Bogen-Manfrotto 718B tripod

[abe_hollander]

Anyone have a good reason why I shouldn't get this for a K10d? There's one on

fleeceBay (thanks Peter!) that I might bid on if it stays under $90.

 

Purely for amateur use (no ball heads please!), I can envision that a removable

camera plate would be more useful than my li'l ol' Quantaray...

[maurycy]

Can't comment about the quality, but if the price is close to $90, then I would spend another $10 and get one from B&H or Adorama ($99) to get warranty and ability to return it easily.

[samius]

Make sure you don't get hosed on the shipping...Check the sellers feedback.I purchased an inexpensive Amnova "carbon fiber" tripod..for 57 bucks including shipping...The tripod is <i>adequate </i> for shooting Interiors or maybe some outdoor work as long as there is no wind and my lens is not larger than a 16-45mm. The tripod feels a bit flimsy. Okay for fifty bucks but I am glad I did not spend more.

<p>

 

<img align=middle src="http://www.adorama.com/images/Product/BA8043.JPG">

<p>

I am going to be purchasing a Berlebach 8042 wooden tripod when Uncle Sam gives me my tax refund. This tripod weighs 6.2lbs ..about twice the weight of a comparagle gitzo at about half the cost. I can stand to burn a couple more calories schlepping it around.

[abe_hollander]

Thanks Maurycy and Samuel... good advice.

 

I'm comfy on eBay, but really wondering if this will be a logical step up for me in tripods. Want flexibility of removing the camera quickly. I'm 6'2", so not interested in the similar one to this with shorter legs (back hurts just thinking about it).

 

Abe

[andrewg_ny]

Why are you opposed to ballheads or more specifically tie them to non-amateur use?

 

The cheapy "Red Accent" tripod I had before my current Manfrotto 190B/484RC2 combo had a quick-release plate though it was a pan/tilt model with too much plastic in the head.

 

QR plates are nice but frequently rather bulky and blocky (square corners) so I usually don't want them on the bodies unless I'm actively using the tripod. It's too bad they don't make them a little smaller & slimmer.

[maurycy]

Talking about 6 lbs tripods, I used to have the original Tiltall (made in Rockleigh, NY?). This thing was heavy, sturdy and very stable. My ZX-5N even with on of the bigger zoom lenses, looked like P&S camera when mounted on it. I am 6'4" it suited me well. I am sorry I sold it but the weight was just too much to carry around. Since then I am unable to find suitable replacement (stable and not that heavy).

<br><br>

I wouldn't go with ball-head myself unless I was ready to spend $$$ on a very good one. All the cheap ones are not stable enough to hold DSLR (unless with kit lens only).

[dshombert]

I second Maurycy's advice above -- the savings are not great enough to justify the risk of buying used.

 

Reading this thread reminds me -- I asked for opinions about the ballhead that Slik makes for their 700 model tripod awhile back, and got a wide range of opinions. I ordered one and am happy to say that it holds my K10D with DA* 50-135 very nicely, even rotated to a vertical position. The ballhead is different in use than the panhead, of course, and I can see that each has it's advantages.

 

Maurycy - I've still got one of the original Tiltalls. Weren't they great? I don't use it often, but I wouldn't part with it. It was my first decent tripod and it's still better than some of the overpiced flimsy crap available today.

[maurycy]

Dave - Yes, I miss my Tilltal. One of the best tripods I have ever used. Built like a tank. Just not for hiking :-)