Bonfoto aluminum has a 17.6 lb. load capacity, the Bonfoto Carbon Fiber has a 15.4 lb load capacity and the Huihuang has a 26.5 lb. load capacity. The Opteka lens is heaviest at @ 7 pounds and it's long but it balances well. The Sigma is wide and short. Both Bonfoto tripods average 4+ star reviews and neither had less than four stars. I've decided to go with the Huihuang because it's carbon fiber and has a decent load capacity. We'll see if it lives up to its hype.

Then you're not gonna be buying much in the way of camera equipment.

The reason they're not sealed is so the dealer can inspect the product to make sure it's in good condition with nothing missing. I have never received a camera body in a sealed box. I have never received a camera lens in a sealed box. If you've bought camera equipment in a sealed box then it was done at the store. I have Nikon, Minolta, Olympus and Kodak cameras and multiple lenses. I cannot recall even one item bought in a store or on line that came in a sealed product box. You are either lying or mistaken...either way, you're wrong and you're misleading a photography newbie who asked for help. There's no reason for that.

Most often I'll use it with my 600mm Sigma mirror F8. On rare occasions, I might try it with my Opteka 600-1200mm but likely would have to add weight to stabilize when I do. Those are inexpensive and very slow lenses but at my age, I'll not likely be upgrading to anything better.

I've isolated a couple of carbon fiber tripods (Bonfoto 55" and Huihuang 61") at @ $100. Bonfoto has 4.5* rating and no reviews on Huihuang. I'll probably go with the Huihuang because it's $20 cheaper and often you can get good buys with new products. Bonfoto also has an identical 55" in aluminum but you've convinced me carbon fiber is worth a try. After I've had it for awhile, I'll try to remember to post a report back here. thanks for the info.

No wonder you're so pleased with the Gitzo. At prices like that it ought to be solid regardless of weight. I would call $836 on Amazon for GT5542LS a bit beyond my pocketbook as an amateur. There's no way I could justify that even if I were young. I'm at the age now that my wife says every time I buy something new, I'm really buying it for someone else because I'll be dead before I get full use out of it. That's strictly for professionals. Realistically, I would have a hard time justifying much more than $100 for a tripod so I may reduced to using sandbags and other tricks to making an inexpensive tripod do the job. Thanks for the education!!!

Can't say that I would consider a 5 lb. tripod solid, because I haven't used one that was, but I could live with that as far as weight is concerned. I'll check the RRS and Gitzo tripods. Do you have a preferred source? It may be a late Christmas present for me. Good info. Thanks!!!

Everything you say with regard to a solid tripod is absolutely correct. But, solid tripods have, IMHO, two significant drawbacks: 1) They are quite expensive and 2) they're quite heavy. As they say, you get what you pay for. If you can afford one, it's an excellent investment for all of the reasons you mention. But, are you better off saving that money and applying it to a faster but more expensive lens. Only the individual can answer that question. The second issue is weight. I see National Geographic photographers in the field with gigantic tripods that appear sold as the Rock of Gibralter, so they certainly didn't pack them in. My favorite birding spot doesn't allow me to drive to the shooting site. I generally have to hike from 1/2 to as much as three miles and I don't have any safari bearers to carry my gear. As a result, I must have a relatively light weight tripod strapped to my 35-pound camera pack. While I can afford a heavy and stabile tripod, it's just not practical for my purposes. It would, however, as you indicated, greatly simply setup and shooting.

A number of years ago, I found myself in a similar situation and after quite a bit of research, I settled on a used Sigma F8 600mm Mirror Telephoto lens for my Nikon D90. Unfortunately, I couldn't find one used and new ones were selling for around $600. So I bought an Opteka 600-1200mm zoom lens which I still have. Some time later, I came across the Sigma on Ebay and bought it for $300. I still have it. Both lenses are adequate but they are a hassle. Because of the long focal length, they have a large aperture but still need bright sunlight for decent shots. And, at that high level of magnification, a tripod is absolutely essential, preferably with a remote trigger because the slightest movement...even a breeze...can cause the shot to go blurry. I found the Sigma lens to be a bit sharper at 600mm than the Opteka. As an indicator of sharpness of the Sigma, I shot a picture of a white heron at approximately 100 yards. When I zoomed in on the eye in my editor (Gimp) to the point that the eyeball filled the screen, I had no pixelating or distortion of the image. That's probably the reason they are hard to find used. I understand that Sigma no longer makes this lens. You may be able to find one on Ebay, as I did, and there is one on Amazon as I write this for $200 + $4.49 shipping. If the lense is in good shape, I'd say that's a good price. While the lens is large, it's still small enough to fit in my camera back pack so it travels with me. I only take the Opteka with me for its longer reach when I know that I will need it. I would NOT consider either to be good birding lenses because the magnification is too great. It takes a lot of time to set up and the potential for movement to blow the shot is too great. That being said, sometimes it is the only option and it would work for a nesting heron or an eagle in a tree. It would not work for small birds flitting about in the bush. If you have an opportunity to borrow one of these lenses before buying it, I suggest you do that just to make sure it's what you want. Good luck!

More insults and put downs. Where did you get your training? Moscow? You've got nothing but accusations, opinions and insults.

You're the typical Wacko environmentalist who worships the sun and the trees. And you get really PO'd when bigger, brighter people don't agree with you.

Keep your head in the sand. A few years from now, you'll be wondering what happened and you'll realize there are smarter people than you who didn't buy into the propaganda. But then, it will be too late.

You've got no debate and even if you did, you wouldn't know how to deal with the truth.

Keep blathering on...folks like you have no credibility except among those of your own dishonest kind. You, Al Gore and Saul Alinski make good soul mates and sleeping partners.

My mama told me when I was very young: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Your insults don't trouble me, your ideas are phony and you don't even know how to debate something honestly.

There are trolls like you all over the internet wasting people's time with hollow and fictitious arguments.

Why don't you go spend some time on this endangered Karl Reef that is not really made of Karl. Maybe your sun god or tree god will stop the drillers from damaging this endangered coral reef that really doesn't contain coral and really is not in danger. In the meantime, keep praying to those idols and leave the rest of us alone.

I spent sometime lurking here after I signed on but found nothing particularly interesting or helpful. Probably haven't looked in in more than two years. A friend happened to refer me back here and I happened on the topic just after Ole Sarge had posted his criticism of you. I like honest debate and personal putdowns don't have a place there but it's what libs do.

In any case, I appreciated your comments and wanted to support them. You were SPOT on.

When libs can't defend their points they usually resort to personal attacks and criticism. Ole Sarge couldn't defend so he attacked you personally. The tactic is designed to stifle speech of the opposition.

First, I spend plenty of time doing research. Second the manipulation of science change data has been widely publicized in the mainstream liberal media specifically related to the NASA scientist who admitted tampering.

Manmade climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated and has been bought by millions, especially in Europe.

I think, perhaps, that you are the one who needs to do the research and you probably need to back off on your criticism of others who may actually know more about the subject than you claim to.

You seem to want to make your points by bullying people and putting them down. That's a common and sometimes effective liberal tactic straight out of Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals."

You've made no points. You've only expressed opinion and most of that was involved in putting down those who disagreed with you. That's not debate; it's plain and simple badgering and intimidation.

I done here but I want to thank Dave and Cykdelic for making some credible points.

"It is not the scientists who have a problem it is your lack of knowledge as to what they do."

Unfortunately, you are dead wrong. It IS about the scientists and human nature. Scientists are no more nor no less honorable than mankind as a whole and it appears at this point in time than mankind's pursuit of the almighty dollar continues to make mankind less and less honorable.

Scientists are manipulating data continuously to either avoid being proven wrong or to justify grant money to initiate or continue studies to prove the point desired by the grantor.

The corruption in science is equal to and perhaps even greater than the corruption in big business, big pharma and big healthcare and two of the three are science-related.

Your illogical and errant defense of scientists must be either ignorance, a deliberate sham or an egocentric diatribe aimed at convincing folks of behaviors that are simply not true.