Beginner tripod for 7D ii and 100-400 ii setup

That looks a bit flimsy for a 400mm lens. A 5 leg section 1 series?

The weight rating matters little as I am sure it will support the heaviest Canon/Nikon lenses quite happily but it is going to be very wobbly with mid to long telephoto lenses.

When I first got a 400mm lens I had a Manfrotto 055 XB Pro and it was pretty hopeless. It could handle the weight easily but it simply could not cope with the focal length (vibration damping). The Feisol Tournament model that I suggested above is the absolute minimum that I would consider adequate and then only just - but it is a very nice little tripod.

A Gitzo G1329/1327 or (better still) a GT 3530LS would be my suggestions but the OP lives in the US so cheap used Gitzo tripods are not on the list

Just my thoughts.

johnf3f wrote in post #18546891
That looks a bit flimsy for a 400mm lens. A 5 leg section 1 series?

The body (1.9#) + lens (3.5#) is 5.4# total, hence the reason why I added the edit where I mentioned another Benro Series 2 tripod on Deal of the Day that had a capacity of 31#. See https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …2_carbon_fiber_​ifoto.html

Too late now anyway as the price on the 2nd option is at $300.

Where would one look for a cheap gitzo in europe? My parents live in Germany so might be able to pick it up next time I visit them.

John from PA wrote in post #18547101
The body (1.9#) + lens (3.5#) is 5.4# total, hence the reason why I added the edit where I mentioned another Benro Series 2 tripod on Deal of the Day that had a capacity of 31#. See https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …2_carbon_fiber_​ifoto.html

Too late now anyway as the price on the 2nd option is at $300.

Tripod capacities stated by manufacturers are a meaningless spec, which follows NO uniformity of test methodology from brand to brand! Two tripods might have the same practical stability with the same weight, yet one might claim 20 lb. capacity while the other one claims 50 lbs.

I know with certainty that Lester Bogen never claimed his Bogen tripod would support >150 lbs. of camera, and yet he could sit on his tripod in his magazine ad

Wilt wrote in post #18547437
Tripod capacities stated by manufacturers are a meaningless spec, which follows NO uniformity of test methodology from brand to brand! Two tripods might have the same practical stability with the same weight, yet one might claim 20 lb. capacity while the other one claims 50 lbs.

This is something I am well aware of but having said that I have found that the quality names, Gitzo, Manfrotto, RRS, Benro, Oben...in no particular order and certainly not all, tend to be rated on the conservative side.

John from PA wrote in post #18547457
This is something I am well aware of but having said that I have found that the quality names, Gitzo, Manfrotto, RRS, Benro, Oben...in no particular order and certainly not all, tend to be rated on the conservative side.

Just like in the early days of stereo amps, the high quality brands used conservative claims about power output, and the bargain brands made very ostentatious claims about power output, and it took a long time for there to be established a level of standardization about measurements (RMS vs. IHF, continuous vs. peak, etc.)

When does 100 = 500?! When comparing power output of two equally loud amplifiers, but one of them sounds like sh*t.
When does 10 = 50? when two tripods hold 10 lbs. of camera+lens, yet one of them twists about the center easily in the wind, or exhibits wind-induced vibrations while the other yields little in twisting motion and is rock solid without vibration in the same wind.

I have had good luck with E Bay and a local camera store in the past. Another one to look out for is the occasional Gitzo sale. The last tripod that I bought was a new Gitzo GT4542LS (bit of a monster for your needs) direct from Gitzo UK for £375 ($525) and that is my most expensive Gitzo! It should have been about £750 ($1050).

Unfortunately this involves a LOT of patience! It is always worth keeping an eye on FleaBay though.

RPCrowe wrote in post #18544144
I totally agree with, "The other thing that I would strongly urge you toward is making sure that whatever HEAD you get is an Arca-Swiss compatible head vs the more specialized RC2 mounts that most of Manfrotto's budget to mid-range heads. The AS-compatible range of accessories is MUCH wider spectrum and the AS mounts are broadly more easy to use (especially if you are wearing gloves)."
I have fallen in love with a German made ball head, Kaiser 6011 which I purchased including an Arca Compatible clamp for a bit over $50 USD on the used market. I have worked with many ball heads in the 50 years I have been a photographer and the Kaiser 6011 is as good as any I have ever used. It weighs in a 20 ounces which is not lightweight but it has a manufacturer's recommended capacity of 8 kilograms or over 17 pounds.
This head can easily support my 7D2 + 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 IS ii lens or my 6D2 with battery grip with battery grip and 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens wearing a ring flash.
Several other suggestions...
I do most of my bird shooting with the 100-400 ii lens hand held because of the great IS in this lens.
I have replaced the tripod ring of the 100-400 ii lens with a Kirk tripod ring which has Arca Compatible capability built-in so I don't have to add an additional plate between camera and lens. It would have been very easy and very inexpensive for Canon to add Arca Compatibility to the lens in the first place. It irks me to have to spend an additional hundred bucks to get a capability that Canon should have provided in the first place...
I have the Kaiser head on a Giottos 8180 tripod. Not the lightest weight set of legs (despite being of graphite construction) but this tripod is exceptionally solid and matches well with the Kaiser head. I originally used a Giottos head on the tripod but, the Kaiser model is far superior.

RP.
The Kaiser 6011 sounds like a German rifle during WW II.........

I found the ballhead for a good price on Amazon. I was looking for the Giottos tripod and found this one:
https://www.ebay.com …=p2385738.m4383​.l4275.c10

Is this better or worse than the 8180? I'm not familiar with their numbering.