Lightweight hiking tripods

[anthonty_debase]

Rrecently I took my camera out on a day hike. Due to the weight of my tripod I was not able to carry it with me. I did bring a hiking stick that can be used as a monopod and I did use it inplace of the tripod for horizontal photos. (There is not way to flip the camera 90 degrees for vertical shots.

I guess I am getting spoiled but the quality of these photos was noticably poorer than those I take with my camera firmly mounted on a tripod. I live in an area of the country that is frequently covered by dark clouds so I often don't have the advantage of bright sunshine and fast shutter speeds. So now I want to take a tripod with me when I am day hiking.

 

What tripod would you recommend? It must be lightweight, and compact. A light weight ballhead must also be usable with it. I am happy to give up some functionality to gain portability. I have seen the carbon-fiber Gitzo tripod and I am wondering if it is worth the extra dollars over the alternatives.

[bob_atkins]

You need to tell us at least three things:

<ul>

<li>How much weight are you prepared to carry?

<li>What lenses do you use (how heavy)?

<li>How tall must the tripod extend? (dont get greedy here!)

</ul>

Without this info any answers are just shots in the dark.

 

<p>

 

My lightweight combo is a Bogen 3001 leg set with a 3262 ball head.

It will support up to a 400/5.6, fully extended (with centerpost)

it bring the camera to my eye level (6ft). It weighs about the

same as a Gitzo 1228 (CF) plus a B1 head, but costs less than

$100 (compared to about $900). Galen Rowell reports carrying a

tiny "table-top" tripod at times, but he's only using it to

support a camera with a small wide-angle lens and assumes he

can find a tree or rock to set it up on (and apparantly he does!).

 

<p>

 

Nobody can really tell you if a CF Gitzo is "worth" the extra

dollars. It depends a lot on how many extra dollars you have in

the first place!

[keithneun]

I hike with a Bogen 3205 (black ano 3001) w/3055 head. It's less than 6lbs. total. It's easy to set up and folds quickly. The 3055 is just under a pound heavier than the 3262, but I'm willing to put up with it because I like the wider platform of the hex plate and the separate pan lock. I'm 6'4" and with the center column raised I only have to tilt my head down slightly for the finder (spiked foot adaptors and the vertcal grip on my camera body give me a few precious inches). Unless you're carrying something like a 300/2.8, the Moutaineer is probably overkill. However, I'd like to play with the Gitzo sometime as everyone who owns one seems to *really* love it.

[paul_wilson2]

I have a Gitzo 1228 and I think it's great. Functionally, I'm not sure it's really worth the $500 it costs but if it went for around $400, I wouldn't question it. Considering the material costs of carbon fiber, I think the price is reasonable(take a look at bicycles some time). Velbon also makes a carbon fiber tripod of about the same size and cost.

 

<p>

 

If you want something cheaper and smaller (though not lighter), you might want to look at the Gitzo 126. I used to own one and it was very nice and very compact. Linholf and Kaiser make some decent, small ball-heads. The Bogen 3001 is also a very good option.

[anthonty_debase]

B.A. said I need to tell us at least three things:

 

<p>

 

How much weight are you prepared to carry?

 

<p>

 

10 to 15 pounds including food, water, jacket/rain gear, the 10 essentials, film, and, of course, camera gear.

 

<p>

 

>What lenses do you use (how heavy)?

 

<p>

 

Usually on a day hike I will carry the following photo gear: N90, Nikkor 75-300 f/4-5.6 zoom, Nikkor 24mm f/2.8, and maybe a 100mm Macro lens. I do not choose to carry heavy big guns such as a 400mm telephoto or 80-200 f/2.8 zoom up the sides of Alpine like peaks.

 

<p>

 

>How tall must the tripod extend? (dont get greedy here!)

 

<p>

 

I am 6'3" but I realize that a tripod that reaches my height would be too bulky. A 5 foot high tripod would be fine. Even 4 feet if it meant a big savings in weight.

 

<p>

 

>Without this info any answers are just shots in the dark.

 

<p>

 

Night photography does not interest me at the moment. Perhaps I will try long exposures or infrared film at a later date. :)

[garry_teeple]

I've struggled for years on carrying a tripod. I finally came to

the conclusion that it is not just a matter of weight, but the way

you carry the tripod. I have tried the Bogen strap over the shoulder

and could not keep it on my shoulder. I am presently carrying a Bogen

3221 tripod with a 3262QR ball head on a waist belt system I designed

and made. I can now carry the tripod without worry about weigth and

it is very fast to get set up and re-attached. Basically it is a

plastic square with two slots verticle for the belt and two straps horizontally for a strap with a fast-tec buckle system to go around the tripod. If you would like more information on it email me with your address and I will send you a sketch.

[bob_atkins]

Given that you aren't using big lenses and that you don't require

the tripod to extend to eye level, the Gitzo (1228) seems like

overkill (though fine if you can't find any other ways to spend your

money!). The Bogen 3001 (3021) would seem to more than meet your

needs, but you could probably get away with something even smaller

and lighter if weight was a big concern. Bogen don't make anything

lighter, but Gitzo do (in their 1 and 2 series).

[kaetheko]

The ease of access to the tripod is definitely an important part of how much can you carry. I use the Mountainsmith systems with their snow shovel pockets, the tripod is carried vertically, slides in and out easily and can be secured with the velcro straps provided to stabilize the snow shovel. This also leaves the sides of the pack free for water bottles or another lens. Inside the pack I use the Domke modular pieces to customize for whatever I happen to be carrying.

 

<p>

 

I use a Gitzo 124 (older slightly taller version of the 126) with a 1276 head for my Nikon N90 with the 80-200 2.8 and the 075 head for my Hasselblad 500cm. Not sure the 1275 is the best option but happens to be what I have. Oh yes, I am only 5'3", so I only have a short center column that I never use.

[stuart_c._purkey]

I'd like to add something to the end of this question, if I may. I, too, like a light tripod, as I'm usually hiking around in the Florida outback to do my shooting. Unfortunately, lightweight has meant the obsolescence of my 500mm telephoto lens. When I try to use it (especially with the 4" doubler), the weight just proves to be too much for the tripod, and it always drifts downward, ruining any chance of a decent shot. Can anyone tell me a good, somewhat lightweight tripod that will support such a camera outfit? From front to back (the mount is pretty much half-way between front and back), the camera's length is approximately 2 feet. No matter how much I try to tighten it, I always get the downward drift. Can anyone help? Thank you in advance.

 

<p>

 

--Stuart

[nes_suno]

<P><B>Reply to Stuart:</B>

 

<P>Really Right Stuff makes Arca-Swiss style plates for large telephotos. The Arca-Swiss B1 monoball supports loads exceeding 82 lbs. (37 kg).

 

<P>Their catalog contains lots of tips. Write them or give them a call.

 

<P>

<ADDRESS>Really Right Stuff</ADDRESS>

<ADDRESS>P.O. Box 6531</ADDRESS>

<ADDRESS>Los Osos, CA 93412</ADDRESS>

<ADDRESS>U.S.A.</ADDRESS>

<ADDRESS>Tel. (805) 528-6321</ADDRESS>

[bill_emmons]

I have also wrestled with this issue, and recently had to do it all over again, when my standard lens set doubled in weight, and the Bogen 3021 was no longer stout enough.

 

<p>

 

I have been willing to throw money at a lot of problems, and generally have to admit that in photography, like life, it seems you really do get what you pay for. So, Really Right Stuff plates are mounted on an Arca Swiss B-1 - but mounted on what legs??

 

<p>

 

Gitzo is honest - the doubling (or more) in price cuts weight by *only* 30%. Big numbers, if you have paid $65,000 to be carried by competent Shepras to the top of Everest, less important if your normal hikes are less rigerous.

 

<p>

 

And that weight being carved off is *not* all bad - since the greater mass of an equally rigid metal tripod will help assure a stable platform.

 

<p>

 

And then there is the simple issue of selection - I just decided for the second time to stay with metal for the obvious financial reason ($285 for Gitzo 320 versus $845 for the 1349), and the less obvious wider selection. Gitzo has a lot more variety - how many leg extentions (the 320 has 3, which I prefer to 4) size of tubes, style of column, etx.

 

<p>

 

So for me the metal was an easy choice as soon as I decided to ask myself "how are you really going to use this tool, where, and with what other equipment." For a very serious hiker, whose bag is already approaching a dangerous level (how much is that?? In the 70s, I hiked all over Afganistan with a 10 kilo bag, would toss out something whenever it went above that. Today one friend lugs a 67 pound backpack with his large format rig (including monster Gitzo) everytime he shoots.)

 

<p>

 

But then, he is now having serious back trouble . . Maybe if he had bought the Gitzo 1548 he wouldn't) . . .

[anthonty_debase]

Thanks to all who have contributed their advice and experience to the hiking-tripod topic. I will probably get the Gitzo 126 as it offers the best combination of quality, weight, size and price. It weighs the same as the smallest carbon-fiber tripod and costs less than 1/2 the price. It is a tad shorter but since I am not getting a tripod that will fully fit my 6'3" height I don't think that a few more inches will make much difference. I should be able to carry the N90s, 80-200 f/2.8, 24mm wide angle, tripod and the 10 essentials.

 

<p>

 

Any suggestions for a light weight ball head? I use Arca-Swill system so the ball head must be compatible with that.

[anthonty_debase]

Since posting my previous message about using the Gitzo 126 for day hiking I have recieved so many messages warning me about setting up a tripod with 4 leg pieces that I am going to reconsider. The four segment legs didn't seem very difficult in the photo store, but then I was doing it under great conditions with a salesman helping me. I'll check it out again versus the Bogen 3001. In the mean time any other thoughts are welcome.

 

<p>

 

Oh, I ment to say I use the Arca-Swiss system not the Arca-Swill system. No doubt some psychologist will have a great time with that one.

[nes_suno]

<P><B>Followup to Anthony DeBase:</B>

 

<P>I have two legsets: the Bogen 3001 and the Gitzo G320. Both have three leg segments. The G320 is superior by far. Without extending the center column, I can operate it with 7+ inches (18 cm) of leg segment to spare (I am 5' 5" or 165 cm. tall). The 3001 requires partial center column extension even with full leg extension (if I am attempting to shoot from a posture that will not promote lower back pain).

 

<P>However, the 3001 legset is only 21 inches (53 cm) long (without the tripod head) and fits in my carryon luggage, something the 28 inch (71 cm) G320 does not do. The Bogen weighs less, too (and retails at <A HREF="http://www.bhphotovideo.com">B&H</A> at US$61; the G320 rings up at US$285).

 

<P>The 3001 was my very first legset, and I definitely believe my camera support purchases have not been wasteful: the 3001, the G320, the Arca-Swiss B1 monoball, and a couple of RRS plates.

[nick_fiduccia]

Anthony, I know how hard this can be. I went though this myself just

recently. If the Bogen 3001 is not heavy duty or tall enough, and you

think the Gitzo 320 is just too big, there is a compromise - the

Gitzo 224. It weigh 5 lbs and while it just is adequate for my height

(6-1), it may be a little short for you. The ballhead is another matter. I agonized over the purchase of a Arca B-1 (1.8 lbs, $370)

but since getting it, I have been very happy with it. Happy shooting!

[troy_d._ringley]

Anthony, my hiking setup is the Gitzo G126 with G175 ballhead and short column. It serves me well with equipment like my Hasselblad 500CM w/150 lens or EOS1N w/100-300. But... I use it in a seated position if at all possible, keeping the tripod as close to the ground as I can. I also carry an empty beanbag with me that I can fill with dirt, gravel or such at the location. Then hang it from the bottom of the center column. Of course, this isn't always necessary.

[curt_weinhold]

My current backpacking tripod is a Gitzo126 w/Kaiser "backpacker" ball head to which I added a quick-release of my own design. Didn't care for the Gitzo ballhead as much, although its not bad. Also used a Bogen 3001 with their three knob head; it works, its rigid, its less expensive, but, too many parts to lose. On a trip from Salt Lake City to Arches N.P., the tripod was inside the car trunk. Upon arrival I found that vibrations had completely loosened several of the wing knobs that tighten the leg locks. Parts were all over the trunk and hiding amoung the rest of the gear, it was 30 minutes till the tripod was back in order. Gitzo's don't do that as often. Keep everything tight when shooting and traveling. Gitzo workmanship is superior and prettier, if that is important to you.

[kevin_turinsky]

"Lightweight hiking tripod" = sacrifices. I can only comment from a 35mm (the miniture format) point of view. Currently, I too use a Gitzo 126. Even compared to the Carbon Fiber models it's the most compact (when collapsed) and the lightest. I tossed the center column and mounted a Linhof I (poor choice of ballhead) directly to the top. The longest lens I use on it is an 80-200 f/2.8, so the weight is within the tripod's limits. My 300's not very lightweight, and therfore misses going out on some adventures. The other important sacrifice is that I'm usually down on the ground, wallowing around in the dirt, bugs, and mud with my tripod. If you're willing to put up with some discomfort, I see the limits of the G126 as a small price to pay for that much stability in a 3-3.5 pound package. Certainly, not a good choice if you want to use huge lenses and have the thing extend to eye level...

[jack_kennealy]

I've found the Bogen 3205S to be highly satisfactory. It's only 17.5" long when collapsed, and attaches nicely to a Trekker as well as my Mini-Trekker. I use a 3262QR on it, which works fine with small lenses, but it does require some hand stabilization even with a 300/4. Overall, quite a good combo for hiking though.

[scott_bufkin]

I've had the Gitzo 1228 for about a year now and (like others) love it. It's very sturdy, and vibration-wise, quite "dead." I use a Pentax 645 with up to a 200 f4 and 1.4x on it with no problem, although in windy conditions, it does need some extra weight. A rock or the pack suspended from the bottom of the center column does the trick.

 

<p>

 

A comment on 3 vs 4 leg sections... 3 sections are sturdier and less hassle, but this also increases the minimum tripod height. One of the reasons the 1228 fits my needs so well is that it's just slightly taller than my Tamrac 777 pack (with a Linhof Profi II head). Strapped to the side of the pack, it's easy to get on and off, doesn't interfere with access to the rest of the pack, and doesn't get hung up on branches, bushes, etc.

 

<p>

 

I've also had a Gitzo 126 - very well made, sturdy tripod for its size - it was just too small for me. (I'm 6'1") And, I used a Bogen 3221 for about 8 years before getting the 1228. I liked that tripod a lot, and still do. It's well made, *very* easy to use, and sturdy - not to mention inexpensive.

 

<p>

 

With the Gitzo 1228, I lost (gained?) 2.75lbs and 5.25" folded length - and haven't regretted the switch.

[andy.kim]

In addition to the Gitzo 126, the 106 also works out well: slightly shorter (~1.5 inches or so), 1/4 lbs lighter, around 30% cheaper. It's max height is just as high as the 126, both of them being too short to use comfortably for general use.

 

<p>

 

The only real minus of the 106 is the lack of adjustable leg angles, so you can't go nearly flat to the ground like the 126. After a week of use, I found this to be a non-issue: to get flat on the 126, you need to replace the center column, but with such a short tripod, I find myself needing the extra inches the column gives me more often than I need to be close to the ground.

 

<p>

 

Anyways, either one works pretty well with the Kaiser small professional ballhead. Only complaint about the Kaiser is that the panning base has some play when loosened, so your image shifts after you lock the base and let go of the camera. The shift is nearly 50% of the field with a 200mm lens, forcing you to recompose. I've tried two samples and now just live with it. Has anyone found that they cana tighten this up any?

[outdoorphoto]

Anthony,

 

<p>

 

My hiking tripod is a Gitzo G212 (the "Reporter" series). It has proven it's worth on many photographic excursions into the backcountry. I'm currently using a Gitzo G1276 ballhead but am hoping to "upgrade" in the future to an Arca Swiss B1.

 

<p>

 

Good luck on your purchase!

 

<p>

 

- Justin