Moving on from the 055XPROB..

[Collin85]

So I've had the famous Bogen-Manfrotto 055XPROB/488RC2 combo for about two years now. Sturdy, but also very heavy. Infact, so heavy that thinking about it, I've probably not used it as much as I should have simply because I groaned about taking it out at times (I currently don't drive). Of course this isn't ideal, because I'm not really getting my money's worth on a piece of gear that isn't used often. Infact, I may aswell spend bigger on a more expensive pair of carbon-fibre legs which will get much more constant use.

So I've been thinking about getting the Bogen-Manfrotto 190CXPRO4, the carbon-fibre version of the 055XPROB's lighter aluminium brother 190XPROB. It's expensive, but I know I'd be using it alot more. Does anyone have any experience with these legs? I actually plan on using the 488RC2 head on these legs. I know the head may be a bit 'heavy' for these much lighter legs, but I presume it's still a very usable combo?

Edit: Also, would this tripod be suitable as carry-on luggage on a plane?

[jeromego]

Col, I never had problems carrying it with me on board.

[bbeck4x4]

I just recently carried the 055XPROB/488RC2 combo as my carry on no problems, I did carry it close to my body and didn't swing it around.

[bohdank]

I just went through the same thing you are going through (same tripod/head)...not using my tripod since it does make for a sizeable weight penalty.

I don't know anything about the tripod you have selected except that it uses lever locks which would take up space in a bag. If light and small is the motivation, twist locks are more compact. Anyway... I ordered a Feisol 3442.

You have an 055...why are you going to the shorter 190 ?

Personally, I was never happy with the 488RC2. The never ending droop drove me nuts. Getting accurate framing was a huge chore. If anything keep the 055 and replace the head. I bought the Markins M10.

[foto_cbs]

Not so long ago I faced the same switch, from Manfrotto 055 & 488 to carbon fiber.
I ended up buying Feisol and can only sing its' praises after almost one year of use.
I also echo bohdank's advise about replacing the 488 head.

As a (relatively) low cost solution you can look at Feisol's standard range along with the CB-40D ballhead. It costs similar to the 190 CXpro4 legs only.

I use 3401 tripod and CB-50D ballhead. They're half the weight of my previous Manfrotto's and I find it much much better in use.
The legs are actually sturdier and better damped against vibrations and the ballhead is simply a smooth smooth operator with no creep and rock steady.

[Collin85]

Thanks for the replies.

Bob, I'm about 172cm and fully-extended, the 055 is too tall for me. It's actually quite frustrating, as I'd have to either extend only two sections, resulting in a much shorter tripod, or extend fully and then methodically whittle down one of the sections for all three legs until it suits my height. I know the 190 is considerably shorter, but I had a play around with the 190XPROB (not the carbon) the other day and I was fairly impressed.

I'd probably have to give Feisol a miss.. I can't find anywhere in Australia that distributes them. Moreover, I just found a 190CXPRO4 here on POTN for a really good price.

I'll definitely take in the advice concerning the head though.

[fotoworx]

Is the weight difference between a 055XPROB & a 190CXPRO4 really all that much in the whole scheme of things???

[Collin85]

Is the weight difference between a 055XPROB & a 190CXPRO4 really all that much in the whole scheme of things???

Yep.

055XPROB is 2.4KG, 190CXPRO4 is 1.3KG. That's a HUGE difference!

Also, the 190CXPRO4 folds to 50cm while the 055 goes to 65cm. That's the difference between fitting in my airport carry-on luggage and not..

[S7000]

055XPROB is 2.4KG, 190CXPRO4 is 1.3KG. That's a HUGE difference!


Does your husband have a tripod?

[Collin85]

Does your husband have a tripod?

Yes, you have a very large tripod! ;)

[S7000]

:lol:

[fotoworx]

055XPROB is 2.4KG, 190CXPRO4 is 1.3KG. That's a HUGE difference!



It's a kilo, that's not so huge in my book, but of course YMMV.

190CXPRO4 being a maximum of only 146cm whilst the 055XPROB is a maximum of 178.5cm is IMO a big deal and me being over 6' tall it's a deal breaker with it being 32.5cm shorter.

[Collin85]

190CXPRO4 being a maximum of only 146cm whilst the 055XPROB is a maximum of 178.5cm is IMO a big deal and me being over 6' tall it's a deal breaker with it being 32.5cm shorter.

Yep, but I'm not 6' so the fact that the 055 is roughly 180cm is a dealbreaker for me (in the opposite direction). I'd much rather bend down a bit rather than tiptoe.

I've handled the 190CX before. I found it to be very light. On the other hand, 2.4kg is too heavy to be of practical use to me considering that I don't currently drive.

[bohdank]

AH, ok... getting the shorter tripod makes sense, for you.

I had to get the Feisol from the US as there is no distributor in Canada, either :-)

You can get them from Feisol directly in Korea, I believe.

It sounds like you don't have any issues with the 488, since you didn't mention any.

[tvphotog]

Feisol or the Gitzo 1541T for traveler. The Gitzo is more expensive, but perhaps more available to you in Oz. Either is very light, folds very tightly.

The 488rc2 may allow droop of the camera with a long lens attached. Perhaps consider another ballhead.

[n2_space]

I have both legs and the weight difference hanging on the back of my backpack hiking in the rockies was HUGE... it may not seem like much but it really is. I have a bad back to begin with though.

[Wilt]

Yep, but I'm not 6' so the fact that the 055 is roughly 180cm is a dealbreaker for me (in the opposite direction). I'd much rather bend down a bit rather than tiptoe.

I've handled the 190CX before. I found it to be very light. On the other hand, 2.4kg is too heavy to be of practical use to me considering that I don't currently drive.

I don't understand complaints about 'too tall' tripods. It is simple enough to use a bit of white paint (or nail polish) on each of the legs to mark the 'right length' for you. Then when you are ready to set up for a shoot, extend ONE of the legs out to the mark and lock it. Then stand the tripod on the single leg and extend the other two down to the ground and lock them. Then spread the tripod legs, mount the camera, and shoot.

I use the above methodogy, but do not bother with the white marks on the legs. I simply know that 'the third section about half way out' is about right height for me to be able read the top deck display.

[ben_r_]

I gave up the same combo for the same reasons, cept I went with a much more travel friendly setup than anything bogen/manfrotto offers: LINK (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=538298)

[Collin85]

I don't understand complaints about 'too tall' tripods. It is simple enough to use a bit of white paint (or nail polish) on each of the legs to mark the 'right length' for you. Then when you are ready to set up for a shoot, extend ONE of the legs out to the mark and lock it. Then stand the tripod on the single leg and extend the other two down to the ground and lock them. Then spread the tripod legs, mount the camera, and shoot.

Wilt, all the little inconveniences add up.

Regarding height, I guess my point is why do I have to bother with the method you suggested if I don't have to (simply by buying a shorter set of legs)? It is easier to just unlock all the legs, let em' all slide out freely and shoot. I can do that with the 190, but I can't with the 055. In my opinion, I feel the solution you're offering there to be a way to 'put up' with slightly ill-fitting shoes. It may be perfectly valid if the height actually came in handy at times, but it doesn't. To me, all it does is add bulk and nothing to functionality. It's basically an inconvenience which doesn't have to be there, if I chose my tripod more carefully to begin with.


It sounds like you don't have any issues with the 488, since you didn't mention any.

Yeah, I'm quite happy with the 488, although I do agree there's a bit of 'drooping'. I'll still definitely take a look at other heads though, as I'd love to be able to have a functionally-solid ballhead which is also quite light. :)

[Wilt]

Wilt, all the little inconveniences add up.

Regarding height, I guess my point is why do I have to bother with the method you suggested if I don't have to (simply by buying a shorter set of legs)? It is easier to just unlock all the legs, let em' all slide out freely and shoot. I can do that with the 190, but I can't with the 055. In my opinion, I feel the solution you're offering there to be a way to 'put up' with slightly ill-fitting shoes. It may be perfectly valid if the height actually came in handy at times, but it doesn't. To me, all it does is add bulk and nothing to functionality. It's basically an inconvenience which doesn't have to be there, if I chose my tripod more carefully to begin with.



Yeah, I'm quite happy with the 488, although I do agree there's a bit of 'drooping'. I'll still definitely take a look at other heads though, as I'd love to be able to have a functionally-solid ballhead which is also quite light. :)

But extending the tripod always to a fixed height does NOT pay attention to the fact that, from an optimal photo composition viewpoint, the ideal camera position may be 24" off the ground to 70" off the ground and anywhere in between the two extremes.

If the goal is merely to mount the camera at some point, so you can be in the photo too, or simply to provide stability, a fixed height is OK. From an artistic perspective it is too inflexible and subject to suboptimal results.

[Hogloff]

AH, ok... getting the shorter tripod makes sense, for you.

I had to get the Feisol from the US as there is no distributor in Canada, either :-)

You can get them from Feisol directly in Korea, I believe.

It sounds like you don't have any issues with the 488, since you didn't mention any.

Here is the Canadian Feisol distributor:

http://www.richard-berry.com


harry

[bohdank]

Now you tell me ;-)

[Collin85]

But extending the tripod always to a fixed height does NOT pay attention to the fact that, from an optimal photo composition viewpoint, the ideal camera position may be 24" off the ground to 70" off the ground and anywhere in between the two extremes.

If the goal is merely to mount the camera at some point, so you can be in the photo too, or simply to provide stability, a fixed height is OK. From an artistic perspective it is too inflexible and subject to suboptimal results.

Wilt, I understand what you are saying, and you may have misunderstood me. I shoot at a variety of heights under the condition that it is shorter than myself. Hence that means I always have to whittle down the 055XPROB, since I find it the quickest and most convenient to just extend everything, then slowly wittle down to the desired height. My point is, the extra height is not advantageous in any way whatsoever, but instead it introduces burden (such as longer folded length, heavier weight, etc.). If the extra height were neither beneficial, nor introduced any disadvantages, then I'd be fine with that. That would be an analogous situation as say, video on digital SLRs. Many people don't use it, and it certainly doesn't affect you if that's the case. Here, it does affect me and I don't have to put up with it if I simply chose a more appropriate tripod in the first place.

Moreover, I do shoot certain cityskapes which have no prominent foreground subjects. In other words, there are situations where, from a perspective point of view, it gives a negligible difference to shoot at say, 50cm or 170cm to results. In these situations, I would of course prefer to simply let the legs go free, lock and shoot. With the 055, I have to whittle down, or do what you suggested. With a shorter tripod, I don't have these issues. For me, these little things to functionality are important.

[jdizzle]

Have you considered the Carbon Manfrotto? If your budget isn't a concern, I would suggest Gitzo all the way.

[Collin85]

Have you considered the Carbon Manfrotto?

Hey Julian, that's what I'm getting! :) I had my eyes on the 190CXPRO4 (as mentioned in the OP).. and coincidentally, someone was selling it on POTN at a rather good price for Aussie buyers. Should be here in the next two days. :D

[Wilt]

Wilt, I understand what you are saying, and you may have misunderstood me. I shoot at a variety of heights under the condition that it is shorter than myself. Hence that means I always have to whittle down the 055XPROB, since I find it the quickest and most convenient to just extend everything, then slowly wittle down to the desired height. My point is, the extra height is not advantageous in any way whatsoever, but instead it introduces burden (such as longer folded length, heavier weight, etc.). If the extra height were neither beneficial, nor introduced any disadvantages, then I'd be fine with that. That would be an analogous situation as say, video on digital SLRs. Many people don't use it, and it certainly doesn't affect you if that's the case. Here, it does affect me and I don't have to put up with it if I simply chose a more appropriate tripod in the first place.

Moreover, I do shoot certain cityskapes which have no prominent foreground subjects. In other words, there are situations where, from a perspective point of view, it gives a negligible difference to shoot at say, 50cm or 170cm to results. In these situations, I would of course prefer to simply let the legs go free, lock and shoot. With the 055, I have to whittle down, or do what you suggested. With a shorter tripod, I don't have these issues. For me, these little things to functionality are important.

I understand your point. But normally people choose the smaller, lighter tripod because of wanting minimal weight when hiking and they knowingly are sacrificing stability and freedom from vibration in order to get low weight. In your case you seem willing to sacrifice stability and freedom from vibration in order to get the right height for you. But chosing a tripod where height at full leg extension is right, when all its other characteristics might be poor, seems a rather perverse way of choosing.

[squaresnappr]

Hey Julian, that's what I'm getting! :) I had my eyes on the 190CXPRO4 (as mentioned in the OP).. and coincidentally, someone was selling it on POTN at a rather good price for Aussie buyers. Should be here in the next two days. :D

Have fun with that tripod but I should of read the numerous posts here of people advising to just get one great setup from the very start. But live and learn. I really hated the 486RC2 and maybe the 488 is an upgrade but the droop was very irritating. The 190CXpro4 are great legs though and I think you will be very happy with it.

[jeromego]

Have fun with that tripod but I should of read the numerous posts here of people advising to just get one great setup from the very start. But live and learn. I really hated the 486RC2 and maybe the 488 is an upgrade but the droop was very irritating. The 190CXpro4 are great legs though and I think you will be very happy with it.
488 also droops.

[Collin85]

I understand your point. But normally people choose the smaller, lighter tripod because of wanting minimal weight when hiking and they knowingly are sacrificing stability and freedom from vibration in order to get low weight. In your case you seem willing to sacrifice stability and freedom from vibration in order to get the right height for you. But chosing a tripod where height at full leg extension is right, when all its other characteristics might be poor, seems a rather perverse way of choosing.

Oh, the height thing is actually minor issue. It has always been mainly about the weight and the folding size - the height issue was just another niggle I could add to the list (of why I don't like my current legs). I found the 055XPROB/488RC2 combo to be so heavy (and large) that I just couldn't be bothered taking it out. I'm definitely willing to sacrifice a bit of stability, as it's better to be somewhat stable (with my soon to be much lighter 190CXPRO4) than not stable at all (because I couldn't be bothered lugging around a setup I considered too heavy). The height of the 190CX wasn't a large factor in my choice - my point was that it just so happens to be shorter than me, which is an added bonus.

Edit:

Have fun with that tripod but I should of read the numerous posts here of people advising to just get one great setup from the very start. But live and learn. I really hated the 486RC2 and maybe the 488 is an upgrade but the droop was very irritating. The 190CXpro4 are great legs though and I think you will be very happy with it.

Thanks! Yes, it should be good. :)

[Wilt]

Oh, the height thing is actually minor issue. It has always been mainly about the weight and the folding size - the height issue was just another niggle I could add to the list (of why I don't like my current legs). I found the 055XPROB/488RC2 combo to be so heavy (and large) that I just couldn't be bothered taking it out. I'm definitely willing to sacrifice a bit of stability, as it's better to be somewhat stable (with my soon to be much lighter 190CXPRO4) than not stable at all (because I couldn't be bothered lugging around a setup I considered too heavy). The height of the 190CX wasn't a large factor in my choice - my point was that it just so happens to be shorter than me, which is an added bonus.


Well, then, you seem to be choosing the 190 for the right reasons, and the convenient height for you is merely another plus in its favor.

[Collin85]

Well, then, you seem to be choosing the 190 for the right reasons, and the convenient height for you is merely another plus in its favor.

Precisely Wilt. Like I mentioned in the OP, I simply found the 055 to be too heavy. As I already mentioned, I rarely drive. It actually takes me 30 minutes to walk to the bus stop, where I then have to embark on a 2 hour bus trip to the city area (where everything tends to 'happen'). Since I'd like to be able to use a tripod for low-light strobist work, I don't want to have to lug around a very heavy tripod along with cameras and other stuff. Being a full-time research student, I also tend to have an array of books and notes with me at all times, and everything gets heavy.

Awhile ago I found the 190XPROB, and realised I should have got these legs instead. They were lighter, smaller and I was more than happy to sacrifice any loss of stability, as I felt they were still fairly stable. Then I thought to myself "If only there was an exact version of this in carbon fibre". Then I found the 190XPRO4, which is not only that, but with 4-sections, further reducing the folding length to only 50cm. Basically, this tripod should fix all the reasons why I never felt compelled to take out the 055.

Now, I just gotta sell the 055. :lol:

[Wilt]

Now, I just gotta sell the 055. :lol:

No, you should keep it! At some point the added stability and freedom from vibration of the 055 will prove its worth, especially when you see what the 190 does not provide for you in the right circumstance and you are frustrated at the sacrifice.

[jdizzle]

Hey Julian, that's what I'm getting! :) I had my eyes on the 190CXPRO4 (as mentioned in the OP).. and coincidentally, someone was selling it on POTN at a rather good price for Aussie buyers. Should be here in the next two days. :D
Congrats! Carbon fiber is definitely a plus in weight savings. Enjoy!! :)

[Collin85]

Thanks for the help and support guys! I received the 190CXPRO4 today and everything is going well. It's everything I had expected.

Looks like Bob nailed it with the ballhead though - the 488 really doesn't suit these lighter legs very well. I just ordered a Markins Q3 ballhead.

[bohdank]

A good move, imo.

[tvphotog]

Thanks for the help and support guys! I received the 190CXPRO4 today and everything is going well. It's everything I had expected.

Looks like Bob nailed it with the ballhead though - the 488 really doesn't suit these lighter legs very well. I just ordered a Markins Q3 ballhead.

You'll be very happy with the Q3. Excellent choice.

[Collin85]

Thanks guys! It arrived today; it's a pretty well-crafted ball head and I'm looking forward to some shoots with it. :)

Unfortunately, there appears to be roughly a millimetre or two of play in the main knob (rotationally) and a millimetre outwards. Going for a quick google, I found many users report this and although it's almost certainly not there by design, it doesn't affect functionality and it doesn't get worse (apparently). Still, I have to admit it doesn't really inspire confidence and I'd certainly hope Markins rectifies this completely in the future. A $300 ball head should be free from things like flimsy main knobs.

[Collin85]

Well, everything is a done deal now. Camera plate just arrived too, so I'm all ready to go. Markins sent me an email saying the knob play is there by design and its purpose is to prevent lock-up. Can't wait to give this baby a real work-out (when time allows). In the meantime, here's a 'product shot'.

http://www.czphoto.net/photos/766111959_3BpkJ-X3.jpg

[bohdank]

Enjoy

[Collin85]

I certainly will! I had never heard of Markins before I made this thread, and bought the Q3 mainly due to the brand recommendation you and others gave, so thanks for your advice. :)