Tripod Selection Help

I currently have this tripod:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …0_Alta_Pro_263A​B_100.html

It works fine for me but now I want one that is lighter that I can take with me on short hikes in the local park reserves. Not long treks. I could use some help in selecting one. I have a budget of about $400 maximum for the legs. For the head I could swing a maximum of $200. The largest lens I would probably use on this new tripod would be a Tamron 70-300mm or possibly a Canon 200-500mm (I think I got that right). Oh, and I'm a small person at only about 5'3" so I'm looking for something as light as possible without sacrificing quality. I know, that's a lot to ask for.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Feisol 3441S legs fit your requirements perfectly; $400, light, tall enough but not too tall, supports enough weight.

As for the head, $200 is a bit on the low side, can't really help there. For $300 you could get a Markins Q3T, very highly regarded, and small enough to allow the legs on the Feisol to fold backwards for more compact storage.

Look at Photoclam 36NS. It is in your budget and is very comparable to the Q3T. I have it mated to the 3441S and the legs fold down perfectly. I ended up upgrading the shoe to an RRS but only because I preferred a lever than a screw clamp.

Those numbers are somewhat flexible so if I have to pay more for a decent head so be it. I want to buy a tripod that will last me years so I'm willing to pay more if required.

mnphotos wrote in post #14898628
Those numbers are somewhat flexible so if I have to pay more for a decent head so be it. I want to buy a tripod that will last me years so I'm willing to pay more if required.

Well in that case, feisol 3441S and markins q3t Just $100 over budget.

Sirrith wrote in post #14898638
Well in that case, feisol 3441S and markins q3t Just $100 over budget.

Thank you very much!

Sirrith wrote in post #14898638
Well in that case, feisol 3441S and markins q3t Just $100 over budget.

The OP did state, " The largest lens I would probably use on this new tripod would be a Tamron 70-300mm or possibly a Canon 200-500mm". Based upon that criteria, the Markins Q3T does not comply with Markin's own recommendation for lenses over 300mm in FL.

OK, forget about the cost. What would you recommend as a quality tripod and head based on my original criteria? I'll bite the bullet if I have to, and it sounds like I do.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

Wilt wrote in post #14898665
The OP did state, " The largest lens I would probably use on this new tripod would be a Tamron 70-300mm or possibly a Canon 200-500mm". Based upon that criteria, the Markins Q3T does not comply with Markin's own recommendation for lenses over 300mm in FL.

I'm sure it'll be fine, after all markins claim a "max load" of 30kg. Granted, max load isn't really something to pay much attention to, but the 200-500 (I'm assuming its the tamron) weighs 1.2kg. If the markins can't hold that, I don't see why its so highly recommended.

The main problem with the 200-500 on the q3t would be handling I suppose, not whether the head can support the weight or not. However, for such a lens, I'd normally recommend a gimbal. I am however presuming the OP doesn't only intend to use his (her?) 200-500 on the tripod, in which case a gimbal would likely be an inconvenience for using his other lenses, as well as not really meeting his "light as possible" criterion, hence the recommendation for the q3t.

EDIT: posted at same time as OP

If money doesn't matter, look into the Acratech GP-S, small enough to allow reverse folding, I believe, and acts as gimbal head for up to 400/4, which is heavier than your 200-500. Its $400 though, same as the legs.

Sirrith wrote in post #14898710
I'm sure it'll be fine, after all markins claim a "max load" of 30kg. Granted, max load isn't really something to pay much attention to, but the 200-500 (I'm assuming its the tamron) weighs 1.2kg. If the markins can't hold that, I don't see why its so highly recommended.

The main problem with the 200-500 on the q3t would be handling I suppose, not whether the head can support the weight or not. However, for such a lens, I'd normally recommend a gimbal. I am however presuming the OP doesn't only intend to use his (her?) 200-500 on the tripod, in which case a gimbal would likely be an inconvenience for using his other lenses, as well as not really meeting his "light as possible" criterion, hence the recommendation for the q3t.

EDIT: posted at same time as OP

If money doesn't matter, look into the Acratech GP-S, small enough to allow reverse folding, I believe, and acts as gimbal head for up to 400/4, which is heavier than your 200-500. Its $400 though, same as the legs.

Per my original post, it's a Canon 200-500mm.

Money always matters. I just don't want to make a mistake and have to repeat this lesson all over again in a few months. I'll likely have to get the legs first and then save up for the ball head but so be it, if that's what it takes to get a decent set-up that will last me for many years.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a "he". The name is Ed.

Ed

Maybe go a little less for an Aluminum Sirui: ($190)
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=ta
(only a little more than half a pound heavier than the CF version)

and get either an RRS head setup or a Sunwayfoto XB-44:
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_44_Low_Profile​_Ball.html

I have one (I reviewed it for Sunwayfoto) and it is an awfully nice head. I never switched back to my RRS BH-40 until I decided to send the XB-44 to a pro I know for his thoughts a couple weeks ago. I took the XB-44 to a car show and on trips to Europe and Asia and it was terrific, even with my beastly 80-200 f/2.8 (Nikon's older pro glass).

The setup above would put you over $100 under your budget, and should handle what you've described.

Sirrith wrote in post #14898710
I'm sure it'll be fine, after all markins claim a "max load" of 30kg. Granted, max load isn't really something to pay much attention to, but the 200-500 (I'm assuming its the tamron) weighs 1.2kg. If the markins can't hold that, I don't see why its so highly recommended.

The main problem with the 200-500 on the q3t would be handling I suppose, not whether the head can support the weight or not. However, for such a lens, I'd normally recommend a gimbal. I am however presuming the OP doesn't only intend to use his (her?) 200-500 on the tripod, in which case a gimbal would likely be an inconvenience for using his other lenses, as well as not really meeting his "light as possible" criterion, hence the recommendation for the q3t.

A review of the Markins states,

"In the updated definition of a pro ball head, one important characteristic is that the controls should not be binary, i.e. locked or unlocked; but have a mid ground where the gear stays put if left alone -without slipping or creeping- and can be moved easily without having to touch the controls. The higher the load capacity in relation to the actual load -more so with heavy gear- the easier is to find and enjoy effortlessly that mid ground. This is called by many the 'sweet spot'


"As the table below shows, the M20 retained almost the same efficient load capacity to weight ratio of the M10, increasing it by 5Kg ~ 11lbs while only adding 70g ~ 0.26lbs of weight, 3mm of height and a very few mm of diameter. In consequence, even when handling the really big guns, with the Markins Q20 you keep the most efficient load capacity to weight ratio and smoothest operation at its sweet spot."

This supports the 'handling' statement above, rather than load capacity.

M635_Guy wrote in post #14898805
Maybe go a little less for an Aluminum Sirui: ($190)
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=ta
(only a little more than half a pound heavier than the CF version)

OP already has a cheap tripod though. No point going for another one and then upgrading again in a few years' or even shorter time.

mnphotos wrote in post #14898754
Per my original post, it's a Canon 200-500mm.

Money always matters. I just don't want to make a mistake and have to repeat this lesson all over again in a few months. I'll likely have to get the legs first and then save up for the ball head but so be it, if that's what it takes to get a decent set-up that will last me for many years.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a "he". The name is Ed.

Ed

I can't seem to find any mention of a canon 200-500 anywhere on google

If you don't mind spending more and buying separately, then the acratech + feisol should suit your needs. Either way, the legs should be enough for you, assuming the 200-500 which I can't find any information about isn't a complete monster of a lens. If that does turn out to be the case however, you'd have to look at a heavier set of legs and a maybe even a proper gimbal head, though the acratech can support up to a ~2kg lens in gimbal "mode".

Sirrith wrote in post #14898896
I can't seem to find any mention of a canon 200-500 anywhere on google

If you don't mind spending more and buying separately, then the acratech + feisol should suit your needs. Either way, the legs should be enough for you, assuming the 200-500 which I can't find any information about isn't a complete monster of a lens. If that does turn out to be the case however, you'd have to look at a heavier set of legs and a maybe even a proper gimbal head, though the acratech can support up to a ~2kg lens in gimbal "mode".

I wasn't sure what the low end of the Canon lens is. It's actually my friend's lens but I do know the upper end is 500mm. I tried finding it on the Canon web site but I had no success. I'll ask him for the model and focal range tomorrow.

M635_Guy wrote in post #14898805
Maybe go a little less for an Aluminum Sirui: ($190)
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=ta
(only a little more than half a pound heavier than the CF version)

and get either an RRS head setup or a Sunwayfoto XB-44:
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_44_Low_Profile​_Ball.html

I have one (I reviewed it for Sunwayfoto) and it is an awfully nice head. I never switched back to my RRS BH-40 until I decided to send the XB-44 to a pro I know for his thoughts a couple weeks ago. I took the XB-44 to a car show and on trips to Europe and Asia and it was terrific, even with my beastly 80-200 f/2.8 (Nikon's older pro glass).

The setup above would put you over $100 under your budget, and should handle what you've described.

Thanks for the suggestion but I already have an aluminum tripod. Weight is one of the important factors, as is quality, in my next tripod purchase.