Travelling tripods and heads

Firstly I'd like to thank all contributors since I've been looking through the posts here and as a result have narrowed down my search for tripod nivarna - lightweight, high quality, not earth shatteringly expensive. However, I am keen for advice on heads and would like to make sure it fits with the tripod legs that I am looking at. If anybody wants to suggest alternatives I am all ears.. well, eyes... oh you know what I mean.

Key points of use:

• I'm backpacking for 10 months, so must be light enough to live with; i.e., max desired total weight is 2kg (4.5lbs) but will consider others in that region or less.
  
• I'll be shooting landscapes, people and wildlife, but wildlife and landscapes main use for tripod.
  
• Have 350D and max load will be 350D + 75-300 lens (around 1.2 kg I think)

• looking for pan control
  
• Ball head
  
• compact
  
• Quick release
  
• spirit level (not essential - will I use this???)

Slik Sprint Pro Gunmetal with Ball head.

Slik 613; about 4 ft. high fully extended; just over 2 lb. without head.

Thanks Gjman and Jon - these both look excellent. The first Slik looks like a better alternative to the Manfrotto option and the Slik legs certainly give me a choice against the Feisol since their weight is very low.

I still have a couple of questions though:
Panning heads
The problem I still have is the slik sprint pro doesn't have a panning head:
- What are the experienced views here? Do I need a panning head? or from a practical point of view do I just make do and fiddle about a bit more? Would you leave home without one? I'm trying to strike a very delicate balance here.

Any suggested panning heads with quick release to put on top of the
Slik or Feisol legs? Any strong opinions on the choices here? Any anti/ pro slik/ Feisol people out there?

Cheers

Cheenis wrote in post #2402885
I still have a couple of questions though:
Panning heads
The problem I still have is the slik sprint pro doesn't have a panning head:
- What are the experienced views here?

Well ever since these pics were taken I did manage to get to Canoga Camera and get the 3/8th to 1/4th bushing. Once you screw in this bushing into your existing panning head (You can buy a 488RC2 or anything you fancy from RRS/Kirk etc), it will fit on the slik sprint pro head.

I dont have a panning head, but I do have Manfrotto ProBall 308 (forerunner to the 486RC2). With the bushing I now use the same head on all three supports: 3021Bpro and 680B (with no bushing) and slik sprint pro with the bushing.

If you guys want I'll take some pics of it.

Cheenis wrote in post #2399314
Feisol CT-3402N
My current favourite is the Feisol (despite the terrible website). I would look to get it without the centre extension (to save weight and have greater stability) thus I am looking for a good lightweight head to fit on top. Any suggestions?

Key questions:
Can anybody confirm the height without the centre extension?
Has anybody had a bad experience with this pod?
Will any head fit on top? (I am assuming these things are universal)
What head would you reccomend?
I've read that the quick release plates are not always a standard size.. any problems here?
For those of you that have backpacked for extended periods, do you have any advice?

paulhillion has just sold me his 3402 althou due to Xmas post it has not arrived yet . I am going to use a Gitzo 1177M on it for now until I can get a Benro KS-1. I'm sure paul would be happy to answer any questions on this and I know he is a fan of Feisol as he has just bought another one!

My favorite for that would be the Gitzo 1258 and the RRS BH40. That is one tough rig and it comes in well under your 4.5lb limit.

The feisol would also pair well with the BH40. My only concern is that I suspect your gear is going to get some very tough use for that long backpacking. I presume it will see mud, grit, cold, hot etc... Feisol looks good, but they are relatively new and the user-hours are not there yet. While it will probably be all right, I think one would hate to be out there and have the thing be rendered inoperable and then have to schlep it back again. At that point, the price difference would not seem to large anymore.

J.

Gitzo Traveler.

I have a SLIK Pro xx and it came with a panning head. I bought this for a P&S Pro1 well over a year ago before I got into this big time. Without the panning head, it is very light, with the panning head, SLIK, it weighs a ton, that is why I bought the lighter Bogen head and I would suggest before you buy any head, you check the weight out closely!

My Slik 613 has a Manfrotto 486RC2 ball head. 486, not 488 for weight and size reasons. If I'm not ultra-weight limited I'll be using the Manfrotto CF.

I am not sure where this thread is heading....

The Lightest and Cheapest set of tripod legs you can possibly find are the Slik Sprint Pro. Sure you can buy $200 CF legs (if you have the resources) but given that you need a light set of legs ONLY when you are hiking (or when you cant take your otherwise excellent 3021 class of legs) means that it does not get that much use. If you are using the "lighter" legs more often than your regular legs perhaps you need to invest in $200 CF legs. I am assuming most folks on POTN have limited resources and are trying to optimize the same.

The only problem with the $80 Slik Sprint Pro is that it has 1/4-20 threading which means your std 3/8th thread Bogen/Kirk/RRS/ArcaSwi​ss panning/nonpanning/pis​tol/action heads wont work. Thats why you need the bushing that lets you screw on your existing head of choice onto the "light and cheap" legs.

Given that you will carry your camera stuff + other non camera stuff (food & water) when you go hiking the incremental weight of a std. ballhead is really a NON ISSUE.


Since a picture is worth a 1000 words (even if its blurred coz I was trying to use digital macro mode on my P&S)

Bogen ProBall 308 (486RC2) with the OEM Slik SBH-100 (that comes with the sprint pro), with the Hama 3/8th inch to 1/4-20th inch bushing ($1.00) in the foreground.

Wow, thanks guys! I have to say I am completely torn now, but a few road tests should put me in the picture.

Slik combo
I've set up to have a look at the Slik legs at a local shop - my main concern here is that it'll struggle in the wind, so I want to see if I can hang stuff from hit to add extra weight without collapsing the tripod (gjman have you expereince of this?) The slik legs have a massive benefit over the equivalent manfrotto digi legs in that I can swap the head (either to the Manfrotto head, the RRS BH-40 or the BH-25 - if I decide to forget about the independent panning requirement)

- Gjman is absolutley right about the cost issue, but I may bite the bullet and go all in since if I find myself getting up before sunrise on some 5000m high plateau in the Himalayas to take some landscape shots only to find the wind is too strong to allow stability then I will be pretty upset.

Feisol Vs Gitzo
Have taken on board the long term concerns of the Feisol and whilsts I still like them, I think that if I am going to spend the money then I may as well check the big boys. I think the Basalt 1197 Gitzo is the ideal here, and would look to combine with one of the RRS heads for a combination I could use for life. I'm afraid I don't buy into the super heavy tripods at all since I just don't believe I will use them. The Basalt strength means I can hang enough weight off the hook to make it strong enough. I also have the opportunity to buy from the US so I could get the whole set up for £260 ish which may sound a lot, but all the Brits on here will know that the legs alone will cost me that over here.

Thanks again guys, I'll let you know what I end up with & why just to close this one out. Gjman if you have any thoughts on adding weight to the Slik legs then I'm all ears.

Cheers,

Cheenis wrote in post #2419288
Feisol Vs Gitzo
Have taken on board the long term concerns of the Feisol and whilsts I still like them, I think that if I am going to spend the money then I may as well check the big boys. I think the Basalt 1197 Gitzo is the ideal here, and would look to combine with one of the RRS heads for a combination I could use for life. I'm afraid I don't buy into the super heavy tripods at all since I just don't believe I will use them. The Basalt strength means I can hang enough weight off the hook to make it strong enough. I also have the opportunity to buy from the US so I could get the whole set up for £260 ish which may sound a lot, but all the Brits on here will know that the legs alone will cost me that over here.

Just a note on capacities - Gitzo is probably the most conservative in their ratings. For example, my 1258 shows a load rating of 17.6lbs but yet one can easily put much, much more than this on top of the tripod and it won't collapse. I asked Gtizo about this and their response was that their load ratings are what are the usable load ratings for taking photographs not the load that the tripod will hold. So, if you are going to add a weight to stabilize, especially if it is low, then you don't really have to add that totally to the load rating.

The other thing you may want to consider is that the material of the legs is also a contributing factor in damping vibration. I believe that CF is better (and lighter) at this than basalt (similar to fiberglass). So you may be able to go smaller and lighter and still get the same damping performance that you were looking for especially if you are going to be religious about using a weight to stabilize the tripod.

Here's an interesting link to show you some of the performance issues on tripods, done by a guy at Markins. While it isn't a conclusive study of tripod performance, you can see the various factors that contribute to vibration that cost you sharpness.

Charlie Kim Tripod Teechnique

It can be a little tedious to read at times, but there is some really good information here.

Leica also did a study (Leica Fotographie International Magazine, 1/2006) of a number of mfgs submitted tripods trying to gauge the impact of vibration from the ground and a simulated wind load. They dropped a 2kg weight on the surface next to the tripod ( a layer of cardboard over cement) to simulate someone stamping their feet and then hung a pendulum swinging on the end of a lever arm (lens) to simulate wind load.

The results showed that basically, the lighter the tripod, the more it had a hard time damping vibration from the 2kg load drop. However, the best of the tripods showed little variation to wind loads (pendulum) regardless of the size of the tripod.

In this, they tested the Gitzo 1257LVL and the Gitzo Basalt 1198. Both did well with wind, but the CF version did much better than the Basalt version. Admitedly, there are differences in load rating, but the variation in the top tripods, regardless of weight, was pretty good and the Basalt was not as good. So, I think you can draw a qualitative judgment here that says that the CF might be better in a wind than a Basalt one might be and that one could get away with a CF one that is a a size smaller than an equivalent basalt one (meaning less money and less weight).

My only issues with this study are primarily based on the 2kg weight when the base is two layers of cardboard over cement. I'm not sure what this resembles and I think it is a bit bouncy. However, I think the wind simulation is reasonable. In your application, I don't think you are going to be worried about ground vibrations too much either (no vehicle traffic). Just don't stamp your feet while shooting. Wind, however, will be an issue for you.

The other thing you can do is if you are concerned about wind, is not to fully exend the legs when you shoot. If you shoot from a kneeling position, and don't fully extend the legs, the whole setup should be much more stable.

So, I'd consider downsizing a touch. I think with your max load, you should be able to pull that off well. From your post, I'm thinking that you place a high premium on weight, and in this case, going lighter but staying with CF is probably going to serve you well and probably save you money in the process. If you go with the same size tripod in CF over Basalt, you should be yet more stable and you will be still lower in weight. The difference in cost, while it may seem tough now, will seem like good value after you lug the lighter piece of gear for a month or two.


J.

Nice... my favorite affordable ultralight tripod. If you ever scale up, you can use this as a lightstand

I found that it simply was not stable enough for a 5D with 24-105 lens though..quite amazing how you guys managed to put a 70-200 f/2.8 ISL on it! Might be the ballhead.

If you are sticking with the stock ballhead I highly recommend you get a QR plate to fit it.. you will go nuts taking it off and putting it on otherwise. I used the Giottos MH625 QR assembly. Perfect for the 350D and 10-22/17-85 lens. You are probably better off replacing the ballhead as has been recommended.

Lightstream wrote in post #2419833
Nice... my favorite affordable ultralight tripod. If you ever scale up, you can use this as a lightstand

I found that it simply was not stable enough for a 5D with 24-105 lens though..quite amazing how you guys managed to put a 70-200 f/2.8 ISL on it! Might be the ballhead.

More likely the tripod mount on the 70-200. With that, your camera/lens combo has the mass centered better than a camera/24-105 will be. Even with a good head, the torque can be a problem.