imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Unless I missed something, it could be a 500 mirror ??? - it could be the 200-500 Nikon

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Sure, but can you explain why that would make a difference?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You always imply ( say) - Huge and Expensive !

Tripods and ancillary gear are very application specific - in fact everything in photography has become application specific - if you are looking for optimum performance (and cost effective) ! The Idea that one tripod will serve you well ( optimally) for all your gear and conditions is folly - no matter how big it is or how much money you spent or what the label is !

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Since, as Gene pointed out the question was about a 500mm lens. Weight clearly needs to be addressed, but if stability and vibration are critical issues why would it matter if it was a reflex (mirror) lens? They are small, and light, and have other limitations, but still have the same field of view as a refractive lens and both are very subject to vibration. With an APS-C camera a 500mm lens has the equivalent field of view of an 800mm lens. Maybe a 3° angle or similar? That lies outside the GITZO chart range that Gene posted, and on a tripod we are presumably not using image stabilization or equivalent capabilities.

Stability and vibration are a simple matter of physics, and may not matter for certain use cases like wildlife, but could possibly have an impact for longer exposures. What is a tripod for anyway?

I really don't think this has much to do with gear envy except for a few misguided souls possibly.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Oops, my mistake, I agree with you Gene, I meant to question ImageMeister...., apologies

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Most 500mm lenses are being used for wildlife.

Most people shooting wildlife are at Shutter speeds of 1/500 and higher and are attempting to follow and stop movement.

The stability factor needed ( to minimize motion blur) at this SS is minimal - as the camera/lens will probably be moving and tracking motion of some sort anyway necessitating an even higher SS ! Most people with large (heavy- expensive) 500mm lenses are using them in this way. For these large expensive lenses used at high SS, just safely supporting and the ergonomic usage of the camera/lens becomes the major concern while still allowing movements - and actual anti-blur "stability" is less of a concern - again for MOST users. Most users of large/expensive lenses tend to be older and very concerned with size and weight issues of the tripod and less concerned with the cost !

The tripod stability/blur factor required for shooting a stationary subject at slower SS does however become a greater concern ! - and most current IS systems do address this - IF you have it.

The tripod requirements for safely supporting and stabilizing a lighter/smaller 500 mirror lens are much less than those for a larger/heavier 500 f4 refractor - irrespective of the equal narrow fields of view - IMO. ( a physics thing)

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Thanks for the response - it does seem that the physics of the situation are the key...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You take great images, but you don't understand where a large amount of vibration comes from, how different materials dampen those vibrations, and why a 1440mm lens on a 1 lb point and shoot requires greater stability than a 500mm with a D5 attached. Magnification will amplify vibrations regardless of camera weight.

My 600mm F4 is 10 yrs old and weighs 14 lbs, and my D800 is close to 3 lbs with battery grip - 17 lbs. I have a smaller tripod with thinner legs - a Feisol CT3442, that easily "supports" 55 lbs - a pretty conservative rating from the mfgr. I also have their CT 3472, rated at 66 lbs. By your logic, either should "support" my lens and camera. And they both do. But the smaller, lighter tripod is NOT stable, and will telegraph vibrations with lenses longer than 300mm or when I use a macro lens at close to 1:1 - however it is great when used with wide angle lenses to shoot landscapes and other general shooting. The CT3472 is quite stable - and is fine with lenses up to 800mm, which I have used on occasion.

IS systems are typically ineffective at shutter speeds shorter than 1/500. The worst tripod vibrations are micro-vibrations coming from the camera itself. These are low amplitude, high frequency vibrations that come from the shutter mechanism. It plagues DSLRs and mirrorless cameras alike - ask anyone who owns a Sony A7. These vibrations will rob sharpness when you use shutter speeds in the "danger zone" of between 1/10 and 1/160. The only cameras that don't share this problem are those with electronic first curtain shutters. IS only helps with low frequency, high amplitude movement, like handholding a lens, and it will be most effective when the shutter speed is between 1/60 and 1/200.

I use a full hands-on approach - one arm draped over the lens, forehead pressed against the camera back, and finger rolling over the shutter button. No mirror lock up, no shutter delay, no remote shutter release. Handholding a 17 lb lens and camera is not a practical option, nor is a monopod, rifle stock or other lighter weight support system.


This is why tripods with large diameter top tubes are inherently more stable than skinny ones. A lot of the vibrations are at the camera end, and if you can dampen the vibrations at the source, you have a stable tripod.

Camera weight is not part of a discussion on tripod stability, since even a $100 tripod will "support" 12-15 lbs, which covers most DSLR lens/camera combinations and 100% of smaller bridge and point and shoot combos. Longer focal lengths, especially when used at close to minimum focus distance, where you might have 1:4 or greater magnification, and macro/closeup, are the most demanding uses for a tripod. If you don't believe me just switch your camera to live view and look at the display - shorter distances with high magnification will be very difficult to control.

But don't believe me, read the link, if you haven't already done so, I provided from Really Right Stuff and the material on tripod selection in the attached Gitzo tripod. They both unquestionably dispute your opinion about load capacity, and in a logical fashion describe what really does matter. It's total common sense.

I disagree with your statement [b]"Most people shooting wildlife are at Shutter speeds of 1/500 and higher and are attempting to follow and stop movement."[/b]. I think if you go through the pages in flickr and other online photo storage sites, you'll find a large proportion of images of stationary wildlife. Only the more skilled photographers can pull off decent bird-in-flight shots, cheetas running at 60 mph chasing down prey, and what I find to be the most difficult subject of all - the tiny hummingbird, with wings frozen in flight. BTW the hummingbird shots don't need tripods at all. But that is the subject for a new thread. Yes, I have looked at your work and you do have some serious bird in flight skills.

Seriously, read the links and the info in the catalog. It will be useful.