The performance is similar - the top plate on the 3472 is milled high strength aluminum, and the leg material is a thinner stronger carbon fiber (that accounts for the difference in weight) - and the price is definitely right. I don't know of another mfgr that offers this kind of value in a tripod. I don't hesitate using either with a 500 or 600mm lens. (the Tammy or the Nikon 600F4)

Have you seen their long lens support? their gimbal is a departure from the cantilever design based on the Wimberley, and just looks awesomely stable - and it supports both the lens and camera on a rail, which removes a significant amount of vibration - just curious to know if anyone is using one - I may take the plunge when I have an extra $500 lying around that I don't need. :)

37mm top tube - any tripod with that spec or thicker will give you great stability.

I had a Sigma 50-500 on a D70 - figured I could get away with a Gitzo Series 3 - paid almost $600 for one back in 2008. I was not happy with the results. Sold it a month after I bought it. it had a 32 mm top tube and Gitzo said they recommended it for up to 300mm on a full frame camera. They were right on the money.

I bought the Feisol 3472 because, at the time, it was the cheapest tripod with a 37mm top tube - which after the Gitzo fiasco, I discovered by doing my homework. So I sent a $550 payment to Feisol in Hong Kong, and a week later I got it. I now use it with a 600mm F4, and occasionally with a 1.4x TC - no issues, totally happy with the performance.

Oben, Sirui, Induro, and others make tripods up to the task, for less money than RRS and Gitzo - and are certainly worth a look.

I have watched the UGH discussion and found really seriously helpful folks with excellent advice given freely and with care. I am hoping for similar treatment in the solution of the purchase of a new monopod. Here is the problem:

a: I am not quite 90yrs but pushing same, so a lightweight monopod is mandatory.
b: Since stability is a problem (same for me and tripod!) the monopod must be able to bear weight as a staff as well. A hand strap would be required.
c: The monopod should be able fold up to a small size (20" or less) for travel (international and national).
d. Most of these requirements could be met with the use of fiberglass rather than aluminum. What I have been able to find is both confusing in detail and/or lack thereof, and expensive as well.
e. This last is a major factor for I cannot predict the length of time the equipment may be used (!). More than $100 is not feasible and less would be highly preferable as a head (light weight) would also be necessary.

Not having ANY experience with monopods or tripods I m facing the above dillemma. Of course the obvious question is the camera weight. In this regard, you should know that because of equipment weight problems alone, last year I cleared out my entire camera collection of Canon cameras from the MarkIIIds and previous such models with all the lenses from wide angle, micro, normal and zoom, at a small fraction of the original costs, (monies going to charities). The replacement is a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 which weighs about 2 lbs (including the built-in Leitz lens). In my opinion, a sincere loss in photographic quality but a gain in ability to be useful. I do not want to obviate this heartfelt loss by not being able to truly use the FZ1000 especially when travelling.

I am sorry to have subjected you all to this all-too-long tale but I felt this necessary your understanding of the predicament in which I now find myself. Thank you reading and thank you for any help you may be able to give.

Steve, the more important question is HOW do you use the lens? If you are in a blind, any lens should be on a tripod. If you are shooting a fast moving sport were you also, say move from spot to spot constantly, them you won't get much if not hand-holding.
The subject dictates the method, not the lens.
Of course your physical limitations also dictate how you use your equipment.
For what I shoot with it, a 70-200 would NEVER be on a tripod but a 35mm for fireworks would ALWAYS be on a tripod. My subject dictates how I use my equipment. It's about getting GOOD shots, not a competition about how macho we are!! :lol:
SS

Neither will be stable enough for a 900mm lens. Some of my students have tried to get them to work - yes, the counteract gravity and the tripods don't fail at that, but there is still lots of vibration. If you go Manfrotto, their least expensive tripod that will do the job is their 057, which is 6.7 lbs and costs $800 new.

Most tripods will support the weight of a Tamron 150-600, but only a few will be stable enough to keep things from shaking.

This should lend some clarity on technique and how to use a long lens on a tripod, but the opening line about expensive camera, expensive lens and cheap tripod is priceless - and excellent advice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8HVPrPzpR4

Moose Peterson's wildlife photography is on the money.

A $200 tripod is in that class of cheap tripods.

I'm very interested in this discussion because my computer was recently hacked and I lost 2 1/2 years worth of scanned images (I use these for memorabilia books). I even had a WD external drive plugged into the computer and the images were gone from that too!!! All my regular images (JPEG & RAW) were still there except for the year 2014 (I have images back to 2000).

I just started cloud storage and I think that is a great backup idea. I was also going to set up some kind of off-computer storage. I thought of just keeping the RAW files on the memory cards, so I was a bit disheartened to read that they only last about 10 years.

The "My Passport Wireless" with built-in card reader does sound like a good way to save your photos on a trip without a computer, but I would also backup to a cloud service (or two). I may go this route as well.

I was looking at the more rugged iO Safe Solo G3 for safer storage, maybe when you get home; because I can't see any way to download images directly from a memory card. It is shockproof, waterproof, fireproof, ranges in size from 2 - 4 TB with a price range of $350 to $500.

I will continue looking for a better way to backup my images, but I have seen some good suggestions on this thread.

Have a wonderful trip, DrWilt, and good luck!

I am in the planning stages of an 8 week history/photography trip along the French and Belgium Front Lines of World War 1 beginning in early May. I will be travelling primarily by bicycle which severely limits what I can carry.

The weight of a laptop and battery would be excessive and tablets do not have the capacity to store the large quantities of photographs anticipated. Large quantities of SD cards, while certainly light enough, would be awkward, expensive and too easily lost.

I'm sure other Hogs have experienced similar situations where size and weight of storage is a factor so I am appealing for your help and suggestions in this matter.

What do you use for large quantity photo storage on extended trips? Thanks for your help.

I love my relatively new Sony a6000. I bought it with the kit 16-50mm lens which is ok. Most of the time my IQ is quite good, but rarely do the images seem to "pop" with either dramatic sharpness, contrast or color. I'm really pretty much a travel photographer, and do not otherwise spend a lot of time taking photos...but when I do, I really like them to be terrific. I'm seriously considering buying the Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens (the Zeiss lens optimized for the APS-C sensor) which costs about $1,000. Of course this is a much superior lens to the kit lens I now have...but, do you folks think that I will likely notice a very substantial improvement in IQ...enough so as to make this investment reasonable?