Tripod & head recommendations for a 6'2" guy?

[Feanor]

I could really do with getting a tripod at some point, but I find the options available very confusing. Not only does there seem to be more models out there than you can shake a stick at, but none of them have names or numbers that make any sense to me (perhaps it's just me, but I get lost if products have models longer than three digits!). To make matters worse, manufacturers seem to change their range every year or two so whenever I read a review of a tripod that I like and look into it further I find that it's been discontinued.


Anyway. As I said, maybe that's just me. But my point is that I'm looking for a good tripod to fit my 6'2" frame. Of course I'd like something that's reasonably lightweight and folds up small but I know this can make things very expensive - I'm not willing to spend more than £500-£600 for the tripod & ball (about US$715 - $860 as the yoyo that we call an exchange rate is at the moment).


FWIW Ihave a 400D(Rebel XTi?), a 5DII on order, a 24-70 f2.8L, a 70-200 f2.8L IS, a 2x Extender II and a 580 EXII. I like shooting all sorts of things including fast-moving stuff (yes, the reports about the AF on the 5DII are concerning me) and would like a smooth ball head so I have the option to shoot movies. Perhaps a head that has preset positions for panoramics might be cool too.


Any ideas, or am I asking for too much from too small a budget?

[perk1961]

Hi If you look at monfrotto thay have what will work for you I have a 3021bpro which has changed already, and a medium ball head for under 300I think the new carbon fiber is an 055 model. they will be tall enough good luck Perk

[nimo956]

Here is a list of gear to get that meets your budget (all prices are from bhphotovideo.com):


Bogen-Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod Legs- $144.95 (These are very sturdy legs, but they are a bit heavy being aluminum and not carbon-fiber; if you want the lightest legs, look into a Gitzo, but it will cost at least $600)


Arca-Swiss Monoball Z1 (Single Pan) w/ Flip-Lock Release- $409.95


Wimberley P5 Quick Release Plate- $52.00 (This is for the camera body)


Wimberley P20 Lens Plate- $51.95 (This is for your 70-200 f/2.8 L IS to be used with the tripod mount ring that it came with)


Bogen-Manfrotto 35" Padded Tripod Bag- $46.95


Total: $705.80 (not including tax + shipping)

[Feanor]

Thanks guys, that's really helpful!


Excellent equipment list there nimo, I'm doing some research on your suggestions but I'll probably just end up buying exactly what you suggest! It won't be yet though, my savings are already taking a hit from my 5DII (when it eventually arrives) .


Out of curiosity, what Gitzo tripod would you recommend? I've had a look at the models reviewed here but none of them are as tall as the Manfrotto, and they're 400g heavier which seems to defeat the point to me - strength doesn't really matter as I can't see I'd ever need to mount more than 7kg to a tripod.


(Sorry about the metric on a US forum, despite just quoting my height in imperial I'm only able to weigh in metric because of the ridiculous mix of two measuring systems we have in the UK...)

[ShutterbugJohan]

I'm 6'1" and I own a Manfotto 055XPROB. It is by no means small or light. It is huge and heavy! :-) If you want something small and light, you will probably want a carbon fiber model. Also, you will want a fluid head for video. Anyway, I hope this helps. :-)

[unjx]

Hi Feanor,


I really like my Berlebach tripod. It is of excellent quality. And with the legs being made of wood it is very still, with little vibration. Berlebach makes different sizes, so height is not an issue.


I use the model Report 2042 and I love it. ( I am 6' 1" )


Berlebach website: http://www.berlebach.de/?sprache=english


I use Bogen for heads

[George Slusher]

I won't recommend a particular tripod or ballhead, though that is what you asked for. To do that, I'd need to work with you to figure out what you'd do with tripod, where you'd use it, your preferences, etc. I will tell you what I chose, which has worked well for me.


There are many tripods that would fit you. To figure this out, measure your camera from the bottom to the eyepiece (roughly), then add in the height of the ballhead. For my 30D with grip and Markins M10 ballhead, that's about 9". Subtract that from the height of your eye, which is roughly 4-5" shorter than your height, though it can vary. I lean over a bit to use the camera, so I like it a bit lower. I am 5'9" and use a Feisol CT-3372 without a center column--it has a max height of 59", so the eyepiece can be as high as 68", several inches higher than I need. Add in the center column and it can go to about 76", much taller than you would need--it would work for someone 76 + 9 + 4 = 89" (7' 5") tall.


I went through this same process a few months ago. Here's what I figured out about tripods. Note that there are a lot of tradeoffs: there's no such thing as the "perfect" tripod for everyone.


1. Carbon fiber is lighter & damps vibration better than aluminum, but is more expensive. If you want to keep the cost down and don't mind several extra pounds, aluminum can be nice. (Do get foam wraps or tape for the legs, especially if you work outdoors in cold or hot weather, as the aluminum is a very good conductor of heat.)


2. Three leg sections are more stable than four (much less five!), but four makes for a smaller (shorter) folded length.


3. Retractable (or changeable) spikes are nice for working in soft ground.


4. You will pay a LOT of money for a name (e.g., Gitzo), even though the design may not be the best. For example, the ballhead mount (which holds everything together) on most Gitzo's (and many others) is cast metal (and poorly-finished metal, at that, though Gitzo makes a virtue of the rough surface of their mounts).* The mount on the Feisol CT 3372 is milled from a solid block of aluminum, which is much stronger. On the other hand, some people like Gitzo's "anti-rotation" legs.


5. Twist locks are more reliable than "flip" locks--IF you take care to tighten them properly! (If you don't have a Gitzo with anti-rotation legs, you need to unlock from small-to-large and lock from large-to-small. If you try going the other way, you'll quickly figure out your mistake. []) Flip locks are more convenient and a bit faster.


6. Variable-angle legs and a removable center column (or no center column!) are nice, as they allow you to get down low, as well as high, if you like to do macro shots or shoot wildlife from a prone position.


7. There are special tripods that can put the camera in a horizontal position, or where the legs can be set at any angle, like the Gitzo Explorer series, but they tend to be more expensive.


8. There are add-ons/accessories for some brands (e.g., Gitzo, Feisol), like leveling bases, horizontal columns, panning bases, vibration dampers (really just hunks of metal), that can add to the versatility.


Beyond that, you're going to have to figure out just what you want to do with the tripod. Your gear isn't all that heavy, though it's too much for the really lightweight tripods. You'd want a max load maybe double the weight of your gear. Once you've met that criterion, the rest is a matter of what you want to do, personal preference, and budget. At the end, I chose the top-of-the-line Feisol, rather than a Gitzo costing a lot more.


I've been through a lot of tripods: ancient (1978!) Velbon; cheap Sunpak that came with my Canon Optura 50 camcorder; big, heavy, tall Amvona aluminum beast that became unusable when one of the flip locks failed; small Amvona carbon fiber; Fancier (brand, not a comment!) CF; and, finally, the Feisol. I will keep the Fancier, as well as the Feisol, as it is more compact (folds to about 19" vs 26") and lighter (2.8 vs 3.8 lbs) than the Feisol, more convenient for traveling and hiking. It will actually fit into a 22" carryon bag without the ballhead. I can also carry it on a Gitzo holster, rather than a shoulder strap; the Feisol is just too big for that.


* I have a small knowledge of metals and design, having three degrees in mechanical engineering from MIT. I even took a course that involved foundry work.


As for the head, a good ballhead isn't hard to find, but it won't be cheap.


1. The ballhead is more important than the tripod--and it may cost almost as much. You'll adjust the ballhead a lot more than the tripod.


2. It sounds like you may like a ballhead where you can set the friction, so that you can (fairly) smoothly move the camera and it won't move if you let go (within reason: tilt way over and it will slowly drop). That leaves out many of the cheaper heads, but includes the high-quality heads from Kirk, Really Right Stuff, Markins, Arca-Swiss, etc. (I don't know much about Gitzo heads.) Here's an article and another that compare several heads.


3. Don't skimp on the max load!


4. You probably don't want to screw the ballhead directly to your camera or lens foot. Instead, use a quick-release system. Here, you have two basic routes.


a. You can go with "proprietary" (i.e., one-manufacturer) systems, like most Manfrotto heads. They can have some advantages: they "snap" in, rather than having to be tightened, so they're quicker to use. However, most cannot be tightened if they're a bit loose and you're stuck with one source of plates. Worse, the plates are probably "all-purpose" designs that use cork or rubber against the camera or lens foot in a vain attempt to keep the camera from rotating on the plate, especially in portrait mode. That can be a serious problem with your 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, which is a real beast. People will try to "fix" this by tightening the screw as much as they can. Unfortunately, the cork or rubber gives, so it's easy to over-tighten the screw and possibly damage the tripod socket on the camera. I would stay away from that sort of system for anything beyond a point-and-shoot camera or a small DSLR with a small lens.


b. Better, use the Arca-Swiss system. For one thing, it's standard across many manufacturers (Gitzo, Wimberley, Kirk, Really Right Stuff, Markins, Photo Clam, Arca-Swiss, Acratech, and others, including some that are cheap but not well made). It's also easy to get custom-designed plates for your camera body and lens collars. (You will find that the 70-200mm lens is easier to use mounted using the tripod ring than the camera body.) Kirk and Really Right Stuff make a wide range of plates. I like the "L" plates. (Mine are by Really Right Stuff, but Kirk makes good L plates, too.) The L plate has the advantage that you can quickly switch from landscape to portrait mode without flopping the ballhead over into the drop notch. It's more stable and you don't have to recompose the shot. It also adds other uses--see the Really Right Stuff site. Another advantage is that a lot of accessories (flash brackets, macro rails, panoramic rigs, etc) are made for the Arca-Swiss system. (I have several flash brackets and two clamps that i can put on my monopod, macro rail, Joby Gorillapod, etc.)


After agonizing over the choice of a ballhead, and trying several cheap heads (the last a cheap Chinese Arca-Swiss-type head by "Triopo," which is OK for light loads), I bought a Markins M10. I almost bought a Benro ballhead, but am glad that I didn't.


A ballhead would not be good for movies if you want to pan or tilt the camera. No matter how "smooth" the ballhead is, it will jerk and tilt, etc., when you move the camera. The results would be horrible in a movie. Instead, you should get a head specifically designed for video. Manfrotto makes several. Another option--the way I've gone--if you use a lightweight camcorder, is to get a fairly cheap "all-purpose" tripod with a 3-way head that's smooth. Many of the inexpensive Sunpak tripods work quite well.


Now, for something completely different. If you like following fast action (race cars, horses, sports, etc) with a collared lens (e.g., your 70-200mm f/2.8), a gimbal head can be a nice addition. A gimbal head will allow you to pan and the camera pretty much like a fluid head, but it can hold a much heavier system and is easier to balance (especially the top-mount gimbals). You can set it up so that you can move the camera & lens with one finger, but, when you let go, it stays in place. (If you use a large flash, especially on a bracket, you should probably use the top-mount system.) There are several options that are not terribly expensive for mid-weight lenses, including the Wimberley Sidekick, which attaches to your ballhead (flopped over into the drop notch) and the Jobu Jr. Both are side-mount, but the Jobu Jr (which I have) can be converted into a top-mount gimbal with an "L" adapter. The Sidekick's big advantage is that you don't have to remove your ballhead, so you can fairly quickly shift back to using the ballhead directly.

[Feanor]

Wow George, that's a reply worthy of one of Bryan's reviews! Thank you, it's going to take a while for me to digest all that info while I research but I will think very carefully about everything you've said. I really hope Google picks up on your post as I think it'd be very useful for other people too.





unjx - hmm, that particular model is 800 grams heavier than the Manfrotto so I doubt it's for me. But I'll definitely take a good look at the other Berlebach tripods .

I'm 6'1" and I own a Manfotto 055XPROB. It is by no means small or light. It is huge and heavy! :-) If you want something small and light, you will probably want a carbon fiber model. Also, you will want a fluid head for video. Anyway, I hope this helps. :-)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Interesting, thanks. I had been thinking that at 2.4kg - less than the carbon fibre Gitzos mentioned above - the Manfrotto was pretty good lightness-for-money, as it were. Although I really like the Feisol linked to by George I'm not sure whether &pound;300 is worth 700 grams to me - I'm reasonably fit and strong (if I do say so myself!) so as long as I have good straps and bags I don't mind carrying things around. But I know that weight isn't the only consideration - I gather a tripod is probably more of an investment than any of the rest of my camera gear.

[Feanor]

George - I've pretty much decided on the Feisol. At Feisol Europe there are some new models available, the CT-3372LV and 3472LV with leveling base center columns which seem like a useful idea. I've just gotta think about whether I want three or four sections. The 3471 seems like very good value but doesn't have a very good height and lacks the leveling base; I'm always suspicious on skimping on a long-term investment like this.


Anyway, I'd like to clarify something with you about the tripod head. You suggest a gimbal head as a "nice addition." Do I therefore need a ball head as well? I mean, do I also need a ball head for when I'm shooting with my 24-70, or can I also use a gimbal head to mount the camera body directly? I don't think that getting both is an option just yet, but it's certainly worth considering at some point when funds allow.

[George Slusher]

The 3471 seems like very good value but doesn't have a very good height and lacks the leveling base;

The 3472LV has a center column; that's what makes it higher. If you have a tripod (or access to one), set it up with your camera and a ballhead so that it's right for you, then measure to the top of the base to get a dimension to compare to the tripods. I set up my CT-3372 at its full height. The camera eyepiece is at about 69", far too high for me. That's with the optional retractable spikes, which add a little bit to the height. The CT-3471 is actually about an inch taller than the CT-3372, so that would put the eyepiece at about 70" with the spikes. You have to figure it for your camera, though. I have a 30D with battery grip. Also, I like to have the eyepiece a bit lower than my standing eye level. That allows me to point the camera down, as well as up, and not to have to get as close to the tripod. If the eyepiece is at true eye level, I have to get rather intimate with the tripod to use it. [] The closer I get, the more likely I am to bump against the tripod. On the other hand, if one wants to shoot birds in flight, it might be better to have the camera a bit higher, so that one can easily get below it.


As for the leveling base (or column), it looks ingenious, but there is no bubble level on the base that I can see. In order to get it really level, you might have to do something like I do: take off the ballhead, place a bubble level on the base, and level using the leveling column. (I have to fiddle with the leg lengths--see below!) Another solution (ready to spend more money?[]) would be to get Really Right Stuff's new leveling plate (there are two sizes--check the base diameter of the ballhead). It fits between the base and the ballhead. The flat part is about 1/16" thick, according to Really Right Stuff, so it takes up 1 thread on the mounting screw (3/8-16).


Feisol also makes a leveling base without a column that does have a bubble level. It replaces the flat base on the tripod. (You have to get the right leveling base for a particular tripod.) That base would allow one to take the tripod down lower than the leveling column would, as it doesn't project as far beneath the base. (You can remove the leveling column, of course. Check with FeisolEurope if the CT-3472LV comes with the flat base, as well as the column.) It would add about an inch to the height of the base.


I expect that you understand why you would want to level the base/tripod, rather than just the camera. For taking still photos in one orientation, you can level the camera with a bubble level attached to the hot shoe. However, if you then pan using the panning base on the ballhead, the camera will probably not remain level: you need to ensure that the axis of the ballhead's panning base is vertical. This will be very critical when you do panoramas.


I had the chance to handle the large and tournament class tripods, as
the owner of Really Big Cameras (a Feisol dealer) is in Portland, Oregon, about 100 miles
north of me. I was surprised at the dramatic difference in weight between the older, cheaper CT-3371 (4.85 lb) and newer CT-3372 (3.79 lb). The legs are the same: the difference is in the mount base: the **72 series have CNC-milled bases, while the **71 series have cast bases (like Gitzo tripods). The milled base is lighter and stronger than the cast base.


Whichever tripod you get, I'd recommend getting the spikes with the tripod. For one thing, the
shipping will be less if you get everything at once. They also provide
a more reliable support in soft ground. Get the aluminum spikes, unless
you'll be working on concrete or asphalt a lot. The stainless steel
spikes are REALLY heavy.

Anyway, I'd like to clarify something with you about the tripod head. You suggest a gimbal head as a "nice addition." Do I therefore need a ball head as well? I mean, do I also need a ball head for when I'm shooting with my 24-70, or can I also use a gimbal head to mount the camera body directly? I don't think that getting both is an option just yet, but it's certainly worth considering at some point when funds allow.

What sort of head you get will depend upon what you want to do. A ballhead is versatile, but it is hard to aim extremely precisely (e.g., for close-up macro shots) and it's hard to smoothly follow a moving subject, even with a "smooth" ballhead. (The Markins heads, including my M10, are supposed to be among the smoothest available. I can move the camera to follow some subjects, but not fast ones, like galloping horses.) A ballhead would not be suitable for shooting movies where you want to move the camera. The results will probably be terrible: jerky, tilting, overshooting, etc. For movies, a fluid pan-tilt head is much better. (Heck, even the cheap Sunpak pan-tilt tripods are better.) I have a Bogen/Manfrotto 3126 (replaced by the 128LP). It doesn't have a quick-release, but that's not as useful with video cameras as still cameras. (I can attach a Kirk Arca-Swiss clamp, if I need to. I also use that clamp on my macro focussing rail.)


For fast-moving objects (e.g., birds in flight, running animals, cars), a gimbal head works a lot better. Set up properly, the camera-lens combination is balanced and will stay put when you let go and will move smoothly and easily in both pan (yaw) and tilt (pitch) axes. However, a gimbal head isn't very convenient for short lenses. For one thing, the quick-release clamp is oriented front-back, for a lens collar/ring, rather than side-to-side for a camera plate. One common solution would be to use the Wimberley Sidekick with your ballhead. (You flop the ballhead over into the drop notch, orienting the clamp so that the opening is vertical. The Sidekick slips into the ballhead's clamp. (Some heads and clamps require an adapter.) However, I bought the Jobu Jr. It's a better sidemount head than the Sidekick in some ways. Some people say that it's easier to attach the Sidekick to a ballhead, but I can unscrew my Markins M10 and screw on the Jobu Jr in about the time it would take to flop the ballhead over into the drop notch, turn the clamp vertical and attach the Sidekick. (It's interesting to note that the Sidekick and the Jobu Jr. cost about the same--$250 vs $269 in the US--and weigh about the same--1.3 lbs, so it's no different buying or carrying one or the other. However, since the Sidekick requires the ballhead, there's a bit more weight on top of the tripod than with the Jobu Jr.)


The gimbal heads are really designed for lenses the size of the 300mm f/2.8L IS or larger. However, I have no problem balancing my Jobu Jr with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, even with a 1.4x extender, as long as I take the battery grip off my 30D. With the battery grip, it's nearly impossible to completelybalance, especially with the extender. (The good thing is that it ends up being a bit "camera-heavy," which is much better than "lens-heavy"--it will slowly tilt upward, rather than fall down and hit the lens on the head or tripod. In any case, it's easy to hold still.) I can also balance my 100-400mm and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses without the battery grip. (The 70-200mm f/4L IS works better if I put the clamp on the left side of the camera, as the tripod mount ring almost touches the front of the camera grip if it's on the right.)


I took some pictures of my 30D and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens on the Jobu Jr and will try to post them in another reply later today. (It's 6 AM and I need to get to bed!)