Quality tripod

[sunsets]

<p> Hello all I am looking to upgrade my tripod. I started out with a Sun Pack tripod and a 30d kit and now that I have upgraded my camera to the 5dmii and lens to the L series 2.8 and faster, the time has come to invest in a good tripod to get my shots as sharp as I can. I like night landscape shooting at 8sec or longer and with the bigger lens and the wind in South Texas they are blurry from shake. <br>

There are so many brands out there and different styles I just dont know where to start. I do hope to get a 400mm f2.8L soon so a tripod and ball head needs to be strong enough to hold a substantial amount. Carbon fiber if its better would be good but just dont want to look back and wished I had spent a little more. Any help would be nice. Thanks for all your help. Robert </p>

[benjamin_johnson]

<p>I just upgraded a few months ago. The only advise I can give is check the head's weight limit. If your lens and body weigh more than half that number- Go bigger.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Check out Gitzo Systematic 3 Series and Induro CT 414; I choose the latter over the Gitzos and couldn't be happier. For the 400, you might want to consider a gimbal head - check Wimberley, Jobu, and Induro. Ballhead: Acratech, RRS, Markins, Kirk, and Arca Swiss. Consider Arca-Swiss type clamps and quick releases - see RRS, Kirk, or Acratech.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The focal length and environment are more important than weight capacity when choosing a tripod and head. A 400/2.8 is both heavy and long (focal length), which calls for a substantial tripod if you will be using it outdoors.</p>

<p>If you were looking at Gitzo, a #5 would be the best choice. Manfrotto doesn't make anything in this class, but you might look for a wooden tripod, like a Berlebach or (better yet) a Reis, for the same rigidity at a lower cost (and much greater weight). Aluminum Gitzo tripods are nearly as stiff as their CF counterparts, but at half the cost (and 50% more weight).</p>

<p>A ball head doesn't work very well for a lens longer than 200mm or so. That's because the angle of view is small, and any residual flex or stickiness in a head makes it very difficult to point where you want it. For long lenses, you want a heavy-duty gimbal mount, like one by Wimberly. The camera is mounted using an Arca-Swiss type QR directly to the lens for rigidity and strength.</p>

<p>For lenses 200mm or shorter, a good ball head like Arca-Swiss, Really Right Stuff or Kirk, also available with Arca-Swiss type QR system. Cheap ball heads (i.e., under $400) fail mainly because slip-stick action makes them difficult to point, and holding capacity when positioned off-axis. The larger the ball, usually the better the holding power and smoother the action.</p>

[benjamin_johnson]

<p>He was talking about carbon fiber. You think someone is going to lug around a wooden tripod?</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>While he did speak of carbon fibre, he said nothing about weight. What Edward Ingold said is valid.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Robert, Your really talking about a Gitzo series 3 or 5 carbon fiber or a one of the larger Really Right Stuff carbon fiber tripods. If you are going to spend the money on a super telephoto with 2.8 glass be prepared to spend the extra money on a tripod that will not embarrass you. I am sometimes surprised when I see folks with super telephoto lenses who skimp on their pods. In aluminum I would not go any smaller than the Gitzo 1340 (340 older version) or the 1410 (410 older version). You can find both of these tripods used. I have used both but like the weight saving of carbon fiber and never thought I would until I got a little older. Good hunting. Andy</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Worth reading:</p>

<p><a href="../equipment/tripods/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/</a></p>

[doug_santo]

<p>Wow! That's quite a thread about tripods.</p>

<p>I use a Manfrotto 475B tripod and a Manfrotto 3047 3-way head. I have a Nikon D700 that I couple with a Nikon 300/2.8. The head supports this weight easily and locks tight with no slip or shake. I think the 3047 head has been replaced by a newer product 808RC. The tripod extends to about 6 feet, which was important to me. It is also sturdy. The setup was affordable and works well.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>Slightly off topic, but , normally 400mm f2.8 and Landscape photography don't normally appear in the same breath. What are you shooting, out in Texas, that you need such a BIG heavy lens ? Will you really NEED the F2.8 for things that far away ?</p>

<p>The reason I am asking is that the lens is the thing that is pushing the discussion toward really expensive equipment. As long as you don't need to carry it too far, weight isn't an issue, but if you DO need to get far from the car, the big bulky gear will really , well, ...weigh you down.</p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>I too was puzzled, John: but then I concluded that "night landscape shooting" possibly would demand a narrow angle of view so as to concentrate on details.</p>

[sunsets]

<p>Thanks to all who replied. And to John I do like to shoot wildlife also thats why the 400 is in the discussion here. my 70-200 with a tele converter just doesnt give the quality that I want. Wood tripods look nice but carbon should be the lightest. I will read the post from J Harrington to see what is in that article. Thanks again</p>

[frank_major]

<p>I'll chime in as you're reading/contemplating other sources.</p>

<p>Like you, I've recently recognized the need for a better tripod. For me, it's for my RB67 medium format film camera and i want to extract all that those magnificient optics can gather.</p>

<p>Because of a strict budget (initially i *thought* ~$200 should do... i was sooo wrong), i chose an intermediary solution. I needed a strong, light tripod for my landscape endeavors (mountains, etc) and after long research carbon fiber (CF) became the only option. If i worked strictly in a studio or not far from the car, a big 'ol wood tripod would have been on it's way to me.</p>

<p>I also discovered there are now different grades of CF - though no industry standards are present to qualify these apparently different grades. This is *very* unfortunate because i'm not a physical engineer and cannot scientifically evaluate the various offerings by all the manufacturers. We're left to interpret all the sales hype and rely on opinions and "word-of-mouth" by others (who sometimes become too brand biased to honestly evaluate their equipment....).</p>

<p>Someone want a job? Establish a "universal" CF standard and apply it to all the uses of/for CF - in all relevant industries. I digress.... (and apply to an Engineering College!!!!).</p>

<p>If money/budget were not limited, i'd have a "Really Right Stuff" TVC-33 tripod<br>

<a href="http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=TVC-33&type=4&eq=&desc=TVC-33-Versa-Series-3-Tripod&key=it">http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=TVC-33&type=4&eq=&desc=TVC-33-Versa-Series-3-Tripod&key=it</a></p>

<p>and "Really Right Stuff" BH-55 Pro ballhead on top.<br>

<a href="http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=BH-55-Pro&type=3&eq=&desc=BH-55-Pro%3a-Full-sized-ballhead-with-Pro&key=it">http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=BH-55-Pro&type=3&eq=&desc=BH-55-Pro%3a-Full-sized-ballhead-with-Pro&key=it</a></p>

<p>I'd throw in a set of their TA-3-FRC Rock Claw Foot (it is absolutely unique and a *brilliant* design).<br>

<a href="http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=TA-3-FRC&type=0&eq=&desc=TA-3-FRC%3a-Versa-Rock-Claw-Foot&key=it">http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=TA-3-FRC&type=0&eq=&desc=TA-3-FRC%3a-Versa-Rock-Claw-Foot&key=it</a></p>

<p>However, this was not my situation... <br>

I opted for a Feisol CT-3342<br>

<a href="http://reallybigcameras.com/Feisol/Tournament_Class.htm">http://reallybigcameras.com/Feisol/Tournament_Class.htm</a></p>

<p>and a Manfrotto ballhead (got it used for a really sweet deal)<br>

<a href="http://www.adorama.com/BG498RC2.html">http://www.adorama.com/BG498RC2.html</a></p>

<p>For my uses, for now, this combination *should* be excellent. Maybe if i find i *need* great strength (thinking wind/dynamic force resistance), i'll move up to the Really Right Stuff selections above.</p>

<p>Enjoy your search - there are so many great options!!!</p>