Manfrotto vs. FEISOL

I realize that this isn't an apples to apples comparison but never the less these are two tripods that I am considering:


Manfrotto 055XPROB


FEISOL CT-3342


I am looking for a general use tripod. It will be used for macro, landscapes, wildlife and portraiture. The biggest lens I plan on mounting on it will be the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.


Two things I like about the Manfrotto are its price (~$180) and center column which can be swung to the horizontal position. I think this would be extremely useful for macro work. One thing that concerns me about this tripod is the weight (5 lbs). Manfrotto makes a carbon version of this tripod but it's only 1 lb lighter so I don't think it's worth the additional ~$200 in price.


Two things I like about the FEISOL are its weight (2.27 lbs) and it does not have a center column (more stable).


At ~$300 the FEISOL is at the top of my budget since I still need to purchase a ball head to go with it. To pair with the Manfrotto I was thinking of the Manfrotto 488RC2 and for the FEISOL the FEISOL CB-50D.


I am certainly open to other suggestions. These are just two tripods that I have heard/read about and that I thought would satisfy my needs.


One more note. Weight is not my 1st concern since I don't do a lot of hiking or traveling. Most of the time I use a tripod I probably won't be lugging it too far but lets be honest, lighter is usually better [:)]

Mark;


I opted for the Feisol CT 3371 3 section w/the Manfrotto 488 RC4. My equipment; 40D 100-400 IS.


Concerning the tripod; I'm very happy, collapsed it's a little large, but I need a tall tripod to look thru the viewer at eye level. I don't need to fully extend (98%) this tripod for my eye level. I find it is quite sturdy and handles cold weather really well....think New England in January photographing birds by rivers and ocean. The N. Amer. Feisol group is an excellent group to work with....they want to please their customers.


The 488 is quite adequate for holding my camera and lens....no worries about flopping when clamped down. I would just like to see the ball move a little smoother (hot and cold temps), but this was just a quick (lower price, budget) solution for a ball head. But I'm still using it a year and half later....I guess that says something. It's easily transferable to my monopod.


Good luck


Bill

I'm also considering a Feisol tripod right now. So I'd go with the Fesiol. If build quality is as good as they (Feisol) say and as good as people say then you get much better setup for your money - high end carbon fiber and much much lighter (thanks to the carbon). I actually think that the if you get the more heavy one, one day you might regret it.


Note, I still don't have a tripod myself so what I said is just what I *think*, it's not based on personal experience. Let's wait for more replies and see what others, with more "tripod experience" think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill W

I opted for the Feisol CT 3371 3 section w/the Manfrotto 488 RC4. My equipment; 40D 100-400 IS.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Bill,


Any reason you did not consider the FEISOL CB-50D? It's not much more expensive than the Manfrotto 488RC2.

Mark;


I did consider the CB-50D, but the only reason I opted for the 488 RC4 was the level bubble....I don't even use it. What did I know, it was my first foray into ball heads and a level made sense....at the time. I was also inexperienced in PP.


But considering the quality of the Feisol tripod and knowing what I know now, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase the CB-50D in conjunction with their tripod.


Reading the description, it just may be an upgrade to the Manfrotto.....hmm, you're making me think about spending (more) money Mark when I need a new monitor (very soon) and I still want to add the 100 Macro 2.8 to my kit. [:D]


Keep me posted if you purchase it.


Regards


Bill

Take a peek at this article before you pull the trigger: [View:http://www.bythom.com/support.htm]

I looked at the Manfrotto 055XPROB and the Feisol CT-3441S, and ended up with the Feisol CT-3441S. No regrets at all...the Feisol is a solid tripod. It's very light, and relatively easy to work with.


Take a look at the Photo Clam ballheads sold by ReallyBigCameras (the best US distributor for Feisol tripods as well). The guy who runs the site tried to convince me to get one when I got my tripod...he had just gotten them at the time. I kind of regret not getting one...early reports are quite positive. I ended up instead getting a Giottos MH-1302 and an Acratech quick-release platform. Not a bad combo, but I'll be upgrading eventually.


I've used my with a Sigma 100-300 f/4, which is similar in weight to the Canon 100-400...it carries the weight with no problem. It isn't stable enough to take long exposures at 400mm, but it'd cost at least $800 to get something that was. 200mm is definitely doable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

Take a peek at this article before you pull the trigger: [View:http://www.bythom.com/support.htm]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I've read that article [:)]. Although I respect what he's saying, I think it's complete overkill for the typical user. I would be VERY interested to see a side-by-side comparison with his Gitzo setup next to a Manfrotto kit (or comparable) a-la ISO chart comparisons. There's no doubt that it's both lighter and easier to use but unless you're trekking around the world like Art Wolfe or the like I think that it's completely unnecessary to drop$1,000+ on a tripod/ball head. All of my (extra [:D]) money will go towards glass...or maybe body upgrades where you will arguably get the biggest bang for the buck.


What I am looking for is an affordable (~$300-$500) setup that is stable with a ballhead that can support up to maybe 10 lbs. I can't imagine owning anything that would weigh more than that.


I appreciate the response Pete. I'm sorry if my post seemed hostile. I know that you were just being helpful. Even though many things Thom said where true I think he was a little obtuse in his thinking when making recommendations. All I am saying is that not everybody needs what he is advizing. My comments were directed towards his article and not you [:)]

Mark;


When I was researching tripods and heads I read the same article and came to the same conclusion....I'm no Art Wolfe. [:)]


I knew I wanted a CF tripod for my mid-winter shooting and trekking, but dropping a grand on a tripod and another 1/2 grand on a ball head was beyond my senses and shallow pockets....I'm just a retired hobbyist who creates snap shots. [:$]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill W

Reading the description, it just may be an upgrade to the Manfrotto.....hmm, you're making me think about spending (more) money Mark when I need a new monitor (very soon) and I still want to add the 100 Macro 2.8 to my kit. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


Keep me posted if you purchase it.


Regards


Bill
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Bill,



Thanks for all of your input. If I end up getting the CB-50D I'll be sure to let you know what I think of it. For the time being though keep saving up for that 100mm f/2.8 macro. You'll love it! It's a super fun lens :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

I realize that this isn't an apples to apples comparison but never the less these are two tripods that I am considering:


Manfrotto 055XPROB


FEISOL CT-3342

---

I am a Manfrotto guy, but I think that out of these two, the Feisol is a better choice. Things I like about it are maximal height, foldedlength, light weight and the material - carbon fiber.My buddies use Feisol and they swear by it. And if you ever decide to add center column or an angle adapter - they are always available.