134cm tripod

Flats

Flats

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,285
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
I am considering getting a very sturdy tripod for travel, specifically bird photography. The compact size of 48cm is perfect, as is the weight and load specs. I am however worried about the max height of 134cm. With the Tripod head in place I would top out at around 145cm. My current tripod has a max height of 148cm, so the lens probably sits at 160ish. I am in two minds as to whether I would miss the extra 14cms of height. On the one hand I know I generally prefer to shoot low. On the other hand I know that it's sometimes necessary to get as high as possible. Any thoughts from the community?
Thanks
Jonathan
 
Hi Flats,

What are you travelling for? Is it a holiday where you'll photograph some birds on the side, or is that the main focus of the trip?

Whenever I'm in the Algarve wetlands (quinta do lago) I find that I don't want to sit and stay stationery with a tripod, I tend to be on the move so find a monopod is most convenient. I do always take both with me, but find outside of our grounds (the only place outside of the UK I've ever used a tripod to photographing birds as I took the time to do a set up) I never take the tripod with me for my walks, as there's so much to see to stay still for too long.

Tripod is good if you know bird A will at location B sometime in the next couple of hours. If your travelling / holidaying I find it best to explore and find the birds, and it's unlikely you'll want to be in one place long enough for a tripod.

Unless of course you don't mind spending your holiday in the one place and your fairly confident of the area to know you're in the right place to get the shot.
 
I guess a key point is where are you going? So we can work out what kind of bird you want to shoot.

I was going to recommend a bean bag attachment for shooting waders low down, which is useless if your looking for summer tanagers in the Caribbean.

I did recently purchase a travel tripod too, and it is a similar size to the short one you've described. It will be replacing my full size one for my transatlantic trip next month where I hope to be shooting some hummingbirds. (I'll be taking a monopod too?
 
Last edited:
which tripod are you looking at? how tall are you?

I originally thought 3leggedthing Adrian wasn't tall enough quoted at 128cm with centre column retracted, but turns out with the ballhead and camera, it's perfect height for me to look through the viewfinder. viewfinder is probably at height of 160cm, I'm 175 tall.

(it's folded height is even more compact than the one you are looking at, it's 42cm)
(3LT tripods also have detachable mono-pod)
 
Yes, I typically use a monopod whilst travelling, the Gitzo 5561T. As a birder more than a photographer, it is ideal for "on the move" photography. However lately I have become rather more focussed, if you will excuse the pun, on pure photography, and am using my 3530 and wimberley close to 100% of the time. I'd rather get great shots of 10 species than see 50 if that makes sense...not sure it does. Anyhow, when I travel, I usually place the 3530 in my suitcase, and the monopod in my hand luggage with the lens. I love the mobility of the monopod, and the past this has been a life-saver when the suitcase has failed to arrive on the same plane as me! However I recognise that my photos are very often better when I use a tripod as support. For waders I like to put the Wimberley on a skimmer pod, kind of like a frisbee.

This year I am off to Morocco for desert species where I anticipate staying low will get the best images, to Spain where it could be a mixture, to Hungary for hide photography where low is going to be the order of the day, and then to Florida where I'm not sure.

The tripod I have in mind is a 4552TS

Rgds
Jonathan
 
Ahh it seems like your trips are much more photography orientated than I thought you were talking about in your first post.

What's limiting about taking your current tripod? I take it none would be carry on for flights anyway? Is it a weight thing too?

If you're using your 800mm then I'd stick with the one you've got. Wouldn't be risking that falling off of a lightweight tripod.
 
I would prefer to carry a tripod in my hand luggage - that is the sole factor here. I want to be able to step off a plane with everything I need in my hands. A tripod that is 48cm long fits in in my camera bag alongside my lens. Anything over 52cm does not!
 
Flats said:
I would prefer to carry a tripod in my hand luggage - that is the sole factor here. I want to be able to step off a plane with everything I need in my hands. A tripod that is 48cm long fits in in my camera bag alongside my lens. Anything over 52cm does not!
Click to expand...

I see, bit ambitious for me. Always presumed you'd get hassle and told to check them into the hold.

Good luck! Heard good things about the benro carbon fibre travel series if you can justify £20-£300? I did look briefly into travel tripods earlier this year but the vast majority had a low weight limit and wound have only been good for up to a 200mm.
 
Last edited:
Check that a tripod is acceptable as hand baggage. Keep an eye on the weight of the bag too. Last thing you want is for something to have to go in the hold.
 
Nod said:
Check that a tripod is acceptable as hand baggage. Keep an eye on the weight of the bag too. Last thing you want is for something to have to go in the hold.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Some airlines offer as little as 5Kg which I found out the hard way. BA is the way to go, 2 carry on, no weight limit providing you can left it into overhead.
 
Interesting, looks like they're ripping off Gitzo! Were it not for the 10kg support limit, could be excellent. 10kg is insufficient for my needs though. I want at least double, preferably more, for maximum rigidity. The body, lens, Wimberley and converters can weigh up to 8kg.
Rgds
Jonathan
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/160592747003

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=398313

I know you've already got the Wimberley - but there's this for almost half the weight of the original, and 300g less than the II.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4736594&postcount=24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kqvfvPV_O0

You've mentioned 48cm fits in the camera bag, but over 52cm doesn't - does that infer the 51cm length of the M-3204 (as in the video there too) would be viable, with its 18kg load bearing capacity?
If so, the same ebay seller has it listed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top