47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I had a previous post about an upcoming workshop that I'm attending in Costa Rica next month. Each day, we motor from the Osa Peninsula Lookout Inn lodge to a "spot" then hoof it for 1-2 mi to the shooting area. At the end of the shoot, we return, then go on to another spot, repeat the drill, etc. My heaviest combination of body and lens that I'll be using is a Canon 7d2 and Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, total weight of about 7 1/2 lbs. My aluminum Befree is capacity rated for 8.8 lbs. I'll be using a Acratech GV2 ballhead instead of the one provided with the tripod. The GV2 weighs a tad less than a 1 lb. I'm concerned that I'm asking too much of my Befree?

Other possibilities (because I don't want to be hauling a beast around each day) is the Sirui T-024X carbon fiber ($200, 13.2 lb capacity and 1.5 lb weight), a Mefoto Roadtrip carbon fiber ($280, 17.6 lb capacity and 3.1 lb weight), Mefoto Globetrotter ($330, 26.4 lb capacity and 2.5 lb weight), or ????

I read through most (?) of the related postings/threads and watched a ton of youtube reviews, comparisons, etc. Now, I'm asking the experts again. I'm interested in your thoughts on whether my befree carrying weight equal to its rated capacity would be okay? Or if, in your opinion, it's more risk that you recommend, what's a better alternative keeping in mind that I'm looking to keep weight and size reasonable (reflected in my proposed selections). Thanks, all.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

The long standing advice has been try to stay around half the weight rating. I first heard this in the 70's when taking photography in college. I have not found this to be true, personally. I'm sure others will disagree. I certainly wouldn't exceed the rating but I've found 80% to be fine. But if you do be patient about vibration and beware of any off balance load. I never raise a centermost. That keeps your center of gravity lower. I don't own any of the equipment you do so speaking generally from my practice over the years. Since you have time I'd experiment at home. Have a great trip. I've not been but my wife loves it.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Among the alternatives you specified, the Sirui might be a nice compromise as to overall weight (camera, lens and tripod). Check to verify it would be compatible with your Acratech ball head. My experience has been that Sirui makes high quality tripods/monopods and ball heads. Enjoy what will be a memorable trip.

Haydon

I personally don't think that tripod will offer a steady platform for a 7DII & a 150-600. Look at a carbon fibre and don't skimp. Buy once and buy for life. Contact Gene51 with his suggestion.

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

I just lent my friend a $400 tripod that is rated at 55lb capacity to use with her 150-600 Tamron G2 on a D800. I told her I thought it was not stable enough. But she insisted. It wasn't.

You can mess around with all of the cheap tripods you want, but you won't be happy with any of them, regardless of the load capacity.

For that lens, you need a tripod with thick legs. There is no way around that. The top leg section needs to be at least 37mm in diameter. Anything less and it will not be stable. Any tripod made with carbon fiber that has a 37mm top tube will support at least 8X your camera's weight. It's not about load capacity. And load capacity does not predict stability - ever.

I will never understand someone who insists on putting $2000 or $3000 worth of camera gear on a $200 tripod. You'll need to spend at least $600 and another $200 to get a head and leg set that will not disappoint you and truly serve your purposes. Or you can buy your $200 Sirui, or your $330 meFoto - and only end up spending $1000 or $1330, when you could have gotten away with only spending $800. Hey, it's your money. Unlike many things, you get what you pay for with a tripod. But more accurately, you don't ever get what you don't pay for.


Look at a Feisol CT3472 - 4lbs - stable with a 600mm lens. Ideally you want a gimbal, but you can get away with a Sirui K40X ball head, or the Feisol CB60D or CB70D ball head.

Don't even bother looking at the CT3442 - it's the 2.5 lb leg set with the 55lb load capacity, which is accurate, btw. It's legs are 28mm, making it similar to a Gitzo Series 2, which not surprisingly has a load capacity of 55 lbs, and is rated stable enough to use with a 200mm lens. Their Series 5 has 43mm legs, and is rated for 600mm and longer.

BTW your MeFoto Globetrotter only has a top tube of 28.6mm, putting it in the same class as the Gitzo Series 2 and the Feisol - CT3442 - none of which will hold a 600mm lens steady.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Thanks, gene51. Thinking your advice. I can definitely see the tripod logic. I have a Manfrotto 3221W that I’m confident will provide a stable platform. I was hoping to lug something less the 6 1/2 lbs, but you’ve convinced that I’m being penny wise and pound foolish (forgive the pun). However, I’m struggling why the Acratech GV2, rated at 25 lbs, wouldn’t be adequate as a ball Head?

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

That's a good ball head. I have no experience with it. But I do have experience with Markins, RRS, Kirk and I own an Arca Swiss Z1. These are all good, and they do have considerably higher load capacities where it counts. It's worth taking a look at other $400 ball heads since you've already are comfortable with the cost.

Actually, the Manfrotto would be no better than your other considerations. It is heavy, so it won't blow over, but it is metal, so it will telegraph and amplify any camera/lens movement. I had a much heavier and seemingly more robust Bogen 3051 - only 2 leg sections, load capacity of 26.4 lbs, and it weighed 12.65 lbs. It was not stable enough to support a 300mm lens on a 35mm film camera. It was fine with my view cameras and short focal lengths, but worthless with anything longer. It was the last metal tripod I owned before I got the Feisol CT-3472.

You can still get the Manfrotto version of the 3051 - its now called the 058B, costs $420, and it gained a pound - it must be the black paint.

RRS does a nice job explaining the rationale of using top tube diameter as a criteria for tripod selection

http://blog.reallyrightstuff.com/choosing-a-tripod-part-1/
http://blog.reallyrightstuff.com/choosing-a-tripod-part-2/
http://blog.reallyrightstuff.com/choosing-a-tripod-part-3/

And you can download the Gitzo catalog, which also draws the link between stability and tube diameter, here:

http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2017/6/26/221918-tzo_2015_product_catalogue.pdf

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Thanks, Gene51. I'll check it out. The more I researched your reply of last night, the more twisted around the axle I became. Perhaps, the RRS rationale will be a good start. So, what value is looking at a particular tripod based on weight capacity except for strength of material? There doesn't seem to be meaningful correlation between strength and functionality? Because if there were, even selecting one with a rated capacity of twice my static weight, there should be a ton of <$350 that do the trick, both in strength and stability. So, it seems that vibration/resonating is the gorilla in the room? Okay, here I go. Thanks again......

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

First, me personally, for the weight and traveling distances, I would never consider ANY tripod for what you want to do ! - and, I would probably be carrying a Sony RX10 !

I WOULD consider a light weight monopod with appropriate head and a stabilizer arm - but if you MUST have a tripod, - of the ones you mention, I like the Globetrotter.

..

jeffstone123

ebay has some GITZO series 4 & 5 at pretty good prices right now

rjandreoff Loc: Hawaii

I traveled to New Zealand and Australia for three months with the MeFoto Globe Trotter. Lots of inclimate weather including wind, rain, and snow. Outstanding performance. Super Solid. Quick set up and tear down. The ball head that comes with it is good-to-very good. Folds up really well and fits easily into a 22" roller bag for travel. Good luck.

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

Did you use it with a 600mm lens?

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

I did exactly that for 3 weeks in Ireland. Took an RX10M4 - no tripod, nothing else. No regrets.

Last night I was taking night shots of the NYC skyline, with an 80-200 - and it was a little windy. Two friends were also there, one with a very nice $400 Benro Travel Angel for her 100-400, and 24-105, and the other using a Globetrotter with her 24-120 and 150-600, and neither were able to nail sharp, clear pictures. I brought my two Feisols, I used the 3472 and the friend with the 150-600 used the 3442. I told her it was the wrong tripod for that lens, but she was able to get a fair number of vibration-free images, even at full 600mm, when the wind died down. Both took turns using the 3472 and claimed that the images that they took with it were the only ones that had no vibration.

So, a tripod can be used in a number of settings that don't involve wildlife, where a body pod, monopod or anything other than a solid platform would be ill-advised and frustrating to use. Here is an example of what we were shooting in a 12-18 mph wind.

D810, 80-200

(Download)

D810. 80-200

(Download)

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

Actually not really. Stability is directly correlated to two main factors - the diameter of the top tube and how it attaches to the camera platform - the bigger each of these is the more torsionally rigid and stable it will be. A secondary factor is the leg locking mechanism. Gitzo, RRS, Induro, Benro Feisol and some of the higher end Sirui tripods all publish their leg diameter data, but only RRS and Gitzo make the correlation to focal length/magniification, and Induro by association - their leg diameters are almost exactly the same as Gitzo.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Love the shots. The proof is in the pictures....