Tripod Shopping-Manfrotto Options

I know-if I read Thom Hogan I should go out and drop $1500 on a set of Gitzo legs and an Arca Swiss(or other brand) head. Yes, I know he says $1K but the article is 10+ years old.

 

In any case, for quite a while now I've been using a trusty Tilt-All for pretty much everything up to 4x5. I love it, but after 10 years I want something that's lighter and more flexible.

 

I stopped by the local (new) camera store today, and spent some time playing with a couple of options. All they carry is Manfrotto, and I hit on a combination that I at least look how it works and seems to work for me.

 

First of all, I'm 6'2", so I tend toward taller tripods to be comfortable.

 

The combo is a 055-XPRO and a XPRO-BHQ2 head.

 

The main use will be a with a Nikon D800 or F100. My heaviest regular use lens that I will be using is the 14-24mm f/2.8. I have an 80-200 f/2.8(no tripod collar) that gets infrequent use, and the only lens with a tripod collar I own(and I don't see this changing any time soon) is a 300mm f/4. From in-store testing, I need to tilt my head a bit or raise the center column less than an inch to bring it to eye level. Any other lens use would be primes or zooms in the 24-200 range, and the heaviest body I'd realistically use is an F5(or possibly in the future something like a D3 or D4).

 

It seems like this combination would be usable also with my 500C and 250mm Sonnar. Moving the legs out one "click" seems like it would be about right for a waist level finder.

 

I have an RB67 outfit, but I don't have an issue hauling out my Tiltall or one of my other heavy tripods(I have a few massive ones) for it or large format.

 

My main interests for tripod use at least are landscape, some architecturalish-landscape type work(if that makes any sense) and macro(both outdoors and in the studio of relatively stationary objects).

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this combo for the uses I've outlined?

Even after reading Thom's article, I was not prepared to spend the big bucks for the top of the line kit. For hiking, I opted for light weight and bought an Acratech head (full price) and Velbon carbon legs with lever clamps at less than half the cost of premium brand legs. Since then, I acquired two tripods with with Arca-Swiss and RRS heads, and Gitzo legs, from a retired photographer. I find that I still use my lightweight Acratech+lightweight carbon leg kit 98% of the time. I rarely drag the BH55+G3530 (a very sweet kit!) out of the closet unless I am going to use very long/heavy lenses or do macro/studio work.

 

Over the years, I have acquired several low cost ball heads at estate sales and have disassembled several to improve their performance. The Acratech and RRS heads are worth the $$$.

 

Take home from my experience is the tripod that is with you is the one you use. If it is light and compact enough, it tends to be with you more than a heavy kit. The mantra of rock-solid and no sagging will cost you weight and $$$.

 

BTW, you can make a Tilt-All column from a 1.25" tube with a plywood platform epoxied to the top. Embed a 3/8" threaded rod and mount the ball head.

It's hard to find a tripod ideal for the uses the OP lists - landscape, architecture and closeups.

 

For landscapes, a column is of little use except extra height for comfort. A long-legged tripod, like a Gitzo G3540XL, with a leveling platform instead of a column is 66" tall, plus another 6" for head and camera to the eyepiece. A leveling platform makes it easy to do panoramas with minimal loss due to cropping out jagged borders. Getting low is useful for wide angle shots, emphasizing something in the foreground.

 

For architecture, the same features apply as for landscapes, except a column is useful for fine-tuning the perspective with near and far objects.

 

Closeups are special. The idea of inverting the column is more often described than actually used. If the eyepiece is between two legs, the lens is pointing directly at the third. For me, the ideal tripod is a Benbo with a small ball head (e.g., BH-40). The legs and column angles are infinitely adjustable, and locked firmly in position by a single lever. You hold the camera (always!), kick the legs into place with a foot, position the camera where you want it, then lock it down. The downside is its bulk, weight, and the fact you have to do the Benbo dance each time you use it. There are no shortcuts.

 

Likewise, there are no cheap, effective ball heads. In order to get smooth, non-stick action and good lockup, the ball has to be as large as possible. I have an Arca B1, RRS BH-55 and BH-40. The BH-40 is half the weight and an inch shorter then the BH-55, and more than adequate for cameras up to Hasselblad size. The Arca is strong, easy to use (one knob), but quirky. The Arca-style clamp and beveled plate QR is non pariel for security and rigidity.

More recently I acquired an RRS "tall" #2. It is as stiff as a Gitzo #3 but 1-1/2# lighter, and extends to 66" without a column. The center is replaceable with a flat plate (standard), column or leveling head, which clamp into place securely. I recently carried it to Ireland, then proceeded to use it exactly one time, for a panorama. I find panoramas more interesting in the taking than in the printing (my wife decides what hangs on the wall). The use of image stabilization, lens and/or camera, renders a tripod largely unnecessary, except for starry landscapes, closeups and ultimate resolution.

 

I dislike leg clamps. They're noisy, require frequent adjustment, hold less strongly than collars, and the slit lets dirt and sand inside the legs. Most of the objections to collars (e.g., the famous Tiltall, which sits in my closet) were solved when Gitzo and others molded a keyway inside the legs, preventing rotation.

 

There are cheaper alternatives to Gitzo and RRS, but these brands are very well made and reliable, sight-unseen. A good tripod is worth as much to photography as a good lens, so what the heck?

Which Tripod? The 055-XPROB or 055-XPRO3, the latter is the replacement for the former and there are a few differences: the main difference you might consider is the payload weight, 7kg vs. 9kg.

 

I have a few Tripods and several Heads: one is the Manfrotto 055-PROB. For the purposes of feedback and comment to your question my Manfrotto Tripod is very similar to both the 055-XPRO models, the main difference being that mine is a tad shorter; and the leg splays are set at slightly different angles. The payload for my Manfrotto is rated at 7kg.

 

I mainly use Canon DSLR on this tripod. Typically, 5D Series Cameras and I do not often remove the Battery Pack from the Camera, which I should, in theory do. Lenses used would be: 16 to 35/2.8; 14/2.8; 50/2.5 and 100/2.8 Macro, sometimes Extension Tubes or x1.4 tele-extender added. I have a Tripod Collar Mount for my 100/2.8 and I use it. Occasionally I’ve used the 70 to 200/2.8 on this tripod, this lens has a Tripod Collar Mount and I use it. Longer telephotos, (300/2.8 or 400/2.8), I have rarely if ever, used on a Tripod, they are used on a Monopod).

 

As to advice/comment, I think that the Tripod you’re considering (either model) presents good value for money for the tasks that you outline. You’re reasonably tall, I am not ever keen to extend the centre column, so in your position, if it does not present too much pain I’d bend over; use Live View (if you have it); or consider an Angle Finder, rather than extending the Centre Column much more than an inch or two, if at all.

 

I find that a counter weight attached to the centre column, or underneath the Head Assembly assists stability; it’s not difficult to find a balance of enough downward force (say from a brick, sandbag or rock) whilst a part of the edge of the weight just touches the ground to stop it moving. I carry a bobbin of Mason’s Twine for this purpose – it expands a tad and is just springy enough to do a good job for the short distance to the ground level. Additionally you can build rocks against the legs, etc.

 

I think you are making a mistake with the choice of Head. I have several Manfrotto Heads, including two Ball Heads, one an older, but similar model, to the one that you cited, the other is specifically designed for Monopod use. I have found that Ball Heads, generally, are difficult to lock exactly on target. Additionally, if there is any ‘play’ or ‘wobble’ it is my experience it is a result of the Ball Head and not the tripod. Also I find them more cumbersome for Composition and Framing. I’d encourage you to consider a 3-Way Geared Head. I use the Manfrotto 405, I think there is a ‘Junior’ version of that. I suggest that you consider both.

 

On another tack, the 128 LP (which I have) is not a stupid consideration for the work that you describe, even though it probably is designed for Video. I use this Head quite a lot, it locks very firmly and is easy to use – but you do NOT have Horizon Tilt, only Pan and Front / Back Tilt, so Horizons need to be framed level using either Tripod Legs, or shooting a tad wide and cropping in Post Production. There used to be a Quick Release version of this P&T Head, if available now it would probably have ’QR’ as its suffix.

 

In general, the 055 Series Tripods are very ‘flexible’ – I don’t think you will have very much difficulty in getting it to ‘bend’ to a design to get into tight spots or adapt to odd locations. They’re not super light, but not too heavy either. I travel with mine easily.

 

I reckon that you really should consider a Tripod Collar Mount for your 80~200/2.8 – it gets the Camera back off the centre acting as a counter balance for the lens and that is only good when you have a longer lens bouncing around way in front of the centre of gravity of the total rig.

 

I still have 645 Film gear, and yes, splaying the legs of the Tripod is good for Waist Level. Personally I wouldn’t consider putting a ‘blad and a 250 Sonnar on a Ball Head, from memory that’s about a kilo of lens hanging off centre, probably less mass than your 80 to 200/2.8, but nonetheless a big ‘wobbly’ thing hanging over the edge supported by a locking ball and I don’t know if there is a Tripod Collar for the lens – I suspect not?

 

I guess you might glean I am not a fan of Ball Heads – I figure if I am going to the trouble of setting a Tripod, I want the top bit as stable as practicable – the point is - all the wobble is going to be: at the top of the rig.

 

WW

Manfrotto legs are fine, but I'm really not impressed with their latest batch of heads. Way too much plastic involved. Not to mention the awful QR plates that they seem to change the design of every 5 minutes.

 

I also don't see the attraction of ball-heads. A simple 3-way head is far more robust, controllable and vibration resistant. Not to mention cheaper than any ball-head worth having. I'd rather spend a few more seconds aiming the camera than have it wobbling around on top of a thin metal stalk.

 

Not too sure about having a 5"x4" on top of the 055 legs either. A 'blad maybe.

If your LF camera is a lightweight wooden view job - possibly.

Edited May 5, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I have two old 055s that I have had for more than 20 years, using them on everything up to my 8x10 Intrepid, and all sizes down from there--4x5, 5x7, Hasselblad, 35mm. I have a good wood tripod, and a much larger Manfrotto, with the crutch-style legs, and they're just too heavy to drag around outside.

 

The weak spot of this tripod (and all tripods, probably) is the column. If you keep it low and extend the legs first, it will hold a lot of weight comfortably and steadily. I have a bunch of Manfrotto heads, and IMO they all suffer from having relatively thin cross-sections in the adjustment pivots. Though I don't like ball heads, I've been considering a low, big one, with a thick neck for the larger cameras. I'm not wild about the new plastic Manfrotto heads, but don't have any actual experience. Most of mine are heads for the ancient hex plate, which works great, IF you pay attention. I have been using Arca-style QR lately for large format, though, with long mounting plates so I can set the balance point where I want, and they appear adequate. I mount a separate QR right on the Manfrotto hex plate, and still use the hex plates for 35mm, etc. I don't like the more recent Manfrotto QR styles.

 

If you like the Tiltall, you will find the 055 sufficient (I switched to the 055 from Tiltall), but do think a lot about the head you choose.

 

I have an 8x10 Ansco view in my studio. Twelve pounds of wood. I put it on the 055, just to see, since it's within the 055 weight specs. I could see it working, but it was a bit scary, and I don't think I would do it. Nine pounds of 5x7 is fine. I think what scares me is not the weight, but getting too much weight out away from the center of the setup.

Edited May 5, 2018 by michael_darnton|2

+1 on Arca-Swiss ballheads being quirky in use. +1 on comments on Manfrotto ballheads. Re: 3-way heads, they don't fit well on my day pack, so they don't come with me in the field. On the OP's question, he already has the TiltAll and other heavy tripods, so a good ballhead and carbon legs are in order. I'm satisfied using the same camera (D800) and lenses on top of my Acratech head in the field. If I need a more solid tripod and head, I'll bring out the BH55 kit. It's weight and tripod leg ergonomics that would drive my purchasing decision. The ballhead would be one of my "keepers" (Acratech or RRS). No comment on carbon legs - too many options these days.

Thanks everyone for the comments and input.

 

The legs I'm looking at are the Pro-3.

 

In any case, the consensus seems to be(if I'm reading right) that the legs are a good choice but that I should reconsider the head.

 

The only ball head I have any experience with is the ancient Leitz tabletop tripod, and it's certainly a good head but I'm not 100% sold on ball heads either. I guess I'm looking at that because it seems the default.

 

In any case, I looked at an 808RC4 head also yesterday, but discounted it because of its 3 1/2lb weight. I'll look at some other pan/tilt heads and see what's out there.

 

As for the Hasselblad, I mentioned the 250mm Sonnar as an "extreme" option and truthfully rarely use that lens. It's an 80mm Planar or 50mm Distagon most of the time.

 

Also, the Tiltall isn't going anywhere, and I have another massive tripod(not sure of the brand) that weighs about 20lbs with a great pan-tilt head.

 

In any case, thanks again for all the input.

If I may, let me recommend an older 3047 head for a Manfrotto 055. I've used them for years, and there are still a lot of good used ones out there. I know the hex-plates are obsolete, but I solved that with an adapter from a Canadian firm which takes the place of the hex plates, and has a Arca-Swiss plate. Hejnar Photo makes quite a few adapter plates.

 

Hejnar Photo - Design Manufacture Delivered

 

PS - I'm with a lot of folks on the ball head. They're hard to use, and I've been doing photography for over 50 years. I've always thought the 3-axis heads make the most sense.

I am bemused, as always, by adulation of the venerable Tiltall (no hyphen) tripod.I bought mine in 1965, when it probably the best value on the market. It is no lightweight at over 6 pounds, and has knurled collars that would slice your fingers if dinged. Unlike lesser tripods, the collars seldom jammed, particularly if you kept a light layer of Vasoline on the legs. I keep it for old times sake, little else. The head is not interchangeable, and has no version with QR. I suspect most of its admirers have never used a better tripod, or have never owned a Tiltall.

 

I use my Hasselblad exclusively outdoors, for landscapes and architecture. A ball head is ideal for use on uneven surfaces, as long as it works without slip-stick action, and hold the payload at any angle. I've used mine with a 4x5 monorail camera, which weighs 8 pounds and has a high center of gravity. The Arca B1 or RRS BH-55 will hold it at any angle, including vertical (for copying).

 

The handles of most 3-way heads wobble when loose, making fine adjustments difficult. Furthermore inexpensive heads exhibit slip-stick action, exacerbated by the wobbly handles. Besides that, they're hard to carry or pack due to the protruding handles. They are better for studio work than in the field, and for view cameras, which need only 2-way action (tilt and pan) once leveled. If I needed 3-way control in a serious fashion, a geared head would be ideal, particularly the Arca Cube, or an high quality fluid head. Once leveled, a fluid head is very quick to use, and has no slip-stick action. For non-video types, shopping for a good fluid head has a significant sticker shock, $1000 to over $2000 for cameras under 8 pounds, and they're bulky and heavy.

The trade off with tripod heads can be control vs. weight. Ball heads that can hold a lot of weight are lighter than 3 way or geared heads rated for the same load. I have a Manfrotto 475 set of legs with a Manfrotto 405 geared head in my studio and I wouldn't trade it for anything (except the Arca Cube mentioned above). But it weighs 14+pounds and isn't something I would like to hike with. But it does hold anything I want to put on it up to my 12 pound Tovo 4x5 G completely still and offers precise control of micro adjustments. I agree with Ed Ingold about the combination of nostalgia and ignorance concerning the TiltAll tripod/head--I've used one and never wanted to own one. I have an older aluminum set of 055 Manfrotto legs with a lower end Manfrotto 3 way head. It's OK for 35/DSLR or medium format with normal lenses, but my 4x5 will never go near it.

For hiking-type applications where I am away from transportation, I use a Manfrotto unipod with one of several Manfrotto ball heads (322 or 222). Jes' sayin' FWIW

 

For super long telephotos (e.g. mirror lenses) stability is achieved with a tripod that seems to be made of cast iron. None of my more conventional and lighter tripods work very well at 1250-2000mm focal lengths.:(

 

That may be where the $1200 tripods come in?

Edited May 5, 2018 by JDMvW

I wouldn't even factor in the cost of a tripod. If you're not in a habit of abusing your equipment, a good tripod will serve you 20+ years, at least. It will outlast any camera and lens that you're currently using and how much did those cost?

 

It used to be possible to get any replacement part for any given Gitzo tripod. A pretty expensive ordeal but it's certainly much better than getting a whole new carbon fiber tripod. Not sure what's the deal with that these days but maybe someone can provide valuable input. Anyway, it was a major factor when I was shopping for a new tripod about 7 years ago. I went for the series 2 Gitzo, the GT2541, to be precise, a model they don't make anymore. I also wanted the option of upgrading the center column to a longer one, which, as it turned out, was not needed.

 

You should look at the legs and the tripod head separately because the head can always be replaced. You can even switch between those, depending on the task at hand. I myself used to do that for a while. As per the maximum length: I'm 5'11" and the GT2541 is just the right height for me for doing verticals on even ground. Yeah, if you don't use an L-Bracket, the level of your camera's eyepiece will drop drastically as soon as you tilt it 90 degrees. And in any type of "wilderness" scenario you will lose 5 to 7 inches of maximum height (on average) to uneven terrain, and a lot more if you're shooting on a mountain slope. So, either, get a tripod that will give you that height or start working on your knee muscles. Personally, out in the field, I always carry with me a foldable stool and use it whenever I can. It weighs only 600 grams and makes my life just so much easier. So far, I've been able to "sit down" for the shoot in about 90% of the time I needed to use the tripod. Getting a small, foldable stool is something that you may consider. At any rate, if it's a "camping" kind of hike you should bring a stool or a chair with you anyway. Check out ebay.

 

As per the head, I would strongly recommend going for something that's Arca compatible because those clamps are so much more versatile than Manfrotto's system. With an Arca clamp your setup is ready to accept all sorts of L-Brackets, panorama rigs, focusing rails and much more.... Tamron, for example, have started making all their tripod collars Arca-Swiss compatible and they're awesome! You can even get a custom-tailored Arca plate for your Nikon D800 from RRStuff. I have one (for the grip) and it fits it like a glove, plus, it's comfortable enough in the palm of my hand that I don't ever have to remove it when shooting verticals handheld.

 

In my "outdoor shooting" / hiking setup I've got the Arca-Swiss p0 ballhead plus a cheap (but awesome) Mengs clamp. (*Arca-Swiss OEM clamps suck, BTW, and I've replaced it on my p0). I went for this particular head because of the versatility, degree of control and durability (the "inverted" design keeps most of the sand out). In the studio I use their D4, geared model but if I was allowed to have only one tripod head, the Arca-Swiss p0 would be it. I use it a lot with my gripped D800 and a Tamron 70-200/F2.8 + X1.4 TC combo, with no problems whatsoever. It's fairly easy to control with a heavy load on top and once tightened, there's no creep to speak of. It will handle a 4X5 and pretty much anything you can throw at it.

 

So, as I've already said, you should treat the legs and the head as two different things because they're both interchangeable. You may even end up with a head that you absolutely love but legs that are giving you some kind of trouble, which you'll be able to replace. Do your research, keep in mind that Ara-compatible heads will almost always let you change the clamp (and there's a multitude of those to choose from). Whatever you do, don't skimp because even if you manage to "save" a couple hundred bucks by going for a lesser-quality product, what's $200-$300 over 20 years? That said, there's lots of good-quality carbon fiber stuff coming out of China these days and not just tripod legs. I myself am set in that department because I've already invested in an excellent product (Gitzo GT2541) but you should check brands like Benro, as they often provide more functionality and could potentially have excellent value. Just don't get that 5 or 6-section, ultra-compact crap, believe me, it's not for you (or me).

 

Hope this helps.

Edited May 6, 2018 by david_r._edan

As mentioned above, if you like a three way head, the old 3047 is nice. There are several variants of this, and if shopping used you should make sure you get a later one. The very first ( I think made by Bogen before Manfrotto came in) have a screw clamp for the plate and less robust construction all around, but are pretty decent, the second have a non-locking quick release, and the last have a locking quick release. The locking quick release stays open when you remove the plate, and snaps shut when you replace it, making for quick mounting.

 

If you have a very heavy rig, there is a variant, the 3039 (and I think a later version with a different number) which allows you to adjust the drag on the axes with a wrench. This makes it less likely to flop with a heavy weight, and very smooth when set up carefully.

 

It is possible to buy a cheap Arca adapter and attach it to a hex plate. You may need a spacer for the adapter's clamping screw to clear, but it's pretty easy to do. Because the heads all have a big hole in them there's no issue with the head of the screw you use to mount the adapter. Any screw that fits will do.

You can mount an Area-style clamp on a Manfrotto QR plate. RRS has versions threaded 1/4-20 or 3/8-16 and hardware. The problem is orientation of the lamp. Cameras, in general, have side-to-side plates whereas long len plates are parallel to the optical axis. Rectangular Manfrotto plates fit only one way, and Hex Plates in 60 degree increments. Either way, you have a problem with 3-way heads. Cast aluminum Manfrotto heads are much heaver than comparable Arca or RRS ball heads, which are machined from solid stock.

I visited the local store again today just to see what was in, and much to my surprise I walked out with a tripod+head.

 

First of all, I spotted an attractively priced Arca-Swiss B1 in the used case.

 

A bit more poking around found an equally attractively priced Manfrotto MT294C3.

 

The short answer is that I walked out with both for under $300.

 

I know the 294C3 legs are low end CF, but I like the weight. I figure that for the $100 they cost, they will serve me and I'll save my money for a nice Gitzo.

 

The B1 head is absolutely heavenly to use. I can't get over smooth it is.

 

Also, the 294C3+B1 head is lighter than just the 055XPRO-3 legs.

 

I know that this probably won't be the last set of legs I buy, but at least I know I have a great head that will last for a while.

As Ed Ingold mentions, the Manfrotto hex plates make it necessary to turn an Arca Swiss adapter sideways on a 3-way head, unless you actually use the head 90 degrees off (which can work). However, because all hex plate heads have a big hole under the screw mount, it is possible to use a standard tripod screw and nut, or any number of screws that can be hand tightened, to hold the A-S adapter on, and this makes it possible to change the orientation without tools.

 

Of course if you get a ball head you don't have to do this, and if you get an A-S topped one, the problem is history.