the title of the topic to be a little more specific.

[gordon_l34]

Hi,
I have both a Manfrotto 075 with a Manfrotto 029 head and a Gitzo carbon fibre Series 3 with a Manfrotto 229 head. I also have a pair of Manfrotto 474 sliding plates for finite focusing adjustments.
Regards.

[WPRESTO]

Hi. The Manfroto 055 in various forms (aluminum/carbon fiber) is the most highly regarded medium-weight tripod on the market (BTW: I do not own one). Benbo makes a small tripod specifically designed for low-level macro. I have no experience with this either. It appears to me to be functional, but fussy-clumsy to set up. Benbo originated the multi-angle center column, and they also have lower leg sections larger than the upper for use in standing water or mud (=no water or dirt forced between the leg sections when the tripod is collapsed)

In selecting a tripod for macro, the things to keep in mind are these:
1) you do not need great height, 90% or more of your shots will be 4' or lower;
2) a tripod that is shorter when collapsed means it can be kept in "normal" orientation for more shots, a convenience ("normal" = do not need to set center column horizontally nor resort to a short center column), this generally means a tripod that has four leg sections rather than three;
3) the tripod should have multiple leg angles = the legs can be splayed out very wide to get down low;
4) you do not need a very heavy tripod; medium-weight will do fine;
5) I personally prefer flip locks to twist locks; I have multiple tripods with some having each type, and the flip locks are vastly more convenient and have been more trustworthy against slippage;
6) select a tripod that has either: A) a center column that can be turned horizontally; OR B) a center column that has two sections with a longer lower section that can be easily removed; both of these are far more convenient that a tripod that requires changing a long column for a separate short column; I personally prefer a two-section column as I think it keeps the entire set-up more stable than having a horizontal arm sticking out to the side.

Read below only out of interest.

Three tripods that I use for close-ups:
1) Slik 444 Sport, my oldest tripod, long out manufacture, short, very sturdy, excellent flip-locks, a geared center column (almost impossible to find on medium/small tripods today but very convenient for making small height adjustments). The legs have only one angle, but with legs fully collapsed, it's only about 20" high. I've taken more field macros with this little tripod than all others combined. The flip locks on this tripod are by far the most convenient and reliable leg locks on any of the numerous tripods I own. Had it for 40 years and the locks are still 100% reliable.
2) Gitzo 1228. The original carbon-fiber tripod, MUCH bigger than the Slik, multi-leg angles, a solid long center column with separate short column, but I found a way to thread the long column shaft into the end of the short column, so I made my own two-section center column. This tripod will hold a camera above my head, it is more stable than the Slik, but it is very bulky. The twist locks are not entirely reliable. I replaced the 20-year old friction locking pads recently, but the locks are still not 100% reliable. Extremely annoying to set up a tripod then have one of the legs start to collapse.
3) Sirui EN2004. Flip-locks, two-section center column, multiple leg angles, aluminum construction, much (MUCH!) more compact and no heavier than the Gitzo. This is currently my favorite general-use tripod. It will go from a few inches to above eye level with ease and it is very compact when fully collapsed. Not sure how the flip locks will hold up over time. They can be tightened with an Allen wrench if they become loose (the Slik flip locks have no adjustments - - they just stay tight forever).

[photolady95]

No tripod for my macros. Problem with a tripod is, they are not easily moved back and forth to get a shot. My suggestion would be get a monopod, if you really need something to steady the camera,. I've used one. But mostly I just hand hold the camera because of the way you I have to focus. Moving the camera in and out to capture focus, manually focusing, as AF is useless in macro photography as it changes perspective. This is how I shoot macro, others may have other opinions.

[Oldbayrunner]

Problem with a tripod is, they are not easily moved back and forth to get a shot.

No offense intended but I dont know if I can agree with this due to the incredibly finite depth of field when doing most types true macro work overall. A: one can get a tripod that has the ability to get extremely low and be able to swivel the center column as mentioned previously. B. Adding a macro bellow or focus rail in conjunction with a tripod allows for that forward or backward movement needed much more precisely than hand held. C. Utilizing both allows for an extremely precise focusing ability for stacking photos for incredibly sharp detailed macro photos that simply can't be achieved hand held unless one is steady as the rock of Gibralter and has the eyes of a hawke. D. utilizing both allows for using time delay or mirror up and some type of wireless or wired remote to cut back any camera vibration which one can't do hand held.

My suggestion would be get a monopod, if you really need something to steady the camera

Monopods IMO are ok for close ups but I can't agree one can be held steady enough overall for true macro work on a consistent basis.

But mostly I just hand hold the camera because of the way you I have to focus. Moving the camera in and out to capture focus, manually focusing, as AF is useless in macro photography as it changes perspective.

Handheld may work for you but I wouldn't recommend it overall, IMO there is simply too much body movement for a vast majority of people to set and hold the camera steady enough consistently for the type of sharpness and depth of field it takes for true macro work. For close ups it's ok and one may get that occasional finite sharp photo hand held but one may wind up tossing more and achieving less hand held.

So IMO for the OP is get a good steady tripod and add either bellows or a focus rail

---

Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 10-25-2015 at 06:59 AM.

[photolady95]

I agree on one point only. Bellows or rail would be good with a tripod. But I know macro shooters on this forum who use no tripod and handhold is what they prefer too. I found it very hard to use a tripod moving it in and out to get focus. But, that's MOO. (my opinion only).

[WPRESTO]

I will defend photolady95 insofar as everyone has individual preferences and techniques that work for them. I'm really bad at hand-holding, and can only manage macro or near macro hand-held if I use flash. Minor fore-aft adjustments are a pain with a tripod. Too often an insect or spider has disappeared because I decided to shift a tripod. I sometimes use a slider made by Cullmann to adjust fore-aft. It allows about 6" of travel and has a spring tension lock that grips with a vengeance when you release the twist knob, but it adds to the bulk/weight of the tripod set-up. I use bellows only in the studio. I find them much too bulky, fragile, and slow-operating for field work.

[jatrax]

"Macro" is a wider range of photography than the strict definition. I shoot lots of "macro" handheld, and even lots using AF. And I agree the tripod can be limiting. Try shooting butterflies on a sunny day with a tripod. But a solid tripod and a focusing rail is the standard for high magnification macro, provided the subject is not active. I prefer the tripod for most shots but for some things it just doesn't work.

So both ways work and in some cases one is better than the other. Different styles, different shooters.

[Canada_Rockies]

I have a Benbo Trekker. As long as one is careful loosening the joint lever, it won't fall apart, so to speak. I have used it in some really strange positions that cannot be attained with a regular tripod. The sliding center is not as precise as a rail, but much quicker to work with.

[Oldbayrunner]

I agree on one point only. Bellows or rail would be good with a tripod. But I know macro shooters on this forum who use no tripod and handhold is what they prefer too. I found it very hard to use a tripod moving it in and out to get focus. But, that's MOO. (my opinion only).

It strictly depends on what the subject matter is and which would work best for the situation. I do believe prior to your post others were responding to the OP's initial request of what tripods others were using not asking whether to use one or not so in essence your post hijacked this thread so to speak. Nothing is absolute.

Personally when the situation calls for it I use a Manfrotto 055 xprob with a Manfrotto ballhead and a flashpoint focus rail.

[Kerrowdown]

As long as one is careful loosening the joint lever, it won't fall apart

Been there... done that, only once mind, you soon learn.

I use the Mk2, the big brother to yours and as you say it can certainly get the camera into most positions.

[naldopr]

Thanks guys, I thought I won't need a tripod but I found that a shake a lot like a old man 🙀😓🙈 no offense lol
I was looking into mansfrotto vanguard and benro tripod. Something I liked on the Vanguard Alta Pro 263 AT apart from the price 150 bucks you can get better angle. Also the Benro has a few model. Any one here have any of them. I know mansfrotto is a good brand but also pricey

[jatrax]

I know mansfrotto is a good brand but also pricey

Just like anything else you (mostly) get what you pay for. Read the specifications carefully for anything you are going to buy. You should add up the weight of your camera and lens and make sure that BOTH the tripod and head are rated to cover that. I assume manufacturers exaggerate a bit so I triple the weight and use that. Then look for features you need: height, weight, center column, flexibility, materials and so on. There are lots of good choices but make sure you get something that will work well. I made the mistake, years ago, of thinking a good priced tripod should be "almost as good" as a pricier one. Unfortunately it is not a linear curve. There are price points below which the tripod might look like a 'real' tripod but in reality it is just a collection of materials that look like a tripod.

Lots of good choices, just don't go too cheap and get something you will regret. Remember, you have a lot of expensive gear sitting on top of that tripod.