Specific tripod selections, narrowed down to three choices

RovingEyePhoto · November 27, 2008

Hopefully without over-thinking the thing, I've narrowed down to three tripod leg/head choices. I'm looking for reasons why any of the three would not be leg/head compatible or otherwise not be of quality living up to their names. I've looked at many brands and price levels, and am satisfied that the money is well spent for any of the three. This is a once-in-a-decade purchase, and at my age probably my last tripod purchase, so the fact that these are high-priced sets, and that I may be paying some premium for brand name, is not only acceptable to me, bur for peace of mind, maybe even preferable.

I do not shoot extreme environments, so in my quest for as light a pod as possible, I consider a load capacity approx twice my maximum rig weight to be adequate. Looking forward a reasonable period of time, which I realize is difficult given the speed in which new high-end offerings are hitting the market, I see my largest rig not exceeding 6 lbs and longest lens not exceeding the area of f/2.8-3.5 and 7 inches. I normally work hand-held on-the-fly, but during winter months am stuck indoors, which is where my tripod is put to most use. I shoot a good deal of macro in the winter mix, so am influenced in my choices by the possibility of having a center tube easily convertible to horizontal.

The tripod/head sets I'm considering are: Gitzo Center Ball GH1780QR coupled with Manfrotto 190CXPRO3, [ii] the same head coupled with Manfrotto 055CXPRO3, or [iii] the same head coupled with Gitzo Mountaineer GT1531. Compared to the first, the second gives me an extra 6 lb cushion in load capacity and obvious greater sturdiness, but at a weight disadvantage of approx 3/4 lb (3.6 vs. 2.8 lb), not a large weight difference, but every pound counts in the on-the-fly style I shoot. Again compared to the first, the third gives me the same extra 6 lb cushion in load capacity along with what I expect is greater sturdiness, but at a weight advantage of 1/4 lb (2.5 vs. 2.8 lb), at the price however of losing the built-in convertability of center tube from vertical to horizontal, which I consider an excellant design (unless someone out there can tell me different).

My camera's an Olympus E-3, longest/heaviest present lens the Zuiko 12-60 (equiv 24-120) f/2.8-4.0 (4 inches, 1.3 lb). If I ever get interested in tele, could see going to the Zuiko 50-200 (equiv 100-400) f/2.8-3.5 (6.5 inches, 2.2 lb), the longest/heaviest possibility referred to in the second paragraph above. I'm of the means and inclination to change to heavier gear as more and more full frame SLRs emerge, but have a feeling once I hold them and experience their swing weight, I'll stay with the 4/3 format and in-camera stabilization I've got now, just fits my strength, style, and sense of logic.

I'm leaning toward either the first or second choices. On the plus side, I like the built-in convertability of center tube from vertical to horizontal without haveing to remove the tube. I know I've got to be careful in handling the resulting weight imbalance, but am a careful guy, and tripod shooting is a very deliberate thing with me. And by not having to remove the tube, I think I'll tend to convert to horizontal a lot more often than otherwise. It's a fact, however, that I haven't missed a shot yet not having a horizontal tube capability (presently just do a lot of uneven-leg pod-tipping, pain in the arse but manageable), so possibly the greater weight-bearing and sturdier all-Gitzo third choice is the one, and I do like twist vs. lever operation now that Gitzo has non-twist legs. And who in their dreams didn't lust after a Gitzo?!

The one thing I haven't done yet is to look into the Really Right Stuff heads, about the same ridiculous cost as Gitzo, but they've been recommended, so I'll at least look. However, Gitzo's center ball design (not to be confused with their classic center ball design), certainly has caught my eye, and seems a hell of a gem of engineering and functional thought.

Call me crazy, this is where I'm at. Appreciate any help/slams/comments from out there in the cosmos.

Candid Arts · November 27, 2008

Couldn't tell ya about the different ball heads, I have a Manfrotto, but my tripod is the Manfrotto 190CXPRO3. And I LOVE IT! I love the NEW pro head that is on them, where as I have the older one. The bubble level is mounted in a different location, and in a WAY better spot on the newer version.

The switching center pole from vertical to horizontal definitely has its advantages. I use mine all the time, especially for macro, or low angle shots where I spread my tripod legs as far out as they can go. As far as the twist vs lever action clamps go for the legs, I personally prefer the clamp ones that are on the 190CXPRO3. They are quick and easy to tighten and/or lossen. I pack mine around quite a bit on my camera bag with all my other equipment, and it's not too bad as far as weight is concerned. The tripod itself is fairly light, it's that damn ball head that get's ya.

I've played with one Really Right Stuff head before...and it's...AMAZING! It is ridiculously smooth with no matter what weight of equipment mounted on it, and durable as all get out. The one that I played with was about 18 years old (almost as old as I am, 24...), and still worked as if it were new, probably even better actually than when it was new after it had been worked in for 18 years.

Hope anything I said has helped... Good luck. A good tri-pod/ball head combo can seriously save your life, I know it has mine many times.

RovingEyePhoto · November 27, 2008

Candid Arts wrote:

Couldn't tell ya about the different ball heads, I have a Manfrotto, but my tripod is the Manfrotto 190CXPRO3. And I LOVE IT! I love the NEW pro head that is on them, where as I have the older one. The bubble level is mounted in a different location, and in a WAY better spot on the newer version.

The switching center pole from vertical to horizontal definitely has its advantages. I use mine all the time, especially for macro, or low angle shots where I spread my tripod legs as far out as they can go. As far as the twist vs lever action clamps go for the legs, I personally prefer the clamp ones that are on the 190CXPRO3. They are quick and easy to tighten and/or lossen. I pack mine around quite a bit on my camera bag with all my other equipment, and it's not too bad as far as weight is concerned. The tripod itself is fairly light, it's that damn ball head that get's ya.

I've played with one Really Right Stuff head before...and it's...AMAZING! It is ridiculously smooth with no matter what weight of equipment mounted on it, and durable as all get out. The one that I played with was about 18 years old (almost as old as I am, 24...), and still worked as if it were new, probably even better actually than when it was new after it had been worked in for 18 years.

Hope anything I said has helped... Good luck. A good tri-pod/ball head combo can seriously save your life, I know it has mine many times.

Very helpful, and thank you.I'm curious about your choice of the 190 legs over the 055, 3/4 lb heavier and about $100 more costly, but does give 50% more load capacity (17 vs. 11 lbs) to cushion the unknown future, and is sturdier. Did you give the 055 consideration? What do you mount on your 190, how long, how fast, how much weight? Also, care to say what Manfrotto head model number you use? The one I looked at was pretty heavy, don't know if it's the one you've got or not.

I also used a friend's Really Right Stuff head, fine quality equipment. Also had a few years on it, but my old bod has a lot more, lol.

Again, thanks, great help!

Richard · November 27, 2008

My experience with other equipment is limited, but FWIW, I use a Manfrotto 055MF3 tripod with a RRS BH40 head and lever quick release clamp and L plate and couldn't be happier.

RovingEyePhoto · November 27, 2008

Richard wrote:

My experience with other equipment is limited, but FWIW, I use a Manfrotto 055MF3 tripod with a RRS BH40 head and lever quick release clamp and L plate and couldn't be happier.

Many thanks. The BH40 is the one I would look at if going RRS. I seem to recall reading RRS dropped weight by going to a hollow ball like the Gitzo I'm looking at. Amazing where tech is carrying us.

Candid Arts · November 27, 2008

I chose the 190 because of the extra load capacity. The ball head I'm using is 488RC4. After playing with it for awhile, and that RRS one, I wish I would have chosen a larger ball head, so that it gives me the option to rotate smoother while still being tight enough to hold the camera steady. I definitely wanted the extra load capacity for when I get the 70-200, and eventually get up to the 500, 600, or 800mm lenses, but at that point I'll be getting a different ball head. I just couldn't afford the RRS one at the time, but that is what I would have liked to get. I also have the larger clamp and plate than is normally seen, and it has a quick release and a saftely lock so you can't accidently release the camera. It's quite a bit bigger plate, but fits perfectly on the bottom of the camera w/ and w/o my battery grip. It's not really intrusive, I got used to it fairly quickly. I liked the extra sturdiness of this plate vs. the small one.

This head/leg combo will support up to my 70-200, plus body, extra battery, grip, etc and even a little more than the 70-200 actually, but if any higher I would upgrade the ball head.

Right now my equipment list is a Canon 50D, Canon 24-205 f/4L, Canon 50mm f/1.4, and a Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro.

RovingEyePhoto · November 28, 2008

Candid Arts wrote:

I chose the 190 because of the extra load capacity. The ball head I'm using is 488RC4. After playing with it for awhile, and that RRS one, I wish I would have chosen a larger ball head, so that it gives me the option to rotate smoother while still being tight enough to hold the camera steady. I definitely wanted the extra load capacity for when I get the 70-200, and eventually get up to the 500, 600, or 800mm lenses, but at that point I'll be getting a different ball head. I just couldn't afford the RRS one at the time, but that is what I would have liked to get. I also have the larger clamp and plate than is normally seen, and it has a quick release and a saftely lock so you can't accidently release the camera. It's quite a bit bigger plate, but fits perfectly on the bottom of the camera w/ and w/o my battery grip. It's not really intrusive, I got used to it fairly quickly. I liked the extra sturdiness of this plate vs. the small one.

This head/leg combo will support up to my 70-200, plus body, extra battery, grip, etc and even a little more than the 70-200 actually, but if any higher I would upgrade the ball head.

Right now my equipment list is a Canon 50D, Canon 24-205 f/4L, Canon 50mm f/1.4, and a Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro.

This is extremely useful, and many, many thanks. I do have one question. The way I understand the Manfrotto line, the 190 is the lighter of the two with the easy-flip post, the 055 being the heavier/more sturdy. The 190 load capacity is rated at 11 lbs, the 055 at 17 lbs. Just curious if I have that right relative to you comment that you went for the 190 due to its greater load capacity.

Interesting comment on heads, because the Manfortto 488 is one I was considering, although more likely to bleed and moan and pay the extra for either the Gitzo G1780QR or RRS BH-40 with quick release. Both of the latter handle near 20 lbs, so plenty of margin over anything I'll mount, and are quite a bit lighter than the 488 and way lighter than the larger 490. The Gitzo, at about 3/4 lb is about 1/2 lb lighter than the RRS, with a larger locking knob (probably easier on the fingers) and I think a larger ball. But the RRS has drag control (missing on this model of the Gitzo), and after all is RRS, so mighty tempting. Comments?

Again, many thanks. You've been a big help.

Candid Arts · November 28, 2008

jimphotog wrote:

This is extremely useful, and many, many thanks. I do have one question. The way I understand the Manfrotto line, the 190 is the lighter of the two with the easy-flip post, the 055 being the heavier/more sturdy. The 190 load capacity is rated at 11 lbs, the 055 at 17 lbs. Just curious if I have that right relative to you comment that you went for the 190 due to its greater load capacity.

Interesting comment on heads, because the Manfortto 488 is one I was considering, although more likely to bleed and moan and pay the extra for either the Gitzo G1780QR or RRS BH-40 with quick release. Both of the latter handle near 20 lbs, so plenty of margin over anything I'll mount, and are quite a bit lighter than the 488 and way lighter than the larger 490. The Gitzo, at about 3/4 lb is about 1/2 lb lighter than the RRS, with a larger locking knob (probably easier on the fingers) and I think a larger ball. But the RRS has drag control (missing on this model of the Gitzo), and after all is RRS, so mighty tempting. Comments?

Again, many thanks. You've been a big help.

Now that you mention that, I don't remember on the 190 vs. 055. Price maybe? max. height...weight... not sure. There was a reason though, maybe price...

Either way I'm happy with my 488 as it is for the money that I spent on it. What I would look for in a new ball head is a drag control, and a larger ball. For ex: the BH-55. I do like however the rubber knob on the Manfrotto as it's nice on the fingers, and in cold weather. Where as the RRS BH-55 looks to be metal of some kind. Soo...But I'd live with it for the larger ball.

That larger ball not only will be able to support way more weight, which is not only usefull in heavier applications, but your smaller lenses as well; it will also help with tension and the ability to move your camera smoothly while still being tight enough to hold the camera sturdy.

Had I had the money at the time (or now, which I don't) I would have went with one like the RRS BH-55. That larger ball head makes for a smoother movement, which is worth all the money in the world, and has more surface area to grip so your camera doesn't pan down after you tighten it and let go of your body/lens.

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2008

Candid Arts wrote:

Now that you mention that, I don't remember on the 190 vs. 055. Price maybe? max. height...weight... not sure. There was a reason though, maybe price...

Either way I'm happy with my 488 as it is for the money that I spent on it. What I would look for in a new ball head is a drag control, and a larger ball. For ex: the BH-55. I do like however the rubber knob on the Manfrotto as it's nice on the fingers, and in cold weather. Where as the RRS BH-55 looks to be metal of some kind. Soo...But I'd live with it for the larger ball.

That larger ball not only will be able to support way more weight, which is not only usefull in heavier applications, but your smaller lenses as well; it will also help with tension and the ability to move your camera smoothly while still being tight enough to hold the camera sturdy.

Had I had the money at the time (or now, which I don't) I would have went with one like the RRS BH-55. That larger ball head makes for a smoother movement, which is worth all the money in the world, and has more surface area to grip so your camera doesn't pan down after you tighten it and let go of your body/lens.

Again, very helpful, thank you. Have to keep reminding myself "larger ball, drag control". Easy to get carried away with weight advantages on way or the other, we're talking a pound or two here, but add-up all the little 1/2 and 3/4 lbs, and gets to be important to the overall kit. The Gitzo continues to attract my attention, because can move to their mid-size model (GH2780QR), get larger ball plus drag control, and only .3 lbs heavier (at 1.1 lb) than smaller GH1780QR I was considering, at probably not much greater a price in relation to already-high price of smaller head anyway. Hard to ignore a whopping 31 lbs load capacity at only 1.1 lbs! Gitzo attributes big weight advantage to their hollow ball (amazing tech!) This model line with quick-release sports 4 leveling bubbles, the fourth actually in the stem, a nice touch. I expect cost is in the RRS range, so if in fact I'm investing at the Gitzo/RRS level, guess I have tough choice to make.

Why go to BH-55 rather than BH-40? The 40 I think has larger ball than the 488 you have, and seemingly enough load copacity. Just curious.

Again thanks.

Candid Arts · November 29, 2008

jimphotog wrote:

Again, very helpful, thank you. Have to keep reminding myself "larger ball, drag control". Easy to get carried away with weight advantages on way or the other, we're talking a pound or two here, but add-up all the little 1/2 and 3/4 lbs, and gets to be important to the overall kit. The Gitzo continues to attract my attention, because can move to their mid-size model (GH2780QR), get larger ball plus drag control, and only .3 lbs heavier (at 1.1 lb) than smaller GH1780QR I was considering, at probably not much greater a price in relation to already-high price of smaller head anyway. Hard to ignore a whopping 31 lbs load capacity at only 1.1 lbs! Gitzo attributes big weight advantage to their hollow ball (amazing tech!) This model line with quick-release sports 4 leveling bubbles, the fourth actually in the stem, a nice touch. I expect cost is in the RRS range, so if in fact I'm investing at the Gitzo/RRS level, guess I have tough choice to make.

Why go to BH-55 rather than BH-40? The 40 I think has larger ball than the 488 you have, and seemingly enough load copacity. Just curious.

Again thanks.

Yeah the 40 does have a little higher load capacity than the 488 does (.4 lbs) so I don't know how much larger the ball is, where as the BH-55 jumps it up to 50lbs vs the GH2780QR at 30.86lbs.

I also like the knob vs the lever on the 55 vs the 40.

488 - 17.6lbs $115
BH-40 - 18lbs $390
GH2780QR - 30.86lbs $350
BH-55 - 50lbs $455

Looking at the specs of each, I'd go with the Gitzo or the RRS BH-55. I'm thinking I should have went with the BH-40 or the Gitzo, but for the money, I just couldn't spend the extra money at the time.

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2008

Candid Arts wrote:

Yeah the 40 does have a little higher load capacity than the 488 does (.4 lbs) so I don't know how much larger the ball is, where as the BH-55 jumps it up to 50lbs vs the GH2780QR at 30.86lbs.

I also like the knob vs the lever on the 55 vs the 40.

488 - 17.6lbs $115
BH-40 - 18lbs $390
GH2780QR - 30.86lbs $350
BH-55 - 50lbs $455

Looking at the specs of each, I'd go with the Gitzo or the RRS BH-55. I'm thinking I should have went with the BH-40 or the Gitzo, but for the money, I just couldn't spend the extra money at the time.

I've been researching a bit more, and observed two interesting things. First, the RRS BH-40 and BH-55 each use a hollow ball, same as the Gitzo GH2780QR mentioned. The 488 uses a solid ball, I guess one of the reasons for its heavier weight. Besides what I assume are higher grade metals and more precision tolerances, I guess the hollow ball tech is another thing accounting for the stupendous cost difference between the RRS/Gitzo and the Manfrotto. Second, I can't find aywhere that says what outside diameters of the 488 and 490 balls are. You have a 488, would you mind roughly measuring? The RRS BH-40 is 40mm and BH-55 is 55mm, cute eh? Knowing the approximate diameter of the 488 ball would help put all this in perspective. Then question then is what's the diameter of the Gitzo ball. I'll look around, maybe find that.

Manfr3d · November 29, 2008

Just a hint, Benro has "copied" every Gitzo Tripod model
and relabled them under their name. It is the professional
Brand in China. The quality is gitzo the cost is often only
half. All big camera shops have them in stock.

RovingEyePhoto · November 30, 2008

Manfr3d wrote:

Just a hint, Benro has "copied" every Gitzo Tripod model
and relabled them under their name. It is the professional
Brand in China. The quality is gitzo the cost is often only
half. All big camera shops have them in stock.

Thanks for the tip. I've seen their stuff in magazine ads and I think in some stores, and impressive, but so focused on the RRS and Gitzo, Benro kind of escaped me. I'm pretty well aimed at the Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 legs, think the easy-flip-to-horizontal-center-tube will fit my macro work really well. The Benro KS-1 head, however, is very eye-catching at 1/3 the price of the RRS or Gitzo heads. You know anybody who's used it? I'll check the review sites, if you see anything, I'd appreciate your letting me know. I know the RRS and Gitzo must be built to rocket ship tolerances and last forever, but I'm not piloting a rocket ship and already am past the age of innocense. So I think the question is if the RRS rates a 10, the Gitzo maybe a 9+ (no one seems to be saying), and the Manfrotto 488RC4 a 5 and maybe the 490RC4 a 6 (pretty heavy relative to the others and resin ball), then what would the Benro rate?

Great input! Thanks.

Candid Arts · December 1, 2008

jimphotog wrote:

I've been researching a bit more, and observed two interesting things. First, the RRS BH-40 and BH-55 each use a hollow ball, same as the Gitzo GH2780QR mentioned. The 488 uses a solid ball, I guess one of the reasons for its heavier weight. Besides what I assume are higher grade metals and more precision tolerances, I guess the hollow ball tech is another thing accounting for the stupendous cost difference between the RRS/Gitzo and the Manfrotto. Second, I can't find aywhere that says what outside diameters of the 488 and 490 balls are. You have a 488, would you mind roughly measuring? The RRS BH-40 is 40mm and BH-55 is 55mm, cute eh? Knowing the approximate diameter of the 488 ball would help put all this in perspective. Then question then is what's the diameter of the Gitzo ball. I'll look around, maybe find that.

I couldn't find any info anywhere that said the diameter of the ball on the 488, so I emailed Manfrotto about it. They replied saying that it's about 1-1/4" diameter.

Cygnus Studios · December 1, 2008

You really should consider the 55X Pro. A great tripod that is sturdy enough for some serious gear, yet still light enough to carry for a length of time.
I use a few different heads including the 488 which is a great sturdy piece, yet more often than not, I use the 322RC pistol grip. It allows a little more flexability for my use and easily supports my D3 and Bigma lens. It doesn't get much heavy than this combo.

Candid Arts · December 1, 2008

I went and played with the 55 aluminum legs the other day, they are way heavier than the 190CX carbon fiber legs, like by a long shot. But yes, also way more sturdy as well.

I love my 488, it works great for what I have. There is just always something better, and I'm wishing I had the money for that something. It's a great head though.

RovingEyePhoto · December 1, 2008

Candid Arts wrote:

I couldn't find any info anywhere that said the diameter of the ball on the 488, so I emailed Manfrotto about it. They replied saying that it's about 1-1/4" diameter.

Why didn't I think of doing that?

Anyway, 1.25" is 31.75mm, vs 40mm for the BH-40, 26% larger, one of many reasons I suppose why the 40 would be smoother than the 488 (other reasons being hollow ball, closer tolerance, better bearing, higher-tech material, etc), in the same way the BH-55 at 55mm would handle smoother than the 40. But the 55 weighs almost 1 lb more than the 40 (8/10 lb to be exact), and I'd never in a lifetime need the 50's 50 lb load capacity.

I'll email Gitzo for ball diameter of their GH2780QR, and continue to hunt down reviews.

And then there's the Benro (Chinese) with their KS-1. All anodized aluminum, with a 44mm ball rated at 26 lb load, 1.2 lb heft (about same as GH-40), both drag and lock knobs (vs. levers), locking pan scale, and selling for the staggering $150.

I'll probably end-up treating myself to the BH-40 or Gitzo, but can't pass-up at least considering the Benro. Anyone out there with first-hand knowledge?

Somewhere there lies an answer. Still looking.

Candid Arts · December 1, 2008

jimphotog wrote:

Why didn't I think of doing that?

Anyway, 1.25" is 31.75mm, vs 40mm for the BH-40, 26% larger, one of many reasons I suppose why the 40 would be smoother than the 488 (other reasons being hollow ball, closer tolerance, better bearing, higher-tech material, etc), in the same way the BH-55 at 55mm would handle smoother than the 40. But the 55 weighs almost 1 lb more than the 40 (8/10 lb to be exact), and I'd never in a lifetime need the 50's 50 lb load capacity.

I'll email Gitzo for ball diameter of their GH2780QR, and continue to hunt down reviews.

And then there's the Benro (Chinese) with their KS-1. All anodized aluminum, with a 44mm ball rated at 26 lb load, 1.2 lb heft (about same as GH-40), both drag and lock knobs (vs. levers), locking pan scale, and selling for the staggering $150.

I'll probably end-up treating myself to the BH-40 or Gitzo, but can't pass-up at least considering the Benro. Anyone out there with first-hand knowledge?

Somewhere there lies an answer. Still looking.

Well if you don't ever think you'll need the support that the 55 gives, I'd see the difference in ball diameter between the gitzo and the BH-40. The gitzo has a lot more weight support than the BH-40 does, so I'd imagine it's quite a bigger ball, more comparable to the BH-55, which might answer your question for you in which one to get...BH-40 if that's the case.

I don't know anything about this Benro, never heard of it. But I have had first hand experience with the RRS...and...AMAZING. I'd say go with the RRS. If that's all the weight and then some you think you'll ever be needing, then there ya go.

OR...

Get the BH-55 and will it to me when you no longer need it anymore...

RovingEyePhoto · December 2, 2008

Candid Arts wrote:

Well if you don't ever think you'll need the support that the 55 gives, I'd see the difference in ball diameter between the gitzo and the BH-40. The gitzo has a lot more weight support than the BH-40 does, so I'd imagine it's quite a bigger ball, more comparable to the BH-55, which might answer your question for you in which one to get...BH-40 if that's the case.

I don't know anything about this Benro, never heard of it. But I have had first hand experience with the RRS...and...AMAZING. I'd say go with the RRS. If that's all the weight and then some you think you'll ever be needing, then there ya go.

OR...

Get the BH-55 and will it to me when you no longer need it anymore...

Let's see, my remaining $20 cash to my daughters, the BH-55 to you, got it.

I'm not sure I'm reading conclusion in your first paragraph correctly, but no matter, I get the gist of it. Thanks again for the input.

RovingEyePhoto · December 2, 2008

Cygnus Studios wrote:

You really should consider the 55X Pro. A great tripod that is sturdy enough for some serious gear, yet still light enough to carry for a length of time.
I use a few different heads including the 488 which is a great sturdy piece, yet more often than not, I use the 322RC pistol grip. It allows a little more flexability for my use and easily supports my D3 and Bigma lens. It doesn't get much heavy than this combo.

I keep wrestling with the weight thing. The 055 is advertised at only 8/10 lb heavier than the 190, but way sturdier, so a reasonable trade-off. I truly am on-the-fly in most everything I shoot, though, and a lb here and a lb there, it all adds up. I'm also not an extreme user, not out on mountain cliffs with 30 mph winds swirling around, that sort of thing, and definitely not a live-screen user, so typically am right there at the pod. Why do decisions like this have to be so gloriously complicated, right?

Thanks for taking the time.

RovingEyePhoto · December 2, 2008

Candid Arts wrote:

I went and played with the 55 aluminum legs the other day, they are way heavier than the 190CX carbon fiber legs, like by a long shot. But yes, also way more sturdy as well.

I love my 488, it works great for what I have. There is just always something better, and I'm wishing I had the money for that something. It's a great head though.

I'd be looking at graphite, where only 8/10 lb difference between your 190 and the 055, but still an issue. See my response #20 to Cygnus, pretty well expresses my view.

Remember, I'm shooting an Oly E-3 with 4/3-dedicated Zuikos, smaller size/weight than similarly built APS-C and full-size sensor kits. And I limit lens weight to 2 lb or so. Going for fast glass the way I do, that about knocks out long teles. With the Oly, I shoot mostly wide/mid/fast, my Zuiko 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 (equiv 24-120mm) is about 1.6 lb, the heaviest/longest I own. I also own the Zhuiko 50 f/2 macro, my fastest glass, at a tiny .6 lb. Possibly if I develop a tele-lust, I might pick-up Zuiko's 50-200 f/28-35 (equiv 100-400), but that's only 2.2 lbs (bless the 4/3 format), close enough to my 2 lb max that I'd do it. I'm an on-the-fly non-studio shooter, so won't go heavier, and if that knocks out other long/fast glass, so be it. Even if down the road I were to switch to APS-C or full-size sensor (floodgates on full-size seem now to have opened), I'd still forgo lenses heavier than about 2 lbs, so long/fast/tele's would be out. Anyway, given this attitude, I feel pretty safe without a super-sturdy pod, just something that will securely/safely handle an approximately 6 lb load.

As for head, I want quality, which of course the RRS will give me, and I presume the Gitzo. But looking for input on the Benro, it has all the features I want (even all-knobs which I prefer, vs the BH-40's locking lever) at a tiny $150, but is Chinese, and apparently pretty well used in Asia, so maybe a flower in the pickle barrel. Surely not the orchid the RRS and probably Gitzo are, but possibly a passable rose (hopefully not a stink-weed). I know one gets nothing for nothing, but Chinese products always price out very competitively, so maybe this is one that also functions very competitively.

Someone in one of my strings here commented that you always can tell the pioneer, he's the one with the arrow in his back. Surely want to be watchful of that.

Comments, anyone?

RovingEyePhoto · December 2, 2008

Manfr3d wrote:

Just a hint, Benro has "copied" every Gitzo Tripod model
and relabled them under their name. It is the professional
Brand in China. The quality is gitzo the cost is often only
half. All big camera shops have them in stock.

I find the Benro alternative very interesting. Please take a look at my initial response to you and responses #17 and 21 to others. Any comment? Any first-hand info? Any knowledge of reviews or comments elsewhere?

Thanks for the time.

Cygnus Studios · December 2, 2008

jimphotog wrote:

I keep wrestling with the weight thing. The 055 is advertised at only 8/10 lb heavier than the 190, but way sturdier, so a reasonable trade-off. I truly am on-the-fly in most everything I shoot, though, and a lb here and a lb there, it all adds up. I'm also not an extreme user, not out on mountain cliffs with 30 mph winds swirling around, that sort of thing, and definitely not a live-screen user, so typically am right there at the pod. Why do decisions like this have to be so gloriously complicated, right?
Thanks for taking the time.

I tend to be an overkill person. I try to consider not only what I am doing today, but what will tomorrow bring. Here in the north bay, there are plenty of cliffs, wind, and unstable footings. When I went with a heavier tripod and heads, I did not shoot with larger glass. Now that I have one camera specifically with large glass attached to it, I am glad that I sacrificed the weight for the added stability.
I am the first one to admit that sometimes on these hikes up the hill I wish that I had hired a shurpa to carry all the gear, but once there, I am confident that I have what is needed.
As to your question as to why these decisions have to be so gloriously complicated, that is easy. If they weren't, our Birthday and Christmas lists would have nothing but socks and ties on them

PixNW · December 2, 2008

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I tend to be an overkill person. I try to consider not only what I am doing today, but what will tomorrow bring. Here in the north bay, there are plenty of cliffs, wind, and unstable footings. When I went with a heavier tripod and heads, I did not shoot with larger glass. Now that I have one camera specifically with large glass attached to it, I am glad that I sacrificed the weight for the added stability.
I am the first one to admit that sometimes on these hikes up the hill I wish that I had hired a shurpa to carry all the gear, but once there, I am confident that I have what is needed.
As to your question as to why these decisions have to be so gloriously complicated, that is easy. If they weren't, our Birthday and Christmas lists would have nothing but socks and ties on them

I too tend to be a bit of an overkill type of thinker. Extra weight capacity will usually translate into better stablility in windy or challenging condtions as well. I have a RRS BH-55 and feel that it's well worth the cost. It's usually mounted on a Gitzo 3531 and the combination should last for quite some time, and provide excellent service.

RovingEyePhoto · December 3, 2008

PixNW wrote:

I too tend to be a bit of an overkill type of thinker. Extra weight capacity will usually translate into better stablility in windy or challenging condtions as well. I have a RRS BH-55 and feel that it's well worth the cost. It's usually mounted on a Gitzo 3531 and the combination should last for quite some time, and provide excellent service.

You know, I read all this, and it mostly reflects my thinking and tendencies regarding overkill, same as "save in the good times so you'll have it to weather the poor times", all stuff learned at our grandfathers' knees. I keep having to remind myself, though, that (i) I'm shooting 4/3, so my Oly E-3 body's about as heavy as any future 4/3 could possibly be (relatively speaking, it's a tank); (ii) I purposefully limit myself to 1,000 gr of glass (about 2.2 lbs), my biggest joy being hand-held on-the-fly natural-light urban, and swing weight much over 4.5 lbs is just too much heft for my 5'9, 150 lb, over-60 frame; (iii) I will be tempted by all the full-size sensor gear coming out now and into the future, but when I hold them, I'm pretty certain the swing-weight argument will win-out, and I'll stick with 4/3; and (iv) I've never been into travel-photography, my family wouldn't stand for bringing my good stuff along, and even if I did I'd be shooting natural-light urban, so no extreme blowing-mountain-steep-gully-quicksand environments to worry about. So why do I even need a tripod? Well, because I'm stuck indoors all winter, and that's too long not to shoot. My usual "hand-held on-the-fly" style already is on the shelf for this year, so I turn to macro and on-location-modeled-natural-light for winter, both of which require an on-the-fly tripod. So aggregate incremental weight is important, and the weight difference between the Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 and 055CXPRO3 becomes a consideration, and the weight difference between the RRS BH-40 and BH-55 becomes a consideration. And if I go Gitzo instead of RRS, it's lighter weight and assumed top quality of its thin-walled-ball technology (to be verified) becomes a consideration.

At the end of the day, I'm guessing I'll end-up with the 190CXPRO3 (overall quality, adequate load capacity, light weight, and unique easy-swing-to-horizontal center post which I'll forever be especially careful with when camera is hung out there), and the BH-40 (overall quality, adequate load capacity, light weight, sound QR system, drop-in clamp).

Not bad, eh? Rational? Makes sense?