I don't want to steal Rafael's thread, so I am starting a new one. For some reason, it is much easier for me to spend money on a lens than on a tripod, and the prices for those seem way out of proportion to me. Now, of course I have read a lot about how important they are, but i hope that those with more experience can point out again what the main differences between the 'cheaper' and the better ones are. I have a small Slik tripod that so far has done everything I asked from it, what would a Manfrotto (or any of the other prime brands) do better? I guess I will rent one of them and find out, but pointers would be great. We also see a lot of pixel peeping on some forums when lenses, sensors and whatnot get compared, but I have not yet seen a comparison between shots taken with a cheapo tripod and a fancy one in the same situation. Would I see a difference?