Ok, another tripod/ballhead rant (Page 2): That was something else that I wanted to mention to you. You stated that you were looking to possibly purchase a Sigma 150-600 Lens. I have...

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

That was something else that I wanted to mention to you. You stated that you were looking to possibly purchase a Sigma 150-600 Lens. I have the sport version of that lens and I would not put it ona ball head even though I have some pretty substantial ball heads. Get yourself a Gimbal head. I have a Movo Aluminum that you can purchase for about $99.00 and their Carbon Fiber is $199. I also have a Manfrotto Fluid head that I use my long lenses on. Here are some links for you to check. These are the two that I use and both work extremely well with long lenses:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827210-REG/Manfrotto_MVH502AH_75Mm_Flat_Head.html

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GK4IYP8/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This is the Movo Carbon Fiber:

https://www.amazon.com/Movo-GH800-Professional-Arca-Swiss-Quick-Release/dp/B016V1AVV4/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1490190232&sr=1-3&keywords=movo+gimbal+head

JacktheMassey Loc: South Central Wi

Thanks.

Winslowe wrote:

It actually looks pretty decent, but only with a f... (show quote)

JacktheMassey Loc: South Central Wi

Thanks. I will look into that also. I live in the country with lots of wildlife, from dozens of hummingbirds, to eagles, turkey, deer, the list goes on. I probably will never extend the tripods spindly leg section at all, or zoom in all the way, but its nice to know I could. Just sit on my porch and have some fun.

WayneT wrote:

That was something else that I wanted to mention t... (show quote)

JacktheMassey Loc: South Central Wi

So why do some RSS travel tripod top leg section only 28mm?

Gene51 wrote:

There is no substitute for stability in a tripod. If by saying you are not a pro you are willing to accept blurry pictures, then buy the $240 tripod and head. Eventually you will come to understand that you just threw away $240, and other than a lesson learned it provided no value to you, since it will never be stable with anything other than a wide angle lens shooting landscapes. It will not stabilize a camera and lens with a viewing angle equal to a 960mm lens. That is not just silly thinking, it is pretty delusional.

You need to look harder, and try and understand the RRS tripod selection guide and the relationship between leg thickness and stability, and why a $240 tripod doesn't thick legs and won't be stable. You will also learn that load carrying capacity has nothing to do with stability. It's only a test to ensure that gravity will not pull you camera to the ground because it is too heavy. Even a $50 Dolica tripod will accomplish that. So if you believe that this is a good way to rate and compare a tripod, you can save yourself $190, and you will only be making a $50 error.

The Gitzo catalog basically says the same thing.

Trust me, if the Desmond was as good as you believe, no pro would bother owning better gear, and just buy a bunch of these - so when they break they can just toss it and unbox a new one. That will never happen.

I am not trying to be a smart ass or give you a hard time - but don't rely on user reviews from totally unqualified people who just got a $240 tripod after upgrading from a $50 one and they think they just got the best thing since sliced bread. They don't know any better, and you would just be a blind person following a group of blind people. The best way is to rent and test for yourself. Or borrow from friends. Or buy and return.

With that being said, I own a Sigma Sport 150-600 - it is noticeably better than the Contemporary, in build quality and image quality. I have owned it since last December, used it daily during fall migration, and I've had it out at least 3-4x a week now that things are heating up again. I have yet to put it on my tripod, a Feisol CT3472.

If I were on a tripod it would have been completely impossible to get this shot of a Great Blue Heron flying over my head.

There is no substitute for stability in a tripod. ... (show quote)

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

DaveO wrote:

Agree, $50-60.000.00 is $$$ tripod (and even that is on the cheap side for the really $$$$$$ tripods!!!

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

JacktheMassey wrote:

So why do some RSS travel tripod top leg section only 28mm?

From their website, the intended purpose of their "Travel Tripods,"
"Travel and general photography; the perfect choice for compact gear combos. Common compact gear includes mirrorless system and standard dslr cameras with 70-200mm/f2.8 & 300mm/f4 equivalent telephotos."

http://shopping.na1.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.3705077/it.A/id.7822/.f

You probably don't need (nor want) a tripod with 37-43mm legs, that weigh 4 lbs or more, when traveling, when all you will be using is a shorter lens. This is the kind of research you should be doing, not reading Amazon user comments from the unqualified, but well-intentioned readers wanting to share their experiences.

I personally have two tripods - a "travel" tripod that weighs 2.3 lbs with 28mm top tubes that I have used with a 100-300 F4. It is light, easy to pack or attach to my camera backpack, and a decent solution for shorter focal lengths, like when I am doing landscape and even closeup and flower photography. I've tried to use it with my longer lenses and found it had too much vibration. For that I use a "big lens" tripod with 37mm top tubes. It weighs 4 lbs, and I have used it with great success, with up to an equivalent focal length of 1260mm (600mm+1.4X TC on a Nikon D300 1.5 crop camera). To be honest, the shots with that combination are not ones I would take every day, and did require some discipline and flawless technique - but I got the shots anyway.

For what it's worth, the smaller tripod has a load rating of 55lbs and the bigger one 66 lbs. So as you can see, even though the smaller $300 tripod can "hold" 55 lbs, it is not even close to suitable to providing the necessary stability to keep an 8.5 lb load (Sigma 150-600 Sport with a D800) from vibrating. Load capacity has NOTHING to do with stability. I do use either a beefy Arca-Swiss Z1 ball head or a Mafrotto 393 gimbal which works surprisingly well for my purposes. I suppose if I wanted a gimbal that locks I would get a Wimberley or similar, but I think that defeats the purpose to some degree. I wanted a gimbal that was not a cantilever design, and would have no trouble with a 14 lb lens and camera combo, and did not require a home equity load to purchase. So I got the 393 as a stopgap, thinking I'd wait a few years and upgrade. That was 11 yrs ago.

The image below is a 2976x2474 (7.4 mp) crop from a 4288x2848 (12.1 mp), using a D300, 600mm F4, 1.4 TC, 1/10 sec, F8, ISO 400. Equivalent field of view was 1260mm (600x1.5x1.4). Support was a Feisol CT3472 and a Manfrotto 393 Long Lens support.

(Download)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Love the shot Gene! I used the Manfrotto 393 for a couple years,but got the bug and got the Wimberley WH-200 which is excellent. Dollar for dollar,the Manfrotto 393 is hard to beat. Mine,along with extra plates,is collecting dust. I hate parting with stuff!

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

Gene51 wrote:

From their website, the intended purpose of their "Travel Tripods,"
"Travel and general photography; the perfect choice for compact gear combos. Common compact gear includes mirrorless system and standard dslr cameras with 70-200mm/f2.8 & 300mm/f4 equivalent telephotos."

http://shopping.na1.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.3705077/it.A/id.7822/.f

You probably don't need (nor want) a tripod with 37-43mm legs, that weigh 4 lbs or more, when traveling, when all you will be using is a shorter lens. This is the kind of research you should be doing, not reading Amazon user comments from the unqualified, but well-intentioned readers wanting to share their experiences.

I personally have two tripods - a "travel" tripod that weighs 2.3 lbs with 28mm top tubes that I have used with a 100-300 F4. It is light, easy to pack or attach to my camera backpack, and a decent solution for shorter focal lengths, like when I am doing landscape and even closeup and flower photography. I've tried to use it with my longer lenses and found it had too much vibration. For that I use a "big lens" tripod with 37mm top tubes. It weighs 4 lbs, and I have used it with great success, with up to an equivalent focal length of 1260mm (600mm+1.4X TC on a Nikon D300 1.5 crop camera). To be honest, the shots with that combination are not ones I would take every day, and did require some discipline and flawless technique - but I got the shots anyway.

For what it's worth, the smaller tripod has a load rating of 55lbs and the bigger one 66 lbs. So as you can see, even though the smaller $300 tripod can "hold" 55 lbs, it is not even close to suitable to providing the necessary stability to keep an 8.5 lb load (Sigma 150-600 Sport with a D800) from vibrating. Load capacity has NOTHING to do with stability. I do use either a beefy Arca-Swiss Z1 ball head or a Mafrotto 393 gimbal which works surprisingly well for my purposes. I suppose if I wanted a gimbal that locks I would get a Wimberley or similar, but I think that defeats the purpose to some degree. I wanted a gimbal that was not a cantilever design, and would have no trouble with a 14 lb lens and camera combo, and did not require a home equity load to purchase. So I got the 393 as a stopgap, thinking I'd wait a few years and upgrade. That was 11 yrs ago.

The image below is a 2976x2474 (7.4 mp) crop from a 4288x2848 (12.1 mp), using a D300, 600mm F4, 1.4 TC, 1/10 sec, F8, ISO 400. Equivalent field of view was 1260mm (600x1.5x1.4). Support was a Feisol CT3472 and a Manfrotto 393 Long Lens support.

From their website, the intended purpose of their ... (show quote)

Gene, I've got to say that whenever I see a tripod topic arise, I just wait for your comments

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

JacktheMassey wrote:

I've been reviewing a lot of tripods/heads for my ... (show quote)

I will leave you with some quotes " You get what you pay for" " There is a sucker born every minute" and my favorite " A guy in Brooklyn has a bridge for sale cheap"

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

JacktheMassey wrote:

I've been reviewing a lot of tripods/heads for my ... (show quote)

This is a decent tripod for smaller lenses - NOT a 150-600 Sport though and, certainly NOT with a ball head ! The 32mm top diameter seems OK - but NOT with 4 section legs ! 32mm with 3 section legs I could go for.

If you are just sitting on your porch and never MOVING, then you really do not need the carbon fiber weight savings, ( although CF will impress your friends) and a gimbal head starts to make sense.

If you are shooting stationary subjects in lower light with longer shutter speeds then you may need the maximum stability that Gene suggests (especially with the Sport lens). If you are shooting moving subjects in good light with shorter (action stopping) shutter speeds, then you can get by with considerably less stability IMO - but still without jeopardizing safety concerns.

If you are going to be moving about doing stop action you should be considering a monopod or my bodypod.

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

Grnway wrote:

Gene, I've got to say that whenever I see a tripod topic arise, I just wait for your comments

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

imagemeister wrote:

This is a decent tripod for smaller lenses - NOT a... (show quote)

I generally agree with you, but I would like to add that the stabilization is so good on these new lenses that even at 600mm you can get very crisp shots hand held at low shutter speeds, as long as the subject is not moving much. These two images represent an uncropped, then a tightly cropped section, taken at 1/25 sec and F8, hand held, at 600mm.

Each person uses their gear differently - I bought the Sigma Sport to avoid the hassle of bringing tripod, gimbal, and a 12 lb 600mm F4. Funny thing is I am so satisfied with the Sigma that I am considering selling the 600F4. I haven't taken it out since I got the new lens.

This is why I suggested that he save his $$$ and not get a [not so]cheap, inadequate tripod, and rather get the right one once he has fully exploited the capability of his new lens.

(Download)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Our hobby often progresses to needs or ventures that we do not anticipate,hence the tripod collections!

cthahn

Do not understand what you are talking about.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

LOL!