Home > Consumer Reviews > Sony VCT-R640 Lightweight Tripod for DSCV1/P41/W1/P93/P73/P92/P100/P150/F88/F828 Digital Cameras
Sony VCT-R640 Lightweight Tripod for DSCV1/P41/W1/P93/P73/P92/P100/P150/F88/F828 Digital Cameras
See it at Amazon.com for $28.76Average Customer Rating
(4.5 out of 5)
Amazon Customer Reviews
Most Helpful First | Newest First | + Share4 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
I think.. the best lightweight tripod in the market
(5 out of 5) by Galal Hazzi on Jan 10, 2006 (NJ, USA)First of all i'am satisfied with Amazon free shipping i got the tripod after a week wich is before the begining of the estimate date.
The tripod is really nice and good looking, it's black and metal and controlers and knobs are very smooth also it gives you the ability to move your camera to different angles.
I got this tripod because of one reason, which is that i failed to take pictures at night using the night scene mode (which is the best of the camera's settings to take pictures at night) without coming out blurry and simply, this tripod does the job.
The tripod is really nice and good looking, it's black and metal and controlers and knobs are very smooth also it gives you the ability to move your camera to different angles.
I got this tripod because of one reason, which is that i failed to take pictures at night using the night scene mode (which is the best of the camera's settings to take pictures at night) without coming out blurry and simply, this tripod does the job.
4 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
Disappointed 80% plastic.
(2 out of 5) by R. ADRAGNA on Jan 11, 2007 (NY, United States)Received the tri-pod yesterday, purchased based on positive reviews on Amazon, very disappointed. The tri-pod is 80% plastic. All the controls are plastic, how long will this last is debatable. The weight should have been a clue. Lesson learned see it in person first. Would not buy again.
1 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
Sony Lightweight Tripod
(5 out of 5) by Bruce Hille on Oct 3, 2008 (Tucson, AZ)I recently received another order from Amazon and have observed a somewhat disconcerting trend. The item I ordered was a Sony Lightweight camera tripod. It was shipped in an Amazon-labeled box that measured 12" by 18" by 24". The actual tripod container was 5" by 5" by 22". I could understand double-boxing if there was a concern over fragile merchandise. In this case that was probably unnecessary since, in typical Sony fashion, the original package was very well though out and constructed. What did surprise me is that the Sony box was placed into one corner of the larger container, thus rendering double boxing useless as far as offering additional protection. The rest of the Amazon box was stuffed with brown packing paper. I should mention that something similar to what I've described here has become the norm for Amazon shipments I and others (coworkers) have received recently. Example: a person here in the last 3 months has twice received a book-sized item in a 3-plus cubic foot cardboard box.
In this age of "green awareness" this practice should seem unacceptable, especially to a large omni-present retailer like Amazon. There is not only the obvious impact of the wasted packaging material but the added waste of transport related expenses. One could also raise questions regarding environmental issues. Amazon may not see significant concerns over shipping mostly air but a large wasteful container like this effectively reduces the number of containers a FedEx, UPS, etc. truck can deliver per load. More exhaust emissions, more fuel burned, higher related costs the consumer must bear: all of these should be of greater concern to a company known for customer support and loyalty.
Perhaps this is just a consistent habit of laziness or indifference in the various shipping departments Amazon uses? It is somewhat understandable that a shipper, pressed to expedite all products, simply has become accustomed to grabbing what ever container is lying around. After all it does take a time investment, albeit minimal, to fold and tape together the right size container. But in some situations, like this tripod order, the additional boxing was probably uncalled for.
Please take some time to consider the image you wish Amazon to project. Your customers are not ignorant. Green awareness is growing every day. It would seem your company has an opportunity to become a highly visible leader in fast, reliable environmentally friendly merchandising but only if you wish to explore it.
In this age of "green awareness" this practice should seem unacceptable, especially to a large omni-present retailer like Amazon. There is not only the obvious impact of the wasted packaging material but the added waste of transport related expenses. One could also raise questions regarding environmental issues. Amazon may not see significant concerns over shipping mostly air but a large wasteful container like this effectively reduces the number of containers a FedEx, UPS, etc. truck can deliver per load. More exhaust emissions, more fuel burned, higher related costs the consumer must bear: all of these should be of greater concern to a company known for customer support and loyalty.
Perhaps this is just a consistent habit of laziness or indifference in the various shipping departments Amazon uses? It is somewhat understandable that a shipper, pressed to expedite all products, simply has become accustomed to grabbing what ever container is lying around. After all it does take a time investment, albeit minimal, to fold and tape together the right size container. But in some situations, like this tripod order, the additional boxing was probably uncalled for.
Please take some time to consider the image you wish Amazon to project. Your customers are not ignorant. Green awareness is growing every day. It would seem your company has an opportunity to become a highly visible leader in fast, reliable environmentally friendly merchandising but only if you wish to explore it.