Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Tripods and Heads

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 1, 2006, 3:05 PM   #11
Member
 
Babyfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 39
Default

dstover wrote:
Quote:
He told me that unless I removed the rating, I would not receive the product. I have not removed the rating and he has now put a stop shipment order in with FedEx and will not ship the product to me. Don't ever do business with a company that is as dishonest as Amvona.com.

Those fuckers!! Report them to ebay for fraud!!
Babyfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2006, 1:39 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

I find it hilarious that people are getting all worked up over their shipping charges. What's the difference if you pay $35 plus $24 shipping for a tripod that's legitimately worth $120-150? Why is that unacceptable, but paying $49 + $10 shipping is not?

All I know is, these Dynatran tripods seem to be legitimately comparable to the Manfrottos that sell on ebay for at least double the price, and retail for 4x the price.

And the ball heads, which seem to be selling from around $6 to $50, plus $9.99 shipping seem directly comparable to other heads in the $75 to $200 range.

All I know is, my old Star D tripod has seen better days but is still useable in a pinch, so I see absolutely no reason not to take a flyer.

I bought an AT-858 leg set, (total cost $29 and $18 shipping) and am presently bidding on a couple of the different ball heads which appear to be equally serious bargains. I'll let you all know when I get them, but on paper, these certainly appear to be comparable to the basic Manfrotto 3021 leg set (which I can't find for under $119 + 15 shipped)

And BTW, I certainly believe that ebay is a source for fantastic bargains on tripod gear. I picked up a used huge Quickset Hercules fluid head for $75 plus $14 shipping. This is a massive and buttery smooth professional fluid head for very big pro film and video camera gear, that sells new for $800, and used for around $300 in the shops that the hollywood cinematographers use. I bought this for shooting wildlife with big teles and it's fantastic for that purpose. I'm curious to see how well this huge head fits on the Dynatran AT-858 legs. Paying under $90 for a great used pro cinematography fluid head certainly beats the stuffing out of buying a new Wimberly head for over $600.


DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2006, 11:11 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

just keep on repeating that mantra to youself everyday. they are similar in looks in an awkward sort of way. but beyond that they are by no means equal in quality of manufacture or in the long run function. manfrotto does take a level of leadership in design and build where amvona just knocks it off and not even that well with cheap materials and crude build. but it does have a price for those who think of a tripod as a secondary device and not a tool of composition.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 4:01 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

The fact is, a Tripod is NOT a tool of composition except in the very coarsest sense - certainly the legs aren't. The head might well be, but all the legs need to be is a stable platform from which to operate. It's very possible that the level of control ergonomics and workmanship in the heads is inadequate, which is something I will find out shortly when my < $17 including shipping Amvona H93 ballhead arrives. If it's junk, I will have spent $17 to find that out, and I'll just go and replace it with a Giotto or Manfrotto head for $100-$150 or so - no harm, no foul. As for the legs, from what I've seen, they are fine, and even if they lack the finish of the Manfrotto, they certainly do the job at 1/4 the price.

DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 4:40 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

there is where you're wrong. you just haven't learned how to use it as one when you make a statement like that. its just a secondary item in your kit. for many its as important as the camera and lenses. how it will work in situations andwill it makeyour job easier or harder in using it.will you find it a piece of gear that you instinctivly grab for when you go to shoot.it may take some time if you shoot seriously but you'll get it eventually.


when you say especially the legs you unfortunately really don't haveany idea how to use a tripod. and really thats sad.

read a little: http://www.outbackphoto.com/the_bag/...ods/essay.html


it is an acquired skill

sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 5:27 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

I've been using high end tripods for professionally for 30 years, including high-end Manfrottos and Gitzos in a studio (where I no longer work - hence my need to get some good tripods for my own use). The legs are passive. If your tripod legs contribute significantly to your composition, I would observe that you the photographer, and your sense of aesthetics and creativity, are not contributing enough. I suppose that Ansel Adams and Edward Weston were not capable of creative landscape and nature photography because they didn't have a tripod that could be manipulated to do the things your cited article included. The gear does not make the photo, except when the photographer themself is rather limited.
DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 5:33 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

it sounds like it too.

no it s the ability to use the tool to its maximum capability. i guess for you today this is what works for you. enough said.

30 years of professional shooting? more then enough said.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 5:35 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

No, it's the ability to visualize the image, and any tool that is sufficient to realize the vision is the right tool for the job. I grant you, that in your case, absent a $500 tripod (or perhaps even with one), you'd likely be incapable of good photography. Other folks are not so constrained.
DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 5:45 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

no you don't need a $500 tripod. your basic issue like most in this amvona deal keep on tying price to the subject. i could give a hoot if you paid $3 for it. only one of mine is and thats my travel legs the G2228. no one makes one like it or close to it in quality rigity and function. don't try with the giottos model cause theres to much flex in it. when you shoot in the field as i do and have to carry every thing quality does matter because the car is parked in the lot and the lot can be 10-50 miles from me. no turn backs its gotta work and its gotta be reliable. even on jobs its the same. i can be in a factory or somewher wher backup gear isn't so accessable. you have to trust your gear. so you bite the bullet and get the gear that is built not to fail. i've seen a few of the anvonas around well for me my money is well spent for those they haven't even started yet.


sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 6:03 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

What the hell gave you the idea that I, or 90% of the other folks on this thread, are looking for a tripod that I need to hike 10 miles with? I bought a tripod that is more than sufficient for my needs. It would also be more than sufficient for Ansel Adams or Edward Weston's needs, were they still alive. Nobody, and certainly not ME, ever claimed that the tripod I bought was for hiking 10 miles in the field. I suggest that you apply your own requirements to your own purchases, without making value judgements about others who's needs are entirely different.

I tied the price to the purchase, because I have no need for any of the features your article cited. I DO, however need a stable platform for some heavy lenses. I pointed out that what I bought was better value than a Manfrotto 3021N. I would suggest that it is also every bit as functional as a Manfrotto 3021N, and that particular Manfrotto would be no better for the features and functions you personally seem to feel are important (and which are highlighted in the article you deigned I should read) than is the tripod I bought, which does the same things.


DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 AM.