Head and Tripod

wxwax · February 27, 2004

At some point, I'm gonna move beyond the G3 and get a dSLR. One consequence is that my current, nicely portable tripod will become obsolete. It won't be able to safely or effectively lock down a heavier camera and heavy lenses.

So I've been casting about for options that aren't insanely expensive. I'll go backwards, and start with the head. I've read that this sucker is a poor man's top shelf ballhead. Not too heavy, either.

For legs, my needs haven't changed. Needs to collapse to 20" or less, to fit in my bike's luggage. Lightweight is nice. Which brings us to the Hakuba HG-6240C. Carbon fiber, but not sickingly expensive. 19" folded, 58" extended, which ain't the best, but certainly ain't the worst.

Anyone have any feedback on either of these items? :ear

Link to story that pointed me at these two products.

DoctorIt · February 27, 2004

wxwax wrote:

At some point, I'm gonna move beyond the G3 and get a dSLR. One consequence is that my current, nicely portable tripod will become obsolete. It won't be able to safely or effectively lock down a heavier camera and heavy lenses.

So I've been casting about for options that aren't insanely expensive. I'll go backwards, and start with the head. I've read that this sucker is a poor man's top shelf ballhead. Not too heavy, either.

For legs, my needs haven't changed. Needs to collapse to 20" or less, to fit in my bike's luggage. Lightweight is nice. Which brings us to the Hakuba HG-6240C. Carbon fiber, but not sickingly expensive. 19" folded, 58" extended, which ain't the best, but certainly ain't the worst.

Anyone have any feedback on either of these items?

Ball heads scare me. Based on the ones I've played with, only the very be$t ones don't give me the fear that my long lens is gonna come crashing down cause the tension's a little too low. Tilt/pan heads always seem a little more substantial and safe.

fish · February 27, 2004

I don't have any experience with those products you mentioned, waxy. But I do use some Bogen/Manfrotto stuff. I have a Bogen 3021 w/ 3262QR ballhead and 329rc4 p/t head. The ballhead works fine with light lenses (like the 24-85), but with a 100/2.8 macro or 70-200/4, it sags a bit. The p/t head is far more solid for use with larger lenses. However, I recall Tugrik mentioning a pistolgrip ballhead that locked as soon as you let go of the grip. Don't know if it would be any more solid than mine

The 329 head is nice because it's got bubble levels on three axes, which makes it a cinch to straighten a landscape. The ballhead is a bit more difficult to level, but it's great for convenience and speed.

pathfinder · February 27, 2004

wxwax wrote:

At some point, I'm gonna move beyond the G3 and get a dSLR. One consequence is that my current, nicely portable tripod will become obsolete. It won't be able to safely or effectively lock down a heavier camera and heavy lenses.

So I've been casting about for options that aren't insanely expensive. I'll go backwards, and start with the head. I've read that this sucker is a poor man's top shelf ballhead. Not too heavy, either.

One of the photographers associated with M Reichman on the Luminous Landscape - I think Alain Briot - but I am not sure - uses the Acratech Ball head - It is light - as opposed to the Arca Swiss Ball head which weighs over 4 pounds - But I am not sure the Acratech will work for long telephotos > 200 mm or so .
The weight and the price make the Acratech very appealing. I have been thinking of getting one myself.

As for tripods - for those whom only the very best will do.......

http://www.riestripod.com/

Real wooden legs like they used to make them!

But they are not short for motorcycles nor are they inexpensive - but they will not freeze up in the snow either

wxwax · February 27, 2004

Cool, feedback, thanks gents. Aren't wooden legs kinda heavy, 'finder? I haven't checked them, I wonder how small they'll collapse?

WRT the stability of the ballhead, the online article I got a great deal of info from, said the Acratech would balk at 300mm... the implication being that 200 was OK. I figure it will be a long time before I buy a 300mm lens. FWIW, the article he wrote is all about buying the best, the first time... because anything less won't work, and you'll end up spending the money anyway. It's just that I gag on $600 legs.

wxwax · February 27, 2004

Acratech claims their ballhead is rated to 25 lbs... and then have this nifty picture to prove it.

pathfinder · February 27, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Cool, feedback, thanks gents. Aren't wooden legs kinda heavy, 'finder? I haven't checked them, I wonder how small they'll collapse?

WRT the stability of the ballhead, the online article I got a great deal of info from, said the Acratech would balk at 300mm... the implication being that 200 was OK. I figure it will be a long time before I buy a 300mm lens. FWIW, the article he wrote is all about buying the best, the first time... because anything less won't work, and you'll end up spending the money anyway. It's just that I gag on $600 legs.

Wxwax....

The smaller Reis tripod for 35mm ( they make them for 4x5 and 2.25x2.25) collapses to 21 inches and weighs 6 lbs per their website. The also make a wooden monopod that looks interesting as well. The 6 lb tripod is rated to support 14 pounds. I just like the feel of wood in the hand - especially in cold weather - I quit using an aluminum tripod - just too punishing. I bought a carbon-fiber, but the small Reis would have been cheaper. Live and learn.

Like I said the Acratech is ok for 200mm but not more. The Canon 100-400 is cheaper than the 70-200 IS L and also a little heavier probably. SO never say you won't use any thing longer than 200mm.......

I think the Acratech on the smaller Reis is a very attractive package - And it will probably never wear out or need to be replaced. I agree with the article that cheap tools are rarely adequate and satisfying and, like the author said, I frequently end up replacing cheap tools with what I wanted in the first place. It is just that sometimes years pass before I end up doing the replacing to be able to afford what I wanted in the first place.

I have replaced cameras any number of times in my life for various reasons, but my Snap-On tools I only bought once. I suspect the same thing is true of tripods. And yet my first few tripods were cheap and not used much because they were an aggravation and not a solution.

wxwax · February 27, 2004

Great feedback, man, thanks.

fish · February 27, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

The Canon 100-400 is cheaper than the 70-200 IS L and also a little heavier probably.

70-200/2.8IS - 3.2lb (3.5lb w/ tripod collar)
100-400 - 3.0lb
70-200/2.8 - 2.8lb
70-200/4 - 1.56lb

:lift

pathfinder · February 27, 2004

fish wrote:

70-200/2.8IS - 3.2lb (3.5lb w/ tripod collar)
100-400 - 3.0lb
70-200/2.8 - 2.8lb
70-200/4 - 1.56lb

:lift

Well.... then ...gulp....the 100-400 is at least probably longer when it is fully extended if not quite as heavy as the 70-200f2.8 ISL
I was just doing so fine, Fish, until you confused me with FACTS! ......Of all the nerve..........

So the Acratech ballhead WILL probably work with all but the super telephotos like the 400f2.8 IS or the 500f4.0 IS or the 600f4.0 IS. Woof!

patch29 · February 27, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

So the Acratech ballhead WILL probably work with all but the super telephotos like the 400f2.8 IS or the 500f4.0 IS or the 600f4.0 IS. Woof!

With the big glass the only way to go is a gimbal head. Wimberley makes some of the best. Canon had their big lenses on them at PMA. They also make a sidekick for the 300/2.8 that will fit into an Arca-Swiss style head and give you a less expensive gimbal option.

pathfinder · February 27, 2004

patch29 wrote:

With the big glass the only way to go is a gimbal head. Wimberley makes some of the best. Canon had their big lenses on them at PMA. They also make a sidekick for the 300/2.8 that will fit into an Arca-Swiss style head and give you a less expensive gimbal option.

I use a Sidekick for my longer lenses..............

But for the really long stuff the Sidekick is not rec'd - they rec the standard Wimberly head. The Ries tripod website has an interesting head for long lenses too called the DPNP Action head - costs similar to an Wimberly head also....

Looks kind of cool........ ya think? Isn't that a cool tripod tho?

GREAPER · February 27, 2004

I have the bogen pistol grip ball head and it works pretty well. I put my D100 with a 170-500mm lens on it and it is pretty solid.

I will say that the grip on the ball losened up after about a year and when i talked to some sales reps they said the best thing to do is get a new one. I dont think so. It ought to last longer than that....

I took it apart and beefed up the spring inside it. and greased the ball with a silicon grease and it has been solid ever since.

I darn near had to call a mechanical engineer to figure out how the thing went back together.

Another thing is the pisol grip head is a little tall and wouldnt fit in the size space you describe without removing it from the tripod. Big Hassle.

wxwax · February 28, 2004

GREAPER wrote:

Another thing is the pisol grip head is a little tall and wouldnt fit in the size space you describe without removing it from the tripod. Big Hassle.

Good point, the head adds length.

chuckh · March 9, 2004

Another alternative: Bilora Tripods
I've been looking at the Gitzo 2220 tripod and came across a reference to Bilora tripods as an alternative.

Bilora tripods are German made and are imported by Paterson Photographic, the models technical details may be found here:

http://www.patersonphotographic.com/pdf/bilora.pdf

Bilora tripods are similar to Gitzo (model 2220) tripods in design and are very nicely priced.

Adorama carries Bilora and this model folds to less then 20": http://www.adorama.com/BA1140.html

chuckh · March 9, 2004

Bilora corporate site translated to English.

wxwax · March 10, 2004

Chuck, great find. Thanks for the info. They claim the tripod can handle up to 15 lbs, which is a decent load.

About the only negative I can see is that it only extends to 58 inches. I wonder how sturdy it is?

fish · March 10, 2004

wxwax wrote:

About the only negative I can see is that it only extends to 58 inches. I wonder how sturdy it is?

There's a very crude joke in there...that I'll just leave alone.

Back on track, it looks like the leg locks are collars, rather than quick release. That would be a downside for me. I love the lever locks on the Bogens.

wxwax · March 10, 2004

As I understand it, that would actually be a feature. The snap locks get loose over time, whereas the ones that hand tighten do not.

fish · March 11, 2004

wxwax wrote:

As I understand it, that would actually be a feature. The snap locks get loose over time, whereas the ones that hand tighten do not.

really? i hadn't heard that. please don't let my 10yo tripod hear you say that.

DoctorIt · March 12, 2004

fish wrote:

really? i hadn't heard that. please don't let my 10yo tripod hear you say that.

My friend's 2 week old bogen CF monopod must have heard it though... 2 levers snapped off the other day within an hour of each other.

wxwax · March 12, 2004

fish wrote:

really? i hadn't heard that. please don't let my 10yo tripod hear you say that.

How much use has it seen? That would be the key... not the age.

patch29 · March 12, 2004

wxwax wrote:

How much use has it seen? That would be the key... not the age.

I have a Bogen that is about 14 years old and has had extensive use and it is fine today. It has the older style levers, but I have friends that use the new ones and they are fine. I may have tightened it once or twice in all these years. I think I might have put some locktite on the theads and that was all it took.

fish · March 12, 2004

wxwax wrote:

How much use has it seen? That would be the key... not the age.

How do you quantify that? In hours? Miles? Shots? It's seen a lot of use, and I'm not gentle with my equipment. I have a hard time imagining these levers snapping, unless they are smacked into something very hard.

wxwax · March 12, 2004

Actually, I wasn't thinking about levers snapping. I was thinking about the levers' grip loosening over time.

fish · March 12, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Actually, I wasn't thinking about levers snapping. I was thinking about the levers' grip loosening over time.

Gotcha. Well, the Bogen quick releases (the old style I have) are spring-loaded and the legs come with a little plastic nutdriver. So if they get a little loose, you just cinch down the nut a bit. Walk in the park.

chuckh · November 8, 2004

Another compact tripod option coming to the market soon:

http://www.bogenimaging.us/news/detail.php3?fileback=home&newsid=119

Head and Tripod

Comments