Yes it does supply the wrench, but if you use your tripod on a regular basis, that wrench is never where it is supposed to be. It is plastic, it will fail over time (strip) and never seems to be at hand when needed. I used to carry a socket driver attached to my tripod legs so I always had a tool available. That is the primary reason I and many others have switched to twist locks (Gitzo in my case).

As for ease of use, several years back gitzo redesigned its locks so that they will tighten/untighten even if the leg section above is not tight. This was a really big deal. the old Gitzos required that you tighten the higher leg section first or the twist lock below would free spin. The new locks will allow one to open/tighten any of the locks independently of the one above. And Gitzo reduced the rotation of the twist to lock. With the new mechanism, I can extend my legs just as fast as I was able to with the lever locks and I know that when I tighten each lock, it stays tight. No fear of collapsing leg and damaged gear as once happened (gasp) with my original Bogen (nee Manfrotto).

At the end of the day, it really boils down to what system you prefer and are used to. Neither system is all good or all bad. Try them out and see which works for you.

I actually forgot one more point in favor of the twists for my shooting. Lever locks are open or closed. There is no in between. With the twists, if I am looking through the finder and need to make a minor tweak to the leg lengths, I can reach down and slightly open a twist lock (sort of like the drag function on a ballhead) and then position the height while looking through the finder. Then, when satisfactory, I can lock them tight. Far more difficult to do with the lever locks. You have to open the lock, reposition the leg, lock the lever, take a look and repeat until correct. Again - for my shooting needs, twists win hands down. Others may have contrary thoughts.

Clips have a nasty habit of coming loose. When I used the old Bogen legs (now Manfrotto), I always had to make sure I carried a wrench because the clips would fail at inopportune times.

Yes clips are faster and easier than twists, until they loosen and you miss the shot. Or worse, forget the wrench

Is that a fact.

Bingo! Most sensible answer in the thread. Boldface above is my emphasis.

Amen to that. Ever see the movie Groundhog?

Nah - as someone above mentioned, "Chimp" came from the funny sounds people make when hunched over their screens. The "oooh, oooh, oooh's resemble chimpanzees.

While you may be right in the fact that the histo just pertains to the jpeg (I never actually knew that), for me it is an essential tool that I use regularly. If the histo for my jpeg climbs either the left or the right wall, I know I need to dial in some exposure adjustment. If the jpeg histo is improved, it can only improve the raw file as well. I consider the histo to be the second best thing in digital photography. Makes my post processing much simpler.

As far as chimping - I agree that what one does or does not do makes no difference and has no relevance as to whether one is a "professional". I do chimp for must have shots or whenever the light is changing, but I almost never chimp when shooting sideline sports or other fast moving situations. I used to when I first switched to digital, but soon realized that I was missing too many opportunities while looking at the screen. Now, in fast action situations, I sneak a peak at my histo during lulls in the action to make sure that my exposure settings are still "correct". When I do chimp, my concern is seldom framing; it is exposure that I am concerned with.

Precisely why I wrote my post asking the moderators to close this thread. I got back the usual snarky crap "that if I don't want to follow the thread, I can ignore it." Entirely missed the point of course. i suggested closing the thread not because I didn't want to follow it; I suggested closing it since it deteriorated into name calling, pettiness and all the rest.

So my final question is, "Does UHH actually have moderators, and if it does, how do they allow this nastiness to continue?"

For heaven's sake, does this forum utilize moderators who can just shut down threads that devolve from snippy answers to down right rudeness and nasty? I find it amazing that with all of the different suggestions about letting those who like filters and those who do not peacefully coexist, we still get the same few people unable to sleep unless they continue to browbeat all opposing views until they cave in. Some of you guys just will not draw a relaxed breath until you have pummeled the opposition into submission.

We have two or three guys in this thread who fancy themselves Einsteinian physicists. They talk incessently, loudly and condescendingly to we fools who are clearly too stupid to stop using filters. It is obvious that we are clearly lacking in our engineering skills and an understanding of the laws of physics and we are lacking the innate intelligence that these priviledged few have. It is their duty to save us from ourselves; it is being done to save us and therefore must, for our own good, be treated as idiots who don't understand and accept the gospel BS that is being slung around. After all, several people sent us to You Tube videos to luxuriate in that bastion of scientific research posted there. I understand that watching 4 You Tube videos will qualify you for admission to Princeton's Department of physics. Wow. Nothing like visiting a you tube blurb for a deep understanding of natural law.

I beg a moderator to lock the thread, thereby putting these unhappy and petulant people out of their agony caused by the unfulfilled attempt to gain 100% compliance on the subject. Thank the Lord that there is nothing in the Second Amendment that gives photographers the right to bear filters to protect their lenses.

There will be peace between Syria, Iraq, Iran and Israel before the argument of whether photo filters degrade images is settled.

Enough already. Do whatever floats your boat. This topic just will not go away on many photo forums.

Instead of insisting that you are speaking the gospel, how about going out a shooting some images? I do not care about the laws of physics, the "fact" that a filter protects/does not protect a lens, does/does not affect the color tint or does/does not affect IQ in maximum pixel peeping enlargement.

All I care about is how the photo looks to my clients and to me. Few people,other than folks with too much time on their hands and a burning need to convince another that he/she is "correct" will give a rat's tale about which is which. Many people similarly shoot a brick wall to "prove" that a lens has/ does not have barrel distortion or is soft/not too soft on the edges. What a total waste of time. Ever meet anyone who sold a photo of a brick wall? If one enlarges Moonrise Hernandez to 1:1 pixels size and finds that there is "softening at the edges of the frame", will anyone remove his print from the wall or from the museum?

Get out from in front of the computer and enjoy shooting something that either brings a smile to your face or puts money in your pocket. A memorable photo is not dependent on whether one used a filter or not any more than it is if was shot with a kit lens vs. a "pro" lens. A "good" photo speaks for itself.

Oh - here is a riddle similar to the OP's. Do I or do I not use protective filters?

I think this thread has run its course. The pros and cons have been stated and discussed ad nauseam. Not to mention that the original poster never even bothered to give a reply. No sense flogging a dead horse, is there?

That is probably because you have the Y chromosome. If you were XX (as in female), you would not be making that statement (or you would be lying to yourself.)

:mrgreen:

In that case I envy your zen philosophy and calm demeanor. Please understand - I do not mean to sound critical nor snarky. I mean it as a true compliment. In my experience, few wedding photogs have such a laid back approach. I have never had a gig where I felt that relaxed about it.

I ask this question respectfully. Have you ever shot a wedding? Dealt with an over the top bride or her mother? Just a wedding, huh?

Just a thought, but perhaps there are so many negative responses because a rank amateur shooting a wedding is a bad idea. And it is absolutely irrelevant that the guy can produce "nice" photos in other situations. I can drive my car quite well around town, but that does not mean I can or should drive at next year's Indy 500.