Tripod / head for big lens

I'm thinking about making the big plunge for a 600mm f/4.0 lens and
would appreciate any advise on tripods and heads to go with it. I
want to be able to carry this on back-country hikes and am leaning
towards a carbon fiber tripod such as the one below as listed at B&H:

Gitzo G-1548 Tele Studex Mk2 Performance Carbon Fiber 4-Section Tripod
- Supports 33.1 lb (15 kg)

The total weight of camera + lens + 2x Extender + gimbal head should
be less than about 20 lbs so it should be suitable for the task, BUT,
if there is any reason this tripod would NOT be appropriate please let
me know.


As to the head ... I'm planing on the following head also listed at
B&H as follows:

Wimberley Tripod Head Gimbal Type

They also make a model with quick release:

Wimberley Tripod Head, Gimbal Type - with C30 Quick Release Base

Since the only setup I would imagine using this head with is the 600mm
f/4.0 I don't think the extra $100 (US) for the quick release would be
needed but I'm open to feedback on this point.


As I see it now the head would be left connected to the 600mm lens and
when using another lens setup the gimbal head would be removed from
the tripod and my ball head mounted -- again, any feedback on doing
this?


Lastly, if there is any other tripod/head arraignment that you can
recommend please let me know bearing in mind that I do plan on hiking
this equipment into the back-country.


Thanks,

Brian

From: Brian Stirling

I'm thinking about making the big plunge for a 600mm f/4.0 lens and
would appreciate any advise on tripods and heads to go with it.
(I) am leaning
towards a carbon fiber tripod such as the one below as listed at B&H:
Gitzo G-1548

I shoot a lot in long-lens hotspots like Denali, Bosque del Apache and south
Florida. Most guys with 500 and 600 f/4's are using either the Gitzo 1325/1329
or the 1548 so you're looking at the right gear ... I use the 1325 with my 500
f/4 but would probably get the 1548 if I had a 600. Here's a link to bird
photographer Art Morris' comments on long-lens tripods, basically saying get
one of these two Gitzos ... http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_tripod.html

The total weight of camera + lens + 2x Extender + gimbal head should
be less than about 20 lbs so it should be suitable for the task, BUT,
if there is any reason this tripod would NOT be appropriate please let
me know.

Should be perfect for the job, though I think it's a bit more than 20 lbs. My
500 is right at 20 lbs with the 1325 or 1329 and the gimbal head and I think
the 600's are 3 lbs heavier.

As to the head ... I'm planing on the following head also listed at
B&H as follows:

Wimberley Tripod Head Gimbal Type

This is the right one for the 500 or 600, no doubt about that. The lens pans
weightlessly when set up right on this head and it's a joy to use.
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_ballhead.html

We also have/use the Wimberley SideKick, which mounts to a ballhead, but only
take it on trips where we have to bring a ballhead for shorter lenses and can't
pack both due to weight or space limits, like going to Alaska. But the big
gimbal head is easier to use with a 500 or 600 or 400 f/2.8.

They also make a model with quick release:

I think this is new, I haven't seen anyone using it much.

You want the long plate from Wimberley with the Arca-Swiss base, I think it's
the P-50. It has two screws for the tripod foot so it won't twist and also has
stops at either end for when the lens starts to slide out of the jaws.
http://tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-main.cfm

As I see it now the head would be left connected to the 600mm lens ...

Just put the P-50 plate on and remove that from the Wimberley, it's much less
hassle. It even fits in the case with the tripod plate on.

when using another lens setup the gimbal head would be removed from
the tripod and my ball head mounted -- again, any feedback on doing
this?

No problem, takes a minute to swap the Wimberley gimbal head for the ballhead.
The hassle is carrying it, the gimbal head is about 4 lbs and awkward to carry
when not mounted on the tripod, and the ballhead is probably 2 lbs. We usually
carry one or the other, not both

Lastly, if there is any other tripod/head arraignment that you can
recommend please let me know bearing in mind that I do plan on hiking
this equipment into the back-country.

I mentioned the SideKick, which is OK with a 500 mm lens but maybe a bit weak
for the 600 ... the advantage is that you can take it off and have the ballhead
already in place. The disadvantages are the tripod foot is to one side instead
of at the bottom so it's easier to have the lens pop off when changing
something. For backpacking it might be worth looking into though, I use mine a
lot in Alaska when I can't justify bringing the gimbal head too.

One other thing, you might check the prices at the Wimberley site. They are
good guys (father - son team) to work with and if you are a customer will ship
you stuff to try for free. http://tripodhead.com/index.cfm

If you're shooting mostly birds (judging from your user name) you'll find a lot
of good info on long lenses for birds at Art's site ... www.birdsasart.com ...

Bill

From: Brian Stirling

I'm thinking about making the big plunge for a 600mm f/4.0 lens and
would appreciate any advise on tripods and heads to go with it.
(I) am leaning
towards a carbon fiber tripod such as the one below as listed at B&H:
Gitzo G-1548

I shoot a lot in long-lens hotspots like Denali, Bosque del Apache and south
Florida. Most guys with 500 and 600 f/4's are using either the Gitzo 1325/1329
or the 1548 so you're looking at the right gear ... I use the 1325 with my 500
f/4 but would probably get the 1548 if I had a 600. Here's a link to bird
photographer Art Morris' comments on long-lens tripods, basically saying get
one of these two Gitzos ... http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_tripod.html

The total weight of camera + lens + 2x Extender + gimbal head should
be less than about 20 lbs so it should be suitable for the task, BUT,
if there is any reason this tripod would NOT be appropriate please let
me know.

Should be perfect for the job, though I think it's a bit more than 20 lbs. My
500 is right at 20 lbs with the 1325 or 1329 and the gimbal head and I think
the 600's are 3 lbs heavier.

As to the head ... I'm planing on the following head also listed at
B&H as follows:

Wimberley Tripod Head Gimbal Type

This is the right one for the 500 or 600, no doubt about that. The lens pans
weightlessly when set up right on this head and it's a joy to use.
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_ballhead.html

We also have/use the Wimberley SideKick, which mounts to a ballhead, but only
take it on trips where we have to bring a ballhead for shorter lenses and can't
pack both due to weight or space limits, like going to Alaska. But the big
gimbal head is easier to use with a 500 or 600 or 400 f/2.8.

They also make a model with quick release:

I think this is new, I haven't seen anyone using it much.

You want the long plate from Wimberley with the Arca-Swiss base, I think it's
the P-50. It has two screws for the tripod foot so it won't twist and also has
stops at either end for when the lens starts to slide out of the jaws.
http://tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-main.cfm

As I see it now the head would be left connected to the 600mm lens ...

Just put the P-50 plate on and remove that from the Wimberley, it's much less
hassle. It even fits in the case with the tripod plate on.

when using another lens setup the gimbal head would be removed from
the tripod and my ball head mounted -- again, any feedback on doing
this?

No problem, takes a minute to swap the Wimberley gimbal head for the ballhead.
The hassle is carrying it, the gimbal head is about 4 lbs and awkward to carry
when not mounted on the tripod, and the ballhead is probably 2 lbs. We usually
carry one or the other, not both

Lastly, if there is any other tripod/head arraignment that you can
recommend please let me know bearing in mind that I do plan on hiking
this equipment into the back-country.

I mentioned the SideKick, which is OK with a 500 mm lens but maybe a bit weak
for the 600 ... the advantage is that you can take it off and have the ballhead
already in place. The disadvantages are the tripod foot is to one side instead
of at the bottom so it's easier to have the lens pop off when changing
something. For backpacking it might be worth looking into though, I use mine a
lot in Alaska when I can't justify bringing the gimbal head too.

One other thing, you might check the prices at the Wimberley site. They are
good guys (father - son team) to work with and if you are a customer will ship
you stuff to try for free. http://tripodhead.com/index.cfm

If you're shooting mostly birds (judging from your user name) you'll find a lot
of good info on long lenses for birds at Art's site ... www.birdsasart.com ...

Bill

On 27 Oct 2004 20:56:59 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
wrote:

From: Brian Stirling

I'm thinking about making the big plunge for a 600mm f/4.0 lens and
would appreciate any advise on tripods and heads to go with it.
(I) am leaning
towards a carbon fiber tripod such as the one below as listed at B&H:
Gitzo G-1548

I shoot a lot in long-lens hotspots like Denali, Bosque del Apache and south
Florida. Most guys with 500 and 600 f/4's are using either the Gitzo 1325/1329
or the 1548 so you're looking at the right gear ... I use the 1325 with my 500
f/4 but would probably get the 1548 if I had a 600. Here's a link to bird
photographer Art Morris' comments on long-lens tripods, basically saying get
one of these two Gitzos ... http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_tripod.html

Thanks, I think I'll go with the 1548...

The total weight of camera + lens + 2x Extender + gimbal head should
be less than about 20 lbs so it should be suitable for the task, BUT,
if there is any reason this tripod would NOT be appropriate please let
me know.

Should be perfect for the job, though I think it's a bit more than 20 lbs. My
500 is right at 20 lbs with the 1325 or 1329 and the gimbal head and I think
the 600's are 3 lbs heavier.

Well I have not actually handled a 600mm f/4.0 so I can't say with
certainty what the weight actually is, but the specs on the B&H
website lists the weight of the lens at 11.8 lbs (Canon EF 600mm f/4.0
IS USM AF). The camera with battery is about 3.5 lbs. The 2x extender
is about 0.6 lbs. And the Wimberly head is about 3.7 lbs. (All based
on spec on the website). If these numbers are correct then the total
would be about 19.6 lbs.

As to the head ... I'm planing on the following head also listed at
B&H as follows:

Wimberley Tripod Head Gimbal Type

This is the right one for the 500 or 600, no doubt about that. The lens pans
weightlessly when set up right on this head and it's a joy to use.
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_ballhead.html

We also have/use the Wimberley SideKick, which mounts to a ballhead, but only
take it on trips where we have to bring a ballhead for shorter lenses and can't
pack both due to weight or space limits, like going to Alaska. But the big
gimbal head is easier to use with a 500 or 600 or 400 f/2.8.

They also make a model with quick release:

I think this is new, I haven't seen anyone using it much.

You want the long plate from Wimberley with the Arca-Swiss base, I think it's
the P-50. It has two screws for the tripod foot so it won't twist and also has
stops at either end for when the lens starts to slide out of the jaws.
http://tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-main.cfm

As I see it now the head would be left connected to the 600mm lens ...

Just put the P-50 plate on and remove that from the Wimberley, it's much less
hassle. It even fits in the case with the tripod plate on.

when using another lens setup the gimbal head would be removed from
the tripod and my ball head mounted -- again, any feedback on doing
this?

No problem, takes a minute to swap the Wimberley gimbal head for the ballhead.
The hassle is carrying it, the gimbal head is about 4 lbs and awkward to carry
when not mounted on the tripod, and the ballhead is probably 2 lbs. We usually
carry one or the other, not both

Lastly, if there is any other tripod/head arraignment that you can
recommend please let me know bearing in mind that I do plan on hiking
this equipment into the back-country.

I mentioned the SideKick, which is OK with a 500 mm lens but maybe a bit weak
for the 600 ... the advantage is that you can take it off and have the ballhead
already in place. The disadvantages are the tripod foot is to one side instead
of at the bottom so it's easier to have the lens pop off when changing
something. For backpacking it might be worth looking into though, I use mine a
lot in Alaska when I can't justify bringing the gimbal head too.

One other thing, you might check the prices at the Wimberley site. They are
good guys (father - son team) to work with and if you are a customer will ship
you stuff to try for free. http://tripodhead.com/index.cfm

If you're shooting mostly birds (judging from your user name) you'll find a lot
of good info on long lenses for birds at Art's site ... www.birdsasart.com ...


Actually I do plan on doing a good deal of bird shooting in south
Florida this winter and the 600mm lens would be put to good use for
that purpose, but I also plan on using it for more general wildlife
photography.


Bill




Thanks for your feedback -- it helps!


Thanks,

Brian


PS: I wouldn't mind talking to you a bit more about where and when
for birding in south Florida -- if so it might be better to do it via
email.

Should be perfect for the job, though I think it's a bit more than 20
lbs. My 500 is right at 20 lbs with the 1325 or 1329 and the gimbal
head

From: Brian Stirling

the specs on the B&H
website lists the weight of the lens at 11.8 lbs (Canon EF 600mm f/4.0
IS USM AF). The camera with battery is about 3.5 lbs. The 2x extender
is about 0.6 lbs. And the Wimberly head is about 3.7 lbs. (All based
on spec on the website). If these numbers are correct then the total
would be about 19.6 lbs.

I was adding in the tripod legs, which adds about 6.75 lbs for the 1548,
bringing you to over 26 lbs ... wait until you find you need to add a 550EX for
fill-flash, a Better Beamer, off-camera flash bracket and a Quantum Turbo
battery pack to power it (grin).

Good choice of gear, but heavy for backpacking very far, I've found.

Actually I do plan on doing a good deal of bird shooting in south
Florida this winter

Maybe we'll see you at Ding or the Anhinga Trail or the Venice Rookery ... good
luck!

PS: I wouldn't mind talking to you a bit more about where and when
for birding in south Florida -- if so it might be better to do it via
email.

Change .comedy to .com and drop me an email, I shoot almost the same gear as
you ... here are a few bird shots from Alaska this July to show you what we
like to shoot ... http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotogra...lofs/murre.htm

This is what we were shooting last month up there ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3882_wolf.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/W1037_bear.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D4025_grizz.jpg

Roger Clark also has some fine shots from south Florida and from Alaska but I
think he's passing on south Florida this winter ...
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ird/index.html (many of the first
ones from Bosque, the wading birds nearer the bottom from Florida, most from
the Venice Rookery) ... and these bear shots from a trip we took to Alaska 2
months ago ... http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ear/index.html

Bill

From: Brian Stirling

the specs on the B&H
website lists the weight of the lens at 11.8 lbs (Canon EF 600mm f/4.0
IS USM AF). The camera with battery is about 3.5 lbs. The 2x extender
is about 0.6 lbs. And the Wimberly head is about 3.7 lbs. (All based
on spec on the website).

Hi,
If your are planning on hiking with the 600mm, consider you also
will likely need a number of miscellaneous items, ranging from
the backpack weight, other lenses, spare batteries,
spare camera, water, rain gear, and the list goes on. The pack
you'll need for the 600 is something like the full lowepro,
and that must weight about 10 pounds (look up specs for exact
specs).

The other thing to consider is, do you want to travel with this
lens? Travel on airplanes? If so, then you'll have to check it
or ship it separately. I faced this decision a few years ago
and ultimately decided on the 500 f/4 L IS instead. For 20% less
focal length, the size and weight make it much easier to move
around. With the lowepro phototrekker AW, I can get the following
in this aircraft carry-on legal bag: 500 f/4, 300 f/4, 28-135 IS,
24mm, Canon 10D with 5 spare batteries, 1D Mark II with 2 spare
batteries, lots of compact flash and miscellaneous other items.
Carry-one weight is under 40 pounds. (By the way, does anyone know if
this is carry-on legal on Air New Zealand?). The further advantage
of the 500 is you can get by with a gitzo 1325 series carbon fiber
tripod, which further reduces weight.

So that ~35 pound airplane carry on pack, translates to about 45 pounds
on a hike when you include the tripod. To reduce weight, you start
leaving potentially important stuff behind.

Finally, moving around in the field is a lot easier with a 500 +gitzo
1325 than a 600 + 1548. I originally wanted the 600 mm lens for a
specific purpose, but decided on the 500 and am glad I did because
of the added flexibility it gives me with only a minor loss in focal length.

Hey Bill, I still hope to go to Florida this winter for birds, assuming
the hurricanes didn't do too much damage to habitat, and assuming
I can find time between all my other trips.

Hope this helps.

Roger

From: Brian Stirling

the specs on the B&H
website lists the weight of the lens at 11.8 lbs (Canon EF 600mm f/4.0
IS USM AF). The camera with battery is about 3.5 lbs. The 2x extender
is about 0.6 lbs. And the Wimberly head is about 3.7 lbs. (All based
on spec on the website).

Hi,
If your are planning on hiking with the 600mm, consider you also
will likely need a number of miscellaneous items, ranging from
the backpack weight, other lenses, spare batteries,
spare camera, water, rain gear, and the list goes on. The pack
you'll need for the 600 is something like the full lowepro,
and that must weight about 10 pounds (look up specs for exact
specs).

The other thing to consider is, do you want to travel with this
lens? Travel on airplanes? If so, then you'll have to check it
or ship it separately. I faced this decision a few years ago
and ultimately decided on the 500 f/4 L IS instead. For 20% less
focal length, the size and weight make it much easier to move
around. With the lowepro phototrekker AW, I can get the following
in this aircraft carry-on legal bag: 500 f/4, 300 f/4, 28-135 IS,
24mm, Canon 10D with 5 spare batteries, 1D Mark II with 2 spare
batteries, lots of compact flash and miscellaneous other items.
Carry-one weight is under 40 pounds. (By the way, does anyone know if
this is carry-on legal on Air New Zealand?). The further advantage
of the 500 is you can get by with a gitzo 1325 series carbon fiber
tripod, which further reduces weight.

So that ~35 pound airplane carry on pack, translates to about 45 pounds
on a hike when you include the tripod. To reduce weight, you start
leaving potentially important stuff behind.

Finally, moving around in the field is a lot easier with a 500 +gitzo
1325 than a 600 + 1548. I originally wanted the 600 mm lens for a
specific purpose, but decided on the 500 and am glad I did because
of the added flexibility it gives me with only a minor loss in focal length.

Hey Bill, I still hope to go to Florida this winter for birds, assuming
the hurricanes didn't do too much damage to habitat, and assuming
I can find time between all my other trips.

Hope this helps.

Roger

From: "Roger N. Clark

Carry-one weight is under 40 pounds. (By the way, does anyone know if
this is carry-on legal on Air New Zealand?).

Hi Roger,

On one of our marlin fishing trips to Cairns we missed our United connection to
LAX in Sydney and they wanted to put us on an Air New Zealand flight which was
leaving 3 hours later. The ANZ carry-on limit was 7 kilos (!!!) ... all we had
were one light bag with bathing suits etc (don't need much living on a boat)
and one small camera bag with two bodies, film and three f/2.8 L zoom lenses.
There was no problem at all flying with this as carry-on via LAX-SYD on United
and SYD-Cairns on the local Ozzie carrier, Ansett. But Air New Zealand
wouldn't let us carry-on either bag! Not even the camera bag, the lady weighed
it and it was 18 lbs ... couldn't believe it. I think they have the British
Air disease.

I told Carol "to hell with this, let's wait overnight and catch a United flight
tomorrow ... hope they can still get us seats in business class" ... at the
sound of the phrase "business class" (we had used FF miles to upgrade) the ANZ
lady's ears perked up and she said the weight limit for BC was 20 kilos (or
something like that) and we were able to carry-on everything after all.

Moral of this is don't fly coach if you want to carry on anything with Air New
Zealand

Hey Bill, I still hope to go to Florida this winter for birds, assuming
the hurricanes didn't do too much damage to habitat

Ah, I thought you told me earlier you were going to pass this year ... I've
already been checking the bird counts at Bosque, I think I'll slip over before
T-giving ...

Bill

From: "Roger N. Clark

Carry-one weight is under 40 pounds. (By the way, does anyone know if
this is carry-on legal on Air New Zealand?).

Hi Roger,

On one of our marlin fishing trips to Cairns we missed our United connection to
LAX in Sydney and they wanted to put us on an Air New Zealand flight which was
leaving 3 hours later. The ANZ carry-on limit was 7 kilos (!!!) ... all we had
were one light bag with bathing suits etc (don't need much living on a boat)
and one small camera bag with two bodies, film and three f/2.8 L zoom lenses.
There was no problem at all flying with this as carry-on via LAX-SYD on United
and SYD-Cairns on the local Ozzie carrier, Ansett. But Air New Zealand
wouldn't let us carry-on either bag! Not even the camera bag, the lady weighed
it and it was 18 lbs ... couldn't believe it. I think they have the British
Air disease.

I told Carol "to hell with this, let's wait overnight and catch a United flight
tomorrow ... hope they can still get us seats in business class" ... at the
sound of the phrase "business class" (we had used FF miles to upgrade) the ANZ
lady's ears perked up and she said the weight limit for BC was 20 kilos (or
something like that) and we were able to carry-on everything after all.

Moral of this is don't fly coach if you want to carry on anything with Air New
Zealand

Hey Bill, I still hope to go to Florida this winter for birds, assuming
the hurricanes didn't do too much damage to habitat

Ah, I thought you told me earlier you were going to pass this year ... I've
already been checking the bird counts at Bosque, I think I'll slip over before
T-giving ...

Bill

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:05:29 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:

From: Brian Stirling

the specs on the B&H
website lists the weight of the lens at 11.8 lbs (Canon EF 600mm f/4.0
IS USM AF). The camera with battery is about 3.5 lbs. The 2x extender
is about 0.6 lbs. And the Wimberly head is about 3.7 lbs. (All based
on spec on the website).

Hi,
If your are planning on hiking with the 600mm, consider you also
will likely need a number of miscellaneous items, ranging from
the backpack weight, other lenses, spare batteries,
spare camera, water, rain gear, and the list goes on. The pack
you'll need for the 600 is something like the full lowepro,
and that must weight about 10 pounds (look up specs for exact
specs).

The other thing to consider is, do you want to travel with this
lens? Travel on airplanes? If so, then you'll have to check it
or ship it separately. I faced this decision a few years ago
and ultimately decided on the 500 f/4 L IS instead. For 20% less
focal length, the size and weight make it much easier to move
around. With the lowepro phototrekker AW, I can get the following
in this aircraft carry-on legal bag: 500 f/4, 300 f/4, 28-135 IS,
24mm, Canon 10D with 5 spare batteries, 1D Mark II with 2 spare
batteries, lots of compact flash and miscellaneous other items.
Carry-one weight is under 40 pounds. (By the way, does anyone know if
this is carry-on legal on Air New Zealand?). The further advantage
of the 500 is you can get by with a gitzo 1325 series carbon fiber
tripod, which further reduces weight.

So that ~35 pound airplane carry on pack, translates to about 45 pounds
on a hike when you include the tripod. To reduce weight, you start
leaving potentially important stuff behind.

Finally, moving around in the field is a lot easier with a 500 +gitzo
1325 than a 600 + 1548. I originally wanted the 600 mm lens for a
specific purpose, but decided on the 500 and am glad I did because
of the added flexibility it gives me with only a minor loss in focal length.

Well I might just give the 500mm f/4 a look for all the reasons you
mention. I do have some experience with backpacks over 50 lbs
(several day hiking not photography) and while it does take some
getting used to it is not that bad if the weight is properly
distributed and the backpack is well designed.

My current kit with tripod and head weighs about 35-40 lbs and I've
hiked that as much as 18 miles per day (Mount Saint Hellens in June
04) using only a Lowepro shoulder bag. This is not the best setup as
the weight is borne entirely on one shoulder versus both shoulder and
waist, and if I do get a 500mm or 600mm f/4 lens I will HAVE to
upgrade my backpack setup.

Hey Bill, I still hope to go to Florida this winter for birds, assuming
the hurricanes didn't do too much damage to habitat, and assuming
I can find time between all my other trips.

I moved to Florida in February this year (Stuart FL) but have been on
the road in my RV since April. The house I'm staying at in Stuart
(actually Hobe Sound) was damaged by direct hits from Francis and
Jeanne but my brother (owner of the house) needed a new roof anyway so
the net cost should not be too bad.

I plan on returning to Florida by late January 05 and will be looking
to do my bird shooting after that. My work thus far has been mostly
landscape and have noted the need for longer reach than my current kit
offers.

I should say that my time this year has been spent traveling the
country on an extended photo safari and am currently waiting out the
rain in Kanab, UT for the next opportunity to hit "The Wave" and
Coyote Buttes. I will travel to Las Vegas from here then plan on
moving into California for the early winter with the goal of hitting
Death Valley in December/January.

I have taken over 20K pictures with my current kit (Nikon D100/F100)
along with 7 lenses). I have been waiting to see what Nikon was going
to offer with the D2X but since they seem committed to the APS sized
sensor I am seriously thinking about biting-the-bullet and switching
to Canon. I do this with more than a little trepidation as the D100
is a better body than many think and the expense to switch will be
significant.

Later,

Brian

Hope this helps.

Roger