george_slusher1

<p>For Gary Watson: It's not RRS that sets the weight limit for the Manfrotto 2232 (formerly 234RC), but Manfrotto. See the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5498-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_3232_3232_Swivel_Tilt_Head.html">B&H page</a> --it gives a limit of 5.5 lb. Subtract out the clamp (about 4 oz) and you're down to 5.25 lb. Go argue with Manfrotto. (Weight limits for heads are usually conservative, as the manufacturer doesn't want to be sued when someone's rig suddenly flops over.) My Canon 30D + grip + Canon 100-400mm L IS lens + 1.4x extender weighs over 7 lb.<br>

Re: bubble level: you can use the RRS B2-Pro clamp, which does NOT have a level, or the B2-Pro II, which does.<br>

One advantage of RRS's high-capacity solution is that the clamp will not slip/turn. The head has two fingers that fit into grooves on the bottom of the clamp. The B2-Pro has one set of grooves, so it can be mounted in only one orientation. The B2-Pro II has two sets of grooves, so it can be mounted parallel or perpendicular to the tilt.<br>

Another solution is to use a ballhead on the monopod. That will allow you to use a wider range of stances, including bracing the end of the monopod against your foot, which can improve stability. If you get a ballhead with a friction adjust, you can follow a moving subject quite easily.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The graduated ND filters are quite useful, but, if you really want the best detail throughout the image, take 3 shots, bracketed at least 2 stops above and below the "correct" exposure. You can then use Photoshop to composite them or use a high dynamic range program (e.g., <a href="http://www.hdrsoft.com/">Photomatix</a> for Mac OS X & Windows) to put them together. The better HDR applications, like Photomatix, will give you several options for combining the images. They can do things that Photoshop doesn't by looking at contrast in very small areas.<br>

Below is a rather mundane landscape shot, using autoexposure on my Canon 30D with a 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 IS lens at 61mm in aperture priority (ISO 100, f/6.3, 1/400s, WB cloudy):<br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Public/Clouds/img_0943_normalexp.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The next image was created with Photomatix, using tonal mapping, from that shot and two bracketed shots at -2 stops & +2 stops. (By using the self-timer with the 30D on a tripod, I only had to push the shutter release once--the camera did the rest.) (N.B.: Keep the aperture the same for all shots.)</p>

<p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Public/Clouds/img_0943_5_4_hdr.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I think that you can see the difference. You can't do that with a graduated ND filter. (The detail in the shadows was increased without blowing out the bright spots like the water behind the trees.)<br>

For a more extreme example, here's a sunset at the same location, done pretty much the same way. Note that the focus is pretty bad--try focussing in these conditions--looking right at the setting sun (hidden a bit) (Same camera & lens @ 56mm, ISO 125, f/6.3, 1/1000, WB Shade to make the shot warm)</p>

<p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Public/Sunset/img_1175_normalexp.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Now look at the tonal-mapped version, WB set to Shade in Photomatix:</p>

<p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Public/Sunset/img_1175_6_7_shade_tm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>As an experiment, I set the white balance to Tungsten in Photomatix, which can work from RAW or JPEG images.</p>

<p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Public/Sunset/img_1175_6_7_tngstn_tm.jpg" alt="" /><br>

To see more, go to my <a href="http://idisk.mac.com/gslusher-Public?view=web">iDisk</a> and open the folders "Clouds" and "Sunset." For even better examples, see the Photomatix site above. There is also a Flckr group for Photomatix.</p>

Go to the Kirk site at

http://www.kirkphoto.com/brackets.html

and scroll down to "Macro Flashbrackets for lenses with a tripod collar." You'll see just what you're looking for, the FB-10. If you're using a lens without a tripod collar, Kirk sells an adapter that will attach to an Arca-Swiss plate on your camera body.

Someone Normal, in his/her EXCELLENT review (Thanks!), asked why anyone would choose a Gitzo over a Manfrotto at half the price. Here are a few reasons, in no particular order:

1. Max load. The max load on the 190CXPRO3 is 11 lb. That is rather low for a decent tripod. What it means, in truth, is that you shouldn't put more than about 5 lb on the tripod for stability. The Gitzos of similar weight (Series 2) have a max load of 26.4 lb--more than double the Manfrotto's. You can also get the Gitzo Series 3 tripods, with a max load of about 40 lbs at a weight of 4.4 to 4.7 lbs.

2. Anti-rotation legs & twist locks. Some people prefer twist locks, not really trusting lever/flip locks, which can work loose over time. (Most can be adjusted.) I've used both and am ambivalent--either can work well IF one keeps the flip/lever locks adjusted and keeps the twist locks clean. Gitzo's "G-Lock" system supposedly locks tighter when a longitudinal load is put on it. (I haven't been able to try it out, myself.)

3. The Gitzo column is removable and can be replaced with a leveling base, a vibration-reducing base, Gitzo's Ground Level set, etc.

4. Lower low level: because the column is removable, the Gitzo can get closer to the ground in a "normal" (vertical) position--less than 7" for the Gitzo Mountaineer series. The Gitzo Explorer can place the camera within about an inch of the ground.

5. Higher max height: the Manfrotto's max height is 57.5"; the Gitzos about the same weight range from 60" to almost 69", the Explorers 64 to almost 67".

6. Available options. Gitzo has a wide range of optional pieces for their tripods, more than Manfrotto does.

The Gitzo tripods most comparable to the Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 are in the Explorer series. These have articulating columns that can be set at any angle, more useful than the Manfrotto, which, as I understand, is either vertical or horizontal. The legs on the Explorer triopods can also be set at any angle.

There are advantages to the Manfrotto 190CXPRO3, of course:

1. Price! Currently at B&H, it's $300. The Gitzo GT2531 is $575, the GT2531EX Explorer version is $600.

2. Weight: the 190CXPRO3 is a bit lighter (2.86 lb) than the GT2531 (3.01 lb) and significantly lighter than the GT2531EX (4.10 lb).

3. Folded length: the 190CXPRO3 is 22.8"--not really that small--my Weifeng Fancier FT-6824T is 19.3", but considerably shorter than the Gitzo GT2531 at 25.6".

That may answer why "anyone" might want a Gitzo rather than a Manfrotto, but it does NOT say that "Someone normal" didn't make a very good choice! He/she obviously put a lot of thought into the selection and came up with a real winner for him/her.

FWIW, I've also strongly considered the Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 (or the 4-section version, which is 2" shorter when folded but $25 more expensive). The deal-breaker for me is the low max load. My current gear (Canon 30D + grip + RRS L plate, Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS + 1.4x extender) comes to almost 6 lbs--about 7 lbs with the head. I'd like to get a longer lens--maybe the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS and a gimbal head (probably Jobu Jr 2). Take off the grip, add a Kirk teleflash bracket & flash and it's well over 9 lbs with the head. My Fancier CF tripod, with a max load of 17.6 lb, would barely work, but would probably wobble a lot while using the gimbal head. I'd really need the stiffer Gitzo or a Feisol. (Some of the Feisol tripods would be cheaper + stronger than the Manfrotto at about the same weight.)

Re: Roger's photos.

Nice photo, but it does seem to show a bit of vignetting--check the dark corners. It's not terribly noticeable unless one is looking for it.

I'd recommend the Canon 100mm f/2 prime. It's fast, accurate-focusing (USM), and quite sharp. It's also a LOT lighter than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. On the 30D (which I also have), it has the Field of View of a 160mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you need a slightly wider angle, try the Canon 85mm f/1.8, which looks almost identical to the 100mm f/2 but has the FOV of a 135mm (well, 136mm) lens on a 35mm camera.

Could you use an L lens? Sure, but they are expensive, heavy, and, given the problems of focusing on a fast-moving subject, probably won't give you much better results. The Canon 85mm f/1.2 L lens is less than a stop faster, but weighs 2.3 lbs vs 15 oz and costs more than 5 times as much as the 85mm f/1.8.

I use the 100mm f/2 for horse shows when it's not bright enough for the 70-200mm f/4 L.

Two other things:

- IS won't help very much. It does nothing for moving subjects and you should be using a fairly fast shutter speed, so camera shake shouldn't be much of a problem. (Actually, IS can get in the way if you have a fast-moving subject. When I'm shooting horses with my S3 IS, I often turn off the IS.)

- Learn to pan with your subject so that the subject is sharp (well, as sharp as it can be), though the background may be blurred. When you pan, keep ahead of the subject: give them a place to move to in the photo. Try this: take a shot of something moving--a cyclist is a good choice--with the subject dead center. Crop the image in two ways, one with a lot more space behind the subject, the other with more space in front of the subject. The difference should be obvious. People are generally less comfortable with a subject that appears to be moving out of the frame than one that appears to be moving into the frame.<div></div>