Velbon 630A vs Bogen 3021BN

[dhiren]

I am in market for a good [light & sturdy] field tripod. I would not

be doing strenuous hiking with this tripod but would be roaming

around quite a bit & I am 5'4".

 

I have narrowed down to Bogen 3021BN [weighs 5.1lb, 53" high & $140]

& Velbon 630A [Carbon Fiber, weighs 3.4lb, 55" high & $290] ﾅ both

goes pretty low for macro work and velbon carries almost twice the

capacity of Bogen.

 

I don't see myself using anything larger than 70-200 f4 L for time

being. Velbon is 1.7lb lighter than bogen ﾅ do you guys think the

weight difference is worth the extra cost [$150] ﾅmoney is not a

real issue & I would go with Giotto MH-1003 ball head for light-

weight travel.

 

Thanks in advance

[dhiren]

In terms of durability, is there any difference between aluminium & CF. In worst conditions, I would be shooting in waist deep water or snow.

[randywilson]

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the durability of carbon fiber as I've had the 630 for only a few months. I've had a couple of Bogen 3001 tripods over the years, and they are rugged and durable.

 

The lighter weight of the Velbon will certainly be noticeable. The fit and finish and the ergonomics of the Velbon are also superior to the Bogen. My Bogens had a tendency to get stubborn sometimes during extension or retraction of the legs, and if you opened the flip locks wrong they would try to eat your fingers. The Velbon is sweet and smooth, and the flip locks are done right.

 

Another nice feature of the Velbon is that the center post is composed of two sections, and if you want, you can dispense with the longer section, which is what I've done.

 

I'd say that if money is not a real problem then you would be happier with the Velbon.

[Landrum Kelly]

I have the Bogen 3021, too, but I bought the Velbon 530, not the 630. It is big enough for my needs, although at 6'0" I could have bought something a bit taller. In spite of that, I much prefer the Velbon. I do not understand repeated references on this and other posts to the Velbon being more expensive. I bought the carbon fiber/magnesium 530 for much less than any comparable Bogen/Manfrotto of comparable build that I am aware of. So far I have had no problems with it.

 

I still pack the Bogen in the trunk for routine shots near the car, but the Velbon can go where I have to make a longer carry. I am astonished at the quality of these tripods and wonder why we hear so little about them.

 

I use Bogen/Manfrotto heads on all my tripods, by the way, so that I can have common quick release plates for all of my pods, where possible. The Manfrotto head is heavier than the Velbon legset, I think, but the combo works fine for me.

 

--Lannie

[Landrum Kelly]

I forgot to mention that it is a good idea to carry the hook and apron with the Velbon. It can be shaky in the wind, especially with lighter cameras. Heavier cameras (and I include the old 6x6 cm TLRs in this category) push it down enough to stiffen it. For 35mm, one can have problems without the extra weight in the apron. (The nearest rock will do.)

 

It's all a trade-off, but the Velbon Sherpa Pro line is incredibly light and strong. I can't compare it to the Gitzos, since I have never touched a Gitzo, but I would put the Velbon carbon fiber/magnesium legsets up against any Bogen/Manfrotto of comparable cost. Again, however, the qualifier: I still use Bogen/Manfrotto heads, not because they are the world's best (they aren't), but because I like to standardize my quick release plates to the extent possible, and I don't feel like starting all over on heads and quick release plates, hex plates, etc.

 

I would buy the 630 instead of the 530 if I had it to do over. The 630 only costs twenty bucks more, and it is considerably taller. I'm sounding like a promoter for the company, but I have never been more delighted with a product line in my life than the Sherpa Pro line from Velbon, great for trail or studio.

 

--Lannie

[Landrum Kelly]

Dhiren, I see now that you are 5'4". You won't need the 630. The 530 will be more than tall enough, especially after you add the height of the head and the camera itself. I'm six feet and the 530 works marginally well enough at that height.

 

--Lannie