Is there a tripod which is really rock solid for 1000mm?

[jemini_joseph]

Sorry, It's long tele tripod question again

 

If this thread is not very usefull administrators can remove it. But

this might be very usefull for me. I'm trying to make another

decision for my long tele+tripod combo for bird photography.

 

I use F5, sigma 500mm + Nikon tc-20e + Kirk BH-1 + Gitzo 340

 

My Gitzo 340 is good enough for 500mm. But as soon as I've added the

2X Teleconverter, this is not good enough any more. I can see the

image

in the view finder vibrates. I'm sure this is nothing new. But this

tells

me that this vibration is there even in my lens alone shots also, but

it's not

that obvious because it's only 500mm. This means I can get sharper

images

with this lens if I have a sturdier tripod.

 

Is there any aluminum tripod (as I cannot afford 1548 for the time

being)

which will REALLY stop this vibration? I'm thinking of G1515 which has

only two sections and 47". But that's just enough for me as I'm only

5'8".

This tripod without the center column weighs 8.3LB while most of the

4 series

weighs around 8.5 So those people who's using 600mm + 2X tele, are

they using

5 series only? Is there any other alternative? Howmuch improvement

I'll make

if I get a 1410? Price for G1515 is OK for me ($400). But I found

this is a

rare item in eBay and so might be difficult to sell if I want to...

 

I eventually want to buy Wimberly. I'm hoping the head is good enough

for this

focal length. All advices are appreciated.

 

Thanks

[craig_bridge]

A G1410 handles my 600 f/4 + 2xTC on D1X (1800mm equivalent) and tall enough for a 7 footer.

 

Definitely outclasses a G340 in the stability department (and the head or tripod collar becomes the weakest link).

 

Only complaints are weight, folded length, and legs are too long for low to ground macro work (so keep your G340 too).

[alan_woolnough]

Hi Jemini,

 

Have you tried just sticking a monopod under the camera body. This helps prevent upwards/downwards motion. IMO, a 1000mm of focal length is not the best method of getting a decent sized image { far better to attempt to get closer, and get the maximum quality out of your lens}.

 

If this set up is only for occasional use i would use a beanbag etc, or use your present tripod without the legs extended on a windless day if possible.

 

You may even get better results by enlarging from a slow film, rather than using a 2x tc, stopping down and having to use a slower shutter speed, or using a fast film to regain the lost shutter speed.

 

You have the same dilemma that many of us have faced. Ive found bird photography to be littered with compromises, and we usually end up having to find what works best for us personally {in our particular situations} by trial and error.

 

All the best

[Jerry_]

Two tips:

 

1. Keep the tripod on concrete. Less vibration.

 

 

2. Keep the tripod as 'non-extended' as possible. This is more stable than going up to your eye level with the camera and lens.

[greg s]

"So those people who's using 600mm + 2X tele, are they using 5 series only?"

 

I've managed to shoot tack sharp with a 600 f/5.6 & TC-301 on a lightweight tripod. There's something about the /5.6 which is resistant to vibration (very dense, compact mass?) Anyway, when I get my hands off the camera/lens via a remote or cable release, it turns out excellent (in calm weather :)

 

Shooting 1200mm from a beanbag/window has yielded same results.

[mlfly]

The Gitzo 340 worked very well with my 600 f4 until I put the 1.4x on it. Then, my tack sharp ratio went to almost never. The 1548 is just superb even with the 1.4x. I've had a 410 in the past and it is capable of handling the job but it is heavy and you're already carrying plenty of weight. BTW, the above comments are with a film camera. With the D60 at 1.6 mag and the 600/1.4x combo sharpness is still outstanding with the 1548 - that's about 1300 mm of lens.

 

All of the above is with a B1 head.

 

Mike

[bobatkins]

The short answer is no.

 

The longer answer is use two tripods. One under the lens, one under the camera. Clumsy, awkward but stable.

[jemini_joseph]

Thanks buch guys.

Alan, You've got some great pictures there. That's exactly what I'm trying to get. After thinking again and again I'm also more tempted to sell my teleconverter and may spend more on tripod. I guess I better shoot with 500mm and use velvia (my all time favourite film)

 

Gerald,

I'm already trying to apply both rules that you've mentioned though the first one is little difficult to follow in the field :)

 

Greg,

I remember emailing back and forth with you about the 600mm lens. You bought it a week after since I bought it. You are 100% correct. I used to get very very sharp images with that lens and Manfrotto 3205G (equal to 3001) and their 3410 head. Here's an example. I shot this with velvia. The picture is not good. But see the details!!

http://www.photo.net/photo/457794

I've got shutter speed 1/80 for this.

I bought sigma for autofocus. It's a sharp lens too. But there's something special about that lens. Here's another one.

http://www.photo.net/photo/457797

This was shot at 1/40!!

Did Nikon put VR in that? :)

Bob, That's a new idea for me. But isn't that difficult to move the lens if the camera is hooked to another tripod??

[scott_fleming1]

Nobody has mentioned a Wimberly or such head. No personal experience but it looks indespensible to me if I was shooting a flitting or jumpy subject with a long lense.

 

See Luminous Landscape and search for Wimberly (Wimberley?)

[bobatkins]

The double tripod technique is old, but it's still the best way if you want rock solid stability. Yes, it's a pain and you need a fairly static subject.

 

However ALL tripod heads, whether Wimberly or Arca Swiss attempt to support a long tube at the center with one contact point and one or two rotating joints. There's just no way you can do that at 1000mm and keep everything rigid. You have to support the ends, or the middle and one end. It's basic mechanics. There's a point at which going to bigger and bigger tripods and heads does no good if you have a long enough lens on there.

 

You can also use a brace from the camera to one of the tripod legs. Slightly less clumsy, but still a bit of a pain.

 

The other alternatives are sandbags on the lens and mirror lock up - or switching to Canon and using an IS telephoto.

[jemini_joseph]

Bob,

Thanks for the info. I agree with your opinion about the basic mechanics. Yeah,

if you can support both ends, thing will be different.

 

One thing I've noticed though is that the vibration is towards left and right

rather than up and down. That makes sense. The tripod can be twisted easily,

but it's not that easy to bend one leg to allow the setup to move up and down.

I'm thinking of making my own brace from camera to tripod leg. I think I can

use a small ball head and some kind of clamp at the legs. If that works then

that will be the cheapest option. I'm thinking of joining three legs together

with a triangle shaped bracket. That way each leg may support the other.

If I can find a light enough material, then that will be light weight too..

 

Moving to Canon? I thought about it many times. My problem is that I cannot afford the

500/4 IS lens. Even 300/2.8 is too expensive. I paid only 1800 for the sigma.

Again, do you think the pictures with IS on will be sharper than that of IS off on

a solid tripod? As far as I understand IS is equal to 2 extra stops. But that doesn't

mean the image is at it's best. Right? I've took a picture placing this lens and

camera on a table with mirror lockup and flash. The result was amazing. I never saw any

result like that in real world with this lens. I tried the same thing with 1000mm and

the result was great. At least I could not find any degradation of quality.

 

I believe if can make the setup 'still' then all I need is 1/125 shutter speed to avoid

small movements by the birds. I'm sure I'll be able to use velvia for this purpose as

you can easily get 1/125 at f/9 on a bright enough day...

[ShunCheung]

This is the one area IS would help. Otherwise, I still have no plans to buy any IS/VR lenses because I don't feel it will make that much of a difference to me. Again, that is to me. To you, it could be a different story.

 

Still, you'll continue to have problems with image degradation with 2x TCs, subject movement, etc.

[jemini_joseph]

Shun,

I wish if I could afford 500/4 IS. I cannot now. I'm an amateur photographer. If I start making money out of this, then definitely I�ll buy this lens. It's worth moving to Canon for that purpose. I was never a big fan of cameras except of F5. This is again mainly because of the metering. It�s not false proof. But out of my 20 rolls of films I shot with matrix metering, I guess there may be around 10 frames failed. I know this is a subject talked talked and talked and boring�Sorry about that. I know a good photographer doesn�t have to have a good camera. Even n65 and a good lens will take better picture than F5 and a crap photographer like me behind it J.. Now until I learn the art I would like to have the help of F5. I store the shooting data and look at the details for most of the frames.

 

But some day I�ll get an IS lens and a basic camera behind it�

 

Scott, I�ve mentioned about the wimberly in my message itself. I�m also hoping that that will help. That�s another 300 dollars for me� I�ll save up money for that. But tripod leg is equally important. I guess BH-1 is sturdy enough. In other words the movement is more obvious with the legs. The head seems to be sturdy� I�m trying to test this..

[frank uhlig]

Check out surveyor's tripods: they standardly use magnification of around 20+ (equivalent to a 1000 mm lens). The image was rock steady when I last looked through one at 5'8 off the ground. They weight a lot, are clumsy to set up. AND they are comparatively cheap; do a google search or visit your Lowes superstore ... And you will have to find a usable ?? head for the camera. But they do not budge.

[bobatkins]

I don't belive any tripod will help. There's just too much flex in all the joints (lens to tripod foot, foot to QR, QR to head, head to tripod etc.) as well as the fact that tripods twist. All tripods.

 

It's like clamping a rod at the center, then hitting the end of the rod. It doesn't matter how hard you clamp the rod or what you clamp it to, the rod is going to vibrate.

 

I've used a Bogen 3051 tripod (12.5 Lbs), without the legs extended. A Bogen super ball head (big, heavy - 5 lbs, as sturdy as they come) and still you get vibrations of you touch the lens. There's no way around this excepct to support the camera as well as the lens.

 

Whether the vibration is enough to degrade the image is another story. With fast shutter speeds or maybe MLU and/or a sandbag on the lens to damp out vibration you may be OK.

 

I shoot with a 2x on a Canon 500/4.5L (not-IS) using a Gitzo 1348 and an AS B-1 head and I can normally get shots that aren't blurred by camera vibration as long as the wind isn't blowing too badly and I use MLU for slower shutter speeds.

[wildpicture]

Jemini, I use the Gitzo G1505 (with Arca Swiss B1) as my everyday tripod with my Canon 500/4 lens. Most of the time with the 1.4x attached and sometimes with the 2x attached. Pictures with the 2x can be very sharp, no vibration. Of course the IS helps, but I have used the tripod in the past a lot with my older manual focus FD500/4.5L too, together with either the 1.4x or 2x converters. It is certainly stable enough.

 

I choose the G1505 because the G1548 was too expensive for me. Double the price for just one kilo less (3.1 instead of 4.1). The reason for choosing the G1505 over the other 5-series tripods was the fact that it has 4 sections like the G1548. This way it folds up to just 60cm (with ballhead removed) and can be stored in my Samsonite hardcase for air travel. Despite having 4 sections it is just every bit as stable as the 5-series tripods with less sections. And certainly more stable than the 3 or 4 series.

[ryan_taylor1]

Good support for a long lens is a must. However, as Bob has already mentioned, the heaviest legset in the world won't suppress vibrations when you effectively have a large mass (the lens) balanced on a single point. Short of using a double tripod or a monopod under the camera, you might try a support arm. I know that Bogen makes one. One end atttaches to the tripod leg and the other to the bottom of the camera. This probably won't be as good as a double tripod but the added support will help and this rig will be much easier to use in the field than a double tripod set-up.

[jemini_joseph]

Hans,

That gives me some confidence.

I guess from all these messages I may have to try different tricks

before spending more money. One thing I forgot to tell you was that

the pictures were taken on a dull day. So the shutter speed was

allways below 100 with a 200 film. I'm sure if I get shutter speed

around 200, things will be different. But there can be a degradation

of quality if there's a vibration.

I guess I should start looking into adding second support as

Bob and Ryan mentioned. That'll be relatively cheaper than buying

1505 or 1515. I'm trying to find a store who store 5 series and may have

to try one of them myself. I'll be happy even if it's solid in the

lowest position. That's what I do anyway. I'm trying all these things to

get more birds as 1000mm is kind of safe distance for birds. Some no so

shy birds can come as close as 10 meters. I won't use tc at all

in the blind, which saves me 2 extra stops and AF.

 

Frank, I'll look into Surveyers tripod too. But if it's too difficult to

setup, I might use sand bag technique.

 

Hey one question to the people who have carbon fiber. Is it less sturdy

compared to aluminum because it's less weight?

[h._p.]

There is one type of tripod which will do the job - a wooden surveyor's tripod. I used one of these years and years ago with an old 500/f8 and a 2x convertor. I connected the lens to the tripod with an old cine head that had a BIG tilt screw and a seperate, and equally big, pan screw. The thing was heavy as hell but it was amazingly stable. These old tripods come up cheap all the time though you'll have to hunt for a suitable head.

 

There is absolutely no substitute for mass with this sort of thing though you can obviously get away with a lot if you have an IS lens.

[ryan_taylor1]

"Hey one question to the people who have carbon fiber. Is it less sturdy compared to aluminum because it's less weight?"

 

I'm not sure what you mean by sturdy. If by sturday you mean stable then on the contrary. I use a CF Gitzo 1325 with my 500 + 1.4 TC. The Gitzo is more stable than my heavier bogen 3221. Carbon fiber is more rigid and so the legs flex less when fully extended. Also, my gitzo has a slightly wider "footprint." That combined with greater ridgity makes it a more stable platform despite the lighter weight compared to the aluminum 3221. That is not to say that some aluminium tripods aren't stable, many models are, you just pay for it in weight.

[jemini_joseph]

Ryan,

I what I meat by sturdy is 'strong'. I thought it's all same meaning. Anyway, I've noticed that Gitzo 3 series carbon fiber have the capacity of 4 series aluminum (26lb). This tells me exactly same what you said. I know one of our community member locally who recently bought 1325 or 1327. Hopefully I'll be able to play with it little bit. I might see him this weekend. That will give me an idea how much I can improve in tripods.

 

Harvey,

Thanks for the info. I'll look around for that too. But I don't want to carry too much weight everyday.

 

If I reduce the camera weight is that going to help? If I move from F5 to F100 I can save 1.5 lb weight from the top of the tripod and bring it down. Then if I buy 1515, the weight of the total setup would be same as now...

[alan_woolnough]

Jemini,

 

Before you fork out your hard earned cash, its worth noting that however well built, designed, and expensive a tripod is, its only going to be as stable as the ground you stand it on allows, and as the exact location of your subject will often determine where you place yourself and tripod, leaving you with no choice in the matter {which could be on grass/mud/concrete/gravel/bogs/etc etc etc}, a top of the range tripod may or may not make a difference over a mid range model in many situations.

 

Ive found that there can be many reasons for getting a soft image of a moving subject, and often it is nothing to do with tripod quality. I think it was Greg who mentioned that sharp images can sometimes be got with relatively light weight tripods, and i totaly agree. As an amateur myself, ive always been very satisfied with my sturdy but mid priced tripod, and have prefered to concentrate on quick camera/lens handling, rather than sweat over forking out for a top of the range tripod, not knowing the condition of the ground that i will be placing it on from one moment to another {rarely have i had time to bed the legs into the ground and make the ideal adjustments before the bird decides to move to another position}.

 

Fortunately, ive concentrated on hide photography for the last few years, which tends to be a methodical type of bird photograhy and allows me the time to ensure that everything is set up and steady, and as my tripod is always unextended, i dont feel the need to upgrade my tripod.

 

If an image is sharp, then it is sharp regardless of the tripod price range/brand/quality. Often a slightly higher shutter speed is all that is required if the conditions allow.

 

Im not saying you should not get a higher quality tripod, but i wouldnt rely on that alone for getting a noticable difference with this type of outdoor subject in hugely variable situations.

 

This is just my views, based on my own experiences and thin wallet, so it may not apply to many others.

 

All the best

[greg s]

Hey Jemini, Glad to hear someone else out there is using the good 'ol /f5.6

 

Before my recent vacation I took a few quick photos in the yard to see if I could fairly quickly perform a manual metering adjust when I put the TC-301 on my S2. I was working fast and just had the tripod column down and used a cable release. Nothing special, but thought you might be interested to see the results. It gave me the confidence that, if I needed to utilize the 2x TC in the field, it would be worth taking along.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=312428

 

Cheers,

Greg

[alan_woolnough]

Jemini, i hope you dont mind me adding a question to your posting, which i have often been curious about.

 

Ive often heard maximum loads being talked about regarding tripods, and wondered if this is a tripod leg concern, or the tripod head, or the combination of the two. Or maybe a manufacturer underestimating the durability of their product, or simply some sort of marketing ploy.

 

My very old Slik Black Diamond 88 {which i use for hide work only}, is a very basic tripod, and perfectly usable for me, and can certainly take my full body weight. I have often used it to stand on if i need to observe over the top of bushes/undergrowth/boulders etc {ive even stood on it to change the odd light bulb in my house}. Surely most/all modern tripods should be capable of far more weight than the manufactures state. Or am i wrong?

 

cheers

[jemini_joseph]

Alan

Seeing those pictures I feel I made a mistake by selling my 600mm :)

Great sharpness. Did yu use S2?