etaoin wrote:
Looking for a "good" tripod to handle (max load) a Nikon D750 with a 200-500 lens. Got some questions:
I'm 6'2", so center adjustable column or not.
Weight isn't too much of a concern since I won't be hiking with it.
Don't necessarily want to go bankrupt on a fancy-schmancy carbon fibre one.
Have had my eye on a Dutch Hill P900. Any opinions on this one?
Also been looking at the RRS BH-55 ballhead. Thoughts?
When does a gimble head make more sense than a ballhead?
Thanks.
Looking for a "good" tripod to handle (m... (
show quote)
Even a $110 aluminum tripod that weighs 6 lbs will hold your camera and lens load - which is about 6.75 lbs. The reason to get a tripod is to stop vibration, not resist gravity. A monopod does a great job of resisting gravity. Only tripods with a large apex (where the legs come together) and thick legs - top tube typically 37mm or thicker, will provide the stability you need.
However, since you are also inquiring about a gimbal or RRS Ball head, and a 6.6 lb Dutch Hill P900, you are not averse to spending a "proper" amount of money for legs and a head.
This Leofoto LN 404 C is only slightly higher in price than the P 900 - but it is considerably stiffer, has a huge 100mm dia bowl and is one of the more stable tripods out there these days. If you see any vibration it will most certainly not be due to an inadequate tripod. The top leg section is a hefty 40mm in diameter, making it comparable to a Gitzo Series 5 or the RRS Series 4 and without a center column it extends to 71" and when you add a head, it will put the viewfiinder above your forehead. I suggest this only because you aren't concerned with weight. It does weigh 7.78 lbs, only 1.75lbs over the Slik being suggested by another poster, but with a load capacity of 110 lbs compared to the Slik's 22 lbs, you can see the extra $ or so over what you would pay for the P900 is well worth it.
https://thecentercolumn.com/tripod-reviews/leofoto/leofoto-ln-404c-review/I own an Arca Swiss Z1 ball head. Markins, RRS, Kirk, Feisol, Sirui and FLM all make similar or better products. Again, since weight is not a concern, the FLM CB-58FTR would be worth considering. It is slightly cheaper than the RRS, just as well made, and I like the quick release on the clamp that allows for slightly different plate dimensions to be accommodated. I also like the easy on/easy off feature to remove the head from the tripod, and the dual levels on the clamp.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1085533-REG/flm_12_58_960_cb_58ftr_professional_ft_series.htmlAnd a review of the FLM head:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/flm-ballheadI use a very simple gimbal - the Manfrotto 393, which I modified by adding an Arca compatible clamp. You can do this either of two ways - you can get just a clamp and bolt it directly to the lens plate using the three supplied bots, or you can get a conversion kit that would eliminate the plate. Either way works well.
I used my 600mmF4 with both my Arca Swiss Z1 and the 393 with equally good results. Both are very sturdy, and the Z1, like the other ball heads in it's class - has a large ball diameter which allows you to set the friction to just enough to hold the camera in place when you take your hands off, but not so tight that you can't move the camera without first releasing it - aka the "Sweet Spot". This is a feature of a good ball head, and generally not present in the sub-$200 class of head. The Sirui K-40X is one exception - it performs better than it's specs predict. It does lock down nice and tight, even with a 14 lb camera and lens combo, and still has a nice sweet spot.
Now I am going to make a suggestion - if you can, try and use the lens and camera without a tripod at first. It is far less combersome, and can result in fewer missed shots because you are setting up a tripod and fiddling around with it.
I walk around with a Sigma Sport 150-600 and a D810. Just yesterday I was at Chincoteague NWR and hiked about 7 miles with it and did not find it unreasonably heavy.
Another thought - have you considered the Tamron 150-600 G2? Both the Sport and the G2 easily beat the Nikkor in image quality at the max focal length, and both have an extra 100mm, and have really good environmental sealing and better build quality than the Nikkor.
Here is a comprehensive review of the 200-500, and some comparisons to other lenses - but you will see that the Sport is considerably sharper. The G2 is only a few ounces heavier than the Nikkor.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vrHere are two videos comparing the G2 and the Sport:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjxae68EGn0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9C2_uUApQEI am not dissing the 200-500. It is a very good lens. I am just saying, that if you are thinking about spending up to $1400 for a lens, the G2 provides better image quality, comparable weight, better build quality, and a 6 yr warranty - certainly worth your consideration.