Tripod Advice Please

Call me stupid, but wouldn't weight be an advantage when supporting a
smaller camera? Not that I'd want to carry around a 50 lb tripod.


"Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message
...
I need some advice on a tripod. My wife and I have been sharing an old
clunky Slik 504QF (not the II) which is really made for video but it's
worked well for us to this point. Lately we've found that one tripod just
isn't enough so I want to buy a new one.

First I'd like to spend no more then $200.00.

I'm looking for something that I can attach a strap to and sling over my
back when I go hiking so I'd like something that's relatively light weight
and compact when folded.
I'd like it to work low to the ground as well as at standing height.
I believe a tilt pan or ball head will be fine but I'd like to hear some
comparisons, advantages, disadvantages etc.

I realize that my budget won't afford me the best possible option but I
have to believe that there is something out there that comes close to my
requirements. I'm willing to compromise a bit as needed.

As to what we'll be mounting on the tripod... The wife uses primarily an
Elan 7ne with either a 28-135 IS or a 75-300 IS. I use a 20D and a 300D
with a 28-135 IS or a 100-400L IS

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

--

Rob
"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"

ASAAR wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:13:35 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

The Benbo Trekker is nowhere near stable enough for a 300mm lens on a
35mm camera, let alone the long end of a 100-400mm zoom on a Canon
20D. That equates to the field of view of a 640mm lens on 35mm, and
the Trekker isn't remotely suitable for that.

It's far more than adequate, especially if the alternative is to
do without because of weight or price. Did you miss the word
"Trekker" in the name? The 3021 Pro that you prefer is a decent
tripod, but with the addition of a head you're near (for the Micro
Ball Head at $31.95) the $200 limit, or well above, as most of the
others are quite a bit more expensive, some priced several times
higher than the tripod alone. And the Trekker does weigh less.
Either one would do a good job, but as I already said, the
independent leg articulation of the Trekker makes it uniquely
suitable for ease of use in uneven terrain.


The Trekker is superb for use with light cameras and short telephoto
lenses, and it is indeed very versatile. However, it simply isn't
stable enough for the equipment the original poster is intending to
use - not by a long way.

I like Benbo tripods. I bought my first in 1987. At various times I
owned four - a Trekker, a Trekker II, a Mark 1 and one with very short
legs which i think was a Mark 4.

The Mark 1 would be very suitable for the OP's equipment, but it is a
heavy beast and costs a lot more then the OP's budget, even without a
tripod head. It is also very bulky and is difficult to carry thanks
to the awkwardly bulky leg clamps.

The Manfrotto 3021 Pro (055 Pro) is lighter, but just as stable. It
is almost as versatile as the Benbo Mark 1 thanks to the removable
center column which can be clamped horizontally just above the
tribrach for low shooting. The legs work at four different angles
including one that is almost horizontal.

The Trekker is nowhere near as stable as the Mark 1. It has similar
overall dimensions but by comparison with the Mark 1 it is very
spindly, with lightweight legs. It is neither sufficiently stable nor
sufficiently rigid to support for a 640mm (35mm equivalent) lens.

If I still had my Trekker (I or II) I would probably restrict it to my
35mm rangefinder outfit where the maximum focal length would be 135mm.

One problem I didn't mention, which applies to any Benbo or Uni-Lok
tripod (they are similar) is that loosening the BENt BOlt suddenly
transforms a rigid tripod into a set of loosely connected components.
It is very, very easy to send an expensive camera/lens combination
crashing to the ground. Too easy. :-(

Yes, you should always remember to hold the camera/lens firmly when
loosening the bolt. But there will always be one occasion when you
forget, or when the sudden and total lack of stability takes you
completely by surprise.

I have several friends who have used Benbo or Uni-Lok tripods at one
time or another. None of us uses Benbo now. The experience of seeing
tripod, head, camera and lens (and often the photographer) collapse to
the ground has been a major reason why. It only needs to happen once,
and it is enough to put you off Benbo for ever.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:09:38 -0600, Sheldon wrote:

I'm looking for something that I can attach a strap to and sling over my
back when I go hiking so I'd like something that's relatively light weight
and compact when folded.
. . .
As to what we'll be mounting on the tripod... The wife uses primarily an
Elan 7ne with either a 28-135 IS or a 75-300 IS. I use a 20D and a 300D
with a 28-135 IS or a 100-400L IS

Call me stupid, but wouldn't weight be an advantage when supporting a
smaller camera? Not that I'd want to carry around a 50 lb tripod.

Extra weight would be an advantage. If you don't mind paying a
porter to carry all of the extra weight. With a light tripod, the
camera and a lens or two you're already toting the equivalent of a
bowling ball. That's enough to severely shorten most hikes, if not
have them cancelled altogether.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:29:48 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

I have several friends who have used Benbo or Uni-Lok tripods at one
time or another. None of us uses Benbo now. The experience of seeing
tripod, head, camera and lens (and often the photographer) collapse to
the ground has been a major reason why. It only needs to happen once,
and it is enough to put you off Benbo for ever.

I suppose the theory that a child that sticks a finger in a flame
will never repeat that mistake is correct only because they're
forever put off from using anything that burns with a flame?

Thanks for the additional information and I'll carefully examine
other makes, including Manfrotto before getting my next tripod And
like the OP, I also want one both stable and portable. But
assertions such as "nowhere near as stable" and "spindly legs" are
probably over exaggerations. Even if the Manfrotto surpasses the
Benbow in these areas, more objective data is needed. As Jeremy
pointed out, even the Manfrotto model you recommended isn't (in his
opinion) sufficient for the 100 - 400L IS lens. But it may be more
than adequate for the OP's purposes, as might the Benbow. I should
point out though since the OP also wants a compact folded tripod
that the Manfrotto 3021 Pro collapses to only 25.6", vs. the 33" of
the Benbo Trekker,

With tripods there are three critical variables...

Rigidity
Weight
Price

Low weight + low price = low rigidity
Low weight + rigidity = high price
High weight + rigidity = lowish price

If you want rigidity + lowish cost then look at Manfrotto etc. (high-ish
weight)

If you want rigidity + low weight look at Gitzo (high price)

Second hand is a good way to go... much more bang for your buck.

Guy


ASAAR wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:29:48 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

I have several friends who have used Benbo or Uni-Lok tripods at one
time or another. None of us uses Benbo now. The experience of
seeing tripod, head, camera and lens (and often the photographer)
collapse to the ground has been a major reason why. It only needs
to happen once, and it is enough to put you off Benbo for ever.

I suppose the theory that a child that sticks a finger in a flame
will never repeat that mistake is correct only because they're
forever put off from using anything that burns with a flame?

Thanks for the additional information and I'll carefully examine
other makes, including Manfrotto before getting my next tripod And
like the OP, I also want one both stable and portable. But
assertions such as "nowhere near as stable" and "spindly legs" are
probably over exaggerations. Even if the Manfrotto surpasses the
Benbow in these areas, more objective data is needed. As Jeremy
pointed out, even the Manfrotto model you recommended isn't (in his
opinion) sufficient for the 100 - 400L IS lens. But it may be more
than adequate for the OP's purposes, as might the Benbow. I should
point out though since the OP also wants a compact folded tripod
that the Manfrotto 3021 Pro collapses to only 25.6", vs. the 33" of
the Benbo Trekker,

ASAAR wrote:

Thanks for the additional information and I'll carefully examine
other makes, including Manfrotto before getting my next tripod.

You're welcome.

And like the OP, I also want one both stable and portable.

Those requirements are shared by 100% of tripod buyers. :-)

But assertions such as "nowhere near as stable" and "spindly legs" are
probably over exaggerations.

I tell it as I see it. I don't think my commitment to giving Benbo a
try is in doubt; I used four different Benbo tripods over a period of
more than a decade before finally deciding they weren't for me. I
still have a soft spot for the design; I might have recommended the
Benbo Mark 1 to the original poster but for the fact it was way
outside his budget.

Benbo tripods certainly have their virtues, notably the excellent
flexibility of the tripod and the completely sealed lower leg
sections. However, the risk of losing camera and lens (thanks to the
locking system) ensures that Benbo will always be a niche product.
Best avoided IMHO. Your mileage may vary.

My preferred tripod for outdoor 35mm, digital and medium format is a
Tiltall. I always used to choose the Tiltall over the Manfrotto 055
Pro (3021 Pro) so I sold the Manfrotto.

My studio tripod is a large, heavy Manfrotto 075, which I ought to use
for large format photography, but it is too heavy for me to carry
along with all my gear. So I use the Tiltall and hang a heavy
equipment bag underneath to increase the stability.

Bigguy wrote:
With tripods there are three critical variables...

Rigidity
Weight
Price

Low weight + low price = low rigidity
Low weight + rigidity = high price
High weight + rigidity = lowish price

If you want rigidity + lowish cost then look at Manfrotto etc. (high-ish
weight)

If you want rigidity + low weight look at Gitzo (high price)

Second hand is a good way to go... much more bang for your buck.

Guy


Speaking of Gitzo, anybody seen an example of their Ba$alt models?


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:39:43 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:09:38 -0600, Sheldon wrote:

I'm looking for something that I can attach a strap to and sling over my
back when I go hiking so I'd like something that's relatively light weight
and compact when folded.
. . .
As to what we'll be mounting on the tripod... The wife uses primarily an
Elan 7ne with either a 28-135 IS or a 75-300 IS. I use a 20D and a 300D
with a 28-135 IS or a 100-400L IS

Call me stupid, but wouldn't weight be an advantage when supporting a
smaller camera? Not that I'd want to carry around a 50 lb tripod.

Extra weight would be an advantage. If you don't mind paying a
porter to carry all of the extra weight. With a light tripod, the
camera and a lens or two you're already toting the equivalent of a
bowling ball. That's enough to severely shorten most hikes, if not
have them cancelled altogether.

Get married, have kids. Free porters.
And by the time they are able to carry all your gear, the gear will be
better, too! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

As to ball vs. pan/tilt, I've noticed that all the recommendations are for
a ball head. I've very interested in opinions as to why one would be
preferred over the other.

Pan/tilt heads are really made for video; they're an unmitigated pain in the
butt for photography. I guess some folks like them, but I find a ball head
both faster and easier to use. It's also more flexible, because you can
flip the camera to a vertical position.

--
Jeremy |

ASAAR wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:32:55 -0000, Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Note: the RC2 version of the head has a smaller and more convenient-looking
quick release assembly, and the RC4 is described as being appropriate for
large-format cameras. Stick with the RC4 anyway. Really.

Good advice, but which RC4? My catalog show the 488RC4 (Midi Ball
Head) at $95 and the 490RC4 (Maxi Ball Head) at $178.95.

The 490RC4 looks to be a bit beefier. How much, or whether it's enough to
be worth the extra money, I really don't know. The 488RC4 (which I have
used quite a lot) is something I would consider "good enough", but you'll
grow out of it, so you'll replace it with something better later on -- and
I don't think the 490 is going to be a "lifetime tripod head" either, so
why spend the extra money?

There's also a 490 Maxi Ball Head for $160, which lacks the 490RC4's
quick-release plate, secondary safety catch and spirit levels.

The safety catch and levels are incidental, but you really want the quick
release. The inconvenience of having to screw your camera onto the tripod
every time *will* lead you to not use it at times when you should.

There may be exceptions, but everything I've read about IS
indicates that it should always be disabled when tripods are used.

Me too. However, that tripod and head will not be stable at 300mm; I speak
from direct personal experience. It can be used with a cable release or
remote and mirror lockup, but even then, with only about a 75% success
rate at low shutter speeds, depending on the wind (if there's no wind, you
can do very well). I don't have IS (or VR, since I use Nikon) at 300mm,
so I have no experience as to whether it would help or hurt in that
situation.

Basically, sticking a long telephoto on that rig is a really good way to
convince yourself that a better tripod is a good investment. On the
other hand, if you are on a limited budget, I fully recommend it and I
think it will serve you well.

I guess that ideally one would have the choice of several tripods,
so the best one that's still practical to use could be selected.

Yes. Ideally, one that's small and light for when you'll need to lug it
around, and one that's nice and sturdy for when size and weight are less
of a factor.

--
Jeremy |