Which Tripe has stability?

M

Mike Jones

Suspended / Banned
Messages
46
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Armed with a 500D plus battery grip and a Siggy 150-500 I'm aware that this is getting a bit heavy for my tripod (just an Argos one I had). I've looked at Manfrotto ones at around £200 (with head) and well, they seem a bit wobbly when you put weight on it.

I sort of in my naive way felt I needed something a bit chunky to make certain it can take the weight and be stable. I'm 5 foot 9 (and shrinking rapidly), and use the tripod for taking birdy shots (or I will when I can find a 150-500 for good money)

Is it a case of just going to a Jessops or similar and having a good look? Unfortunately my local Jessops store in Taunton Somerset is tiny and does not hold much stock.

Thanks

Mike
 
It all depends on the head really.

Most well built aluminium tripods will take the weight fine but it's worth spending the money on a decent head. It is rare the tripod 'kits' come with a decent head - better to buy the legs and head separately.
 
for being sturdy and solid, and also having the extra convenience of a horizontal centre column, i would definately recommend the Manfrotto 055XProB tripod.
for heads to go with it, for budget go for the Manfrotto 804RC2, or for quality get the Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head.

the tripod can be heavy if carrying it distances, but it really is worth it, and you get the extra height compared to the Manfrotto 190
 
Wouldn't you be better off with a gimbal head for birds?
I think a ball head would be frustrating if you are trying to take pics of anything that moves.
 
A gimbal head would be the ideal, but they can be quite expensive, as well as being heavy and adding to the weight the tripod needs to carry (i.e. that might need to be more expensive as well). The 'sidekick' type ones weigh less and are cheaper, but a decent ballhead is also needed at the same time for those (or it used to be - I'm a bit out of touch with the latest models).

Don't forget that with expensive glass and a quick release system you should really be using well-designed and properly fitting lens plates for attaching to the head - more expense unfortunately.
 
the_womble said:
for quality get the Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah! I can just imagine trying to shoot birds with a 3-way geared head:gag:

If you're going to be shooting birds in flight with a 500mm lens then you have two choices - go to the gym and develop a set of Schwarzenegger - style biceps - or, get yourself a decent tripod and a gimbal head.
 
hollis_f said:
Oh, yeah! I can just imagine trying to shoot birds with a 3-way geared head:gag:

If you're going to be shooting birds in flight with a 500mm lens then you have two choices - go to the gym and develop a set of Schwarzenegger - style biceps - or, get yourself a decent tripod and a gimbal head.
Click to expand...

if the birds are in flight then yeah, pay £500 for a Wimberley MKII or a Custom Brackets gimbal, or a sidekick + ball head .. but i got the feeling the budget for tripod and head was around £200 which rules a lot of options out
 
There's always the option of a Manfrotto 393 for a gimbal head. Just North of 100 quid still I think, and comes complete with a long lens plate. Perfectly usable - even with very long lenses without spending a fortune.
 
Look for MF 190XPROB for well under £200 . It is slightly lower than 055, but very sturdy for my needs (I usually load 3+ kg kit on it). I found carbon fibre expensive option to be completely inadequate even with xxD+100mm macro setup. I suspect a good head choice can be very important too.

The best thing to do now is to go to a big shop and try out as many.
 
the_womble said:
if the birds are in flight then yeah, pay £500 for a Wimberley MKII or a Custom Brackets gimbal, or a sidekick + ball head .. but i got the feeling the budget for tripod and head was around £200 which rules a lot of options out
Click to expand...

One has to make a choice - either save for a solution that is usable or waste money on something that isn't, only to have to splash out later when it becomes obvious that the cheap solution isn't viable.

A second-hand 055 tripod, coupled with a 393 head, or an Ebay Wimberly knock-off, should give a usable solution that is not too expensive. Much better than buying a cheapo Jessops wobble-pod and a droopomatic head that needs replacing after a few weeks of utter frustration. Assuming the whole edifice doesn't first crumple under the weight, throwing camera and lens to the floor.
 
hollis_f said:
One has to make a choice - either save for a solution that is usable or waste money on something that isn't, only to have to splash out later when it becomes obvious that the cheap solution isn't viable.

A second-hand 055 tripod, coupled with a 393 head, or an Ebay Wimberly knock-off, should give a usable solution that is not too expensive. Much better than buying a cheapo Jessops wobble-pod and a droopomatic head that needs replacing after a few weeks of utter frustration. Assuming the whole edifice doesn't first crumple under the weight, throwing camera and lens to the floor.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. If your interest lies in nature and bird photography, it's inevitable that at some stage you're going to be mounting a heavy lens and kit setups on that tripod, so you might as well ensure from the outset, that the tripod is going to meet your future needs. The alternative is to make an expensive process a lot more so. :shrug:

The wrong tripod can make life a nightmare when you try to use it, whilst the right one is just sheer pleasure.
 
FWIW I have the Manfrotto 393 gimbal head, bought for use for bird photography with my 100-400. There's nothing wrong with the head (as far as I can tell) but it didn't take me long to give up using it. I think it is suited more to a bigger, longer, heavier lens for use on large birds (eagles for example) shot at a greater distance with a slowish angular velocity relative to the camera. I find that for smaller, closer stuff such as hurtling ducks or wheeling lapwings it restricts my speed and precision of movement too much and I'd far rather hand hold for tracking BIF. I think it is more the type of thing that one would use with a 400/2.8 or 500/4 and longer and for shooting large, slow birds that move in a predictable path. We don't get many of those round here. YMMV.

Also, when relocating shooting position frequently, or at all, it's a bit of a pain making sure the tripod is perfectly leveled up every time you stop. If you don't level the tripod each time then as you pan you find the horizon going wonky.

With the 393 you are also limited to rather coarse adjustments for balance. You may get lucky and find you have total equilibrium regardless of angle, or you may need to accept just a hint of bias towards a specific angle of rest. Of course you can dial in some tension to combat that and to hold the lens steady at any angle, but it's a point to note. I'm also not sure that it is that big a deal, but more expensive options offer stepless balance adjustment in the vertical plane rather than three widely spaced holes as the only option on the 393.

For birds on a stick I'm more than happy to use my ball head. A ball head also overcomes the issue of leveling up since you can easily compensate without fiddling about with leg levers all the time.

At the end of the day it's horses for courses. I do agree that it is a false economy to buy cheap and buy twice, or thrice. Get it right first time and enjoy the benefits from day one.
 
tdodd said:
I do agree that it is a false economy to buy cheap and buy twice, or thrice. Get it right first time and enjoy the benefits from day one.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've just bought my fourth general-purpose tripod. Originally, all I wanted was one for my birding scope. The first was the metal one that came free with the scope - fairly light but not very stable. So that was replaced with a Manfrotto 055, again metal. That was stable enough but my first 3-mile walk with it made me realise it wasn't exactly lightweight. My third 'pod has lasted many years - it's a Velbon CF-630 and is excellent for use with the scope. It's also not bad with the camera, except that it's a bit short - and I have to use the centre column quite a bit (I'm 195 cm tall).

So now I've just splashed out on, what I hope is, my last ever tripod. It's an Induro CT313 and goes up to 160 cm with the centre column down (that's 18 cm more than the old 055). I'll keep the Velbon just for use with the scope and for long treks (it's 0.6 kg lighter) - but it's going to be great to be able to shoot without crouching over.
 
Another recommendation for the Manfrotto X055PRO, I use the junior geared head with a gripped 7D and 100-400 with no movement by would not recommend the setup for birds as there isn't enough movement for birds, bloody good kit though :)
 
tdodd said:
Also, when relocating shooting position frequently, or at all, it's a bit of a pain making sure the tripod is perfectly leveled up every time you stop. If you don't level the tripod each time then as you pan you find the horizon going wonky.
Click to expand...
You don't have to do that Tim - just slacken the lens mount screw and rotate the camera (and lens) to horizontal.
 
CT said:
You don't have to do that Tim - just slacken the lens mount screw and rotate the camera (and lens) to horizontal.
Click to expand...

True. It might be a little tricky while actively panning a moving target, but worth an experiment I think. Thanks for the idea. :)
 
tdodd said:
True. It might be a little tricky while actively panning a moving target, but worth an experiment I think. Thanks for the idea. :)
Click to expand...
It's what I tend to do all the time Tim.

the 393 isn't the ideal gimbal for shorter lenses I have to agree - the 100-400L for instance can look a bit lost on it. The 300mm 2.8L is just about perfect on the 393 - balances perfectly and see-saws up and down with no danger of fouling the tripod at either end.

The 100-400L on the other hand even when balanced still needs a degree of torque applied to go hands off without it tipping forwards or backwards. Not enough torque though to stop you having a good range of free movement - same situation only more so with the 500mm f4L.
 
Last edited:
All down to price for me. Been looking for a good one but not too expensive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top