Tripod/head recommendations

[EricBowles]

Woodpecker, thanks for your in depth comments. I have the small Wimberley on a monopod, using it with a tamron 150-600 with no problem, and have been wondering about that horizontal connection to the lens foot on a heavier lens. Will there be too much weight on the collar over time? I don’t have an arca Swiss plate or new foot for the 500 f/4 to try it out yet, it I’m hoping it works. If I get the flex shooter will I be using that on my monopod as well?

I am intrigued by the flex shooter pro as well, but I’m wondering about the 22 degree limitation on a tripod on tilting up and down. What do you think about that?

I'd slow down a little. You're talking about spending $600 for something that is effectively a modified ballhead. It's one thing to use that combination with a 150-600, 200-500, 300 PF or even a 500 PF, but you have the 500 f/4. That's a lot more lens, and I don't think that solution is appropriate. Even a full Sidekick on a high quality ballhead is at the margin.

I've used the Markins equivalent of this head and it's fine for light weight lenses when you simply want gimbal convenience and need a light package. But the performance falls short of a real gimbal head.

I'd get a lightweight gimbal head and know that it is appropriate for the lens. Take a look at ProMediaGear GKJr. Katana Pro. It's a much more appropriate head for a 500 f/4.

ProMediaGear GKJr. Katana Pro

GKJr. Katana Pro Aluminum Gimbal Head with Arca Type Cradle for Telephoto Lenses, 50 lbs Capacity

www.adorama.com

 

[Woodpecker]

I am intrigued by the flex shooter pro as well, but I’m wondering about the 22 degree limitation on a tripod on tilting up and down. What do you think about that?

First of all, if you don'T mind just use the edit button for your last post an fill in a "/Square bracket left/QUOTE/Square bracket right/ at the beginning. You tried to quote my post but the we all see a plain copy of the text which is a bit confusing .

To answer your question:

There is a limitation, but I just checked it and my range going up and down is much more than 22 degrees. And there is another option. Normally you would have the outer ball levelled out horizontally and fixed. But if you need to shoot extremely downwards or upwards in a particular situation, you have the option to tilt the outer ball in the corresponding direction and then fix it again. The only compromise is that the sweet spot of the balance mechanism joint with the inner ball isn't set to horizontal but it moves slightly out of the centre of gravity and your camera combo would prefer to look up or down. I just tried it with the gripped D850 and the 500 f4 G and it works. You just have to make sure you hold the camera combo well while adjusting the outer ball. With that method I am able to look more than 45° down or up while you still can bring the camera in a horizontal position.

 

[Woodpecker]

I'd slow down a little. You're talking about spending $600 for something that is effectively a modified ballhead. It's one thing to use that combination with a 150-600, 200-500, 300 PF or even a 500 PF, but you have the 500 f/4. That's a lot more lens, and I don't think that solution is appropriate. Even a full Sidekick on a high quality ballhead is at the margin.

I've used the Markins equivalent of this head and it's fine for light weight lenses when you simply want gimbal convenience and need a light package. But the performance falls short of a real gimbal head.

I'd get a lightweight gimbal head and know that it is appropriate for the lens. Take a look at ProMediaGear GKJr. Katana Pro. It's a much more appropriate head for a 500 f/4.

ProMediaGear GKJr. Katana Pro

GKJr. Katana Pro Aluminum Gimbal Head with Arca Type Cradle for Telephoto Lenses, 50 lbs Capacity

www.adorama.com

Perfectly agree on slowing down a little, because itvis always a good thing to do with a decision involving money and having longer term implications.

All I can say is that this head is a breeze to use even with my 500 f4 G with or without TC and when I visitied my friend last time we spent a week with the 500 f4e and the 800 f5.6 on this type of head and it worked perfect. I trade in my Gimbal with no regrets.

But as always the truth is somewhere in the middle. It all depends on personal requirements, preferences and priorities ...

 

[mrt]

I'd slow down a little. You're talking about spending $600 for something that is effectively a modified ballhead. It's one thing to use that combination with a 150-600, 200-500, 300 PF or even a 500 PF, but you have the 500 f/4. That's a lot more lens, and I don't think that solution is appropriate. Even a full Sidekick on a high quality ballhead is at the margin.

I've used the Markins equivalent of this head and it's fine for light weight lenses when you simply want gimbal convenience and need a light package. But the performance falls short of a real gimbal head.

I'd get a lightweight gimbal head and know that it is appropriate for the lens. Take a look at ProMediaGear GKJr. Katana Pro. It's a much more appropriate head for a 500 f/4.

ProMediaGear GKJr. Katana Pro

GKJr. Katana Pro Aluminum Gimbal Head with Arca Type Cradle for Telephoto Lenses, 50 lbs Capacity

www.adorama.com

Thank you. The Katana is on my shortlist as well. I thought I would get the flex shooter and a couple gimbals and try them out before making a final decision.

 

[mrt]

First of all, if you don'T mind just use the edit button for your last post an fill in a "/Square bracket left/QUOTE/Square bracket right/ at the beginning. You tried to quote my post but the we all see a plain copy of the text which is a bit confusing .

To answer your question:

There is a limitation, but I just checked it and my range going up and down is much more than 22 degrees. And there is another option. Normally you would have the outer ball levelled out horizontally and fixed. But if you need to shoot extremely downwards or upwards in a particular situation, you have the option to tilt the outer ball in the corresponding direction and then fix it again. The only compromise is that the sweet spot of the balance mechanism joint with the inner ball isn't set to horizontal but it moves slightly out of the centre of gravity and your camera combo would prefer to look up or down. I just tried it with the gripped D850 and the 500 f4 G and it works. You just have to make sure you hold the camera combo well while adjusting the outer ball. With that method I am able to look more than 45° down or up while you still can bring the camera in a horizontal position.

Thanks for checking out the tilt limitations with your camera/lens. Also thanks for the confirmation that the flexshooter is appropriate with a 500 F/4. Everyone who has one likes it. Appreciate the editing corrections as well.

 

[mrt]

Woodpecker, I was also wondering what you or your friend did for a replacement foot or arca swiss plate on the lens.

 

[Woodpecker]

Woodpecker, I was also wondering what you or your friend did for a replacement foot or arca swiss plate on the lens.

I can't recall what my friend is using on his lenses, but for my 500 f4G I use the Wimberley AP-554 foot. Before that I had a custom made three point support for the lens, but I had to replace it, because it caused problems when trying to use the 500 f4 on my Monopod with the Wimberley MH-100.
I chose the Wimberley just because I have other things from them, know their parts are rock-stable and well-built and I didn't want to experiment. But there are other brands and types that might be just as good - or may be even better for what you want to do.

 

[mrt]

Thanks Woodpecker

 

[Calson]

I had the RRS TVC-34L and while it was OK as tripods go it was too long for overseas travel. I tried a 3-series Gitzo but it arrived with the piece to clamp the leg into position broken off inside the shipping box. If it had broken off on a trip I would have had not tripd to use so I scrateched Gitzo off my list as the broken part was a casting and it should never have been designed in this way.

My replacement for the RRS tripod was the Feisol CT-3472 legs that cost half as much and the build quality was equal to that of RRS and superior to the current Gizo tripods. It has a working height of 58 inches and with a head mounted the camera and lens will be 61 inches above the ground. What I love about this Feisol is that for $84 I added a leveling base that installs in seconds when I want to do landscape photography and panos, or shoot video. For $63 I bought the Feisol center column kit and this center column is more than twice as stiff as a normal center column in a tripod. The center column kit increases the working height by 3 inches and I can raise the center column another 4 inches for a working height of 65 inches with solid support and no wobble even with a 600mm f/4 lens and camera mounted to a gimbal head.

When photographing wildlife above be on a hillside or up in a tree the added height is important and why I originally bought the RRS TVC-34L legs. They were too long when collapsed to take on a plane and too long to fit nicely into my checked case. The Feisol still gives me the working height I want and collapses down to 22.1 inches and so fits crossways or perpenicular to the aisle of a plane so as to take very little room in the overhead compartment. That is comes with a high grade carry case is icing on the cake and not like RRS and Gitzo where all I got was a cardboard box.

 

[mrt]

Carlson, thanks for the lead and all that info on the Feisol. I will add that To my list of serious considerations. I like the 22.1 inch collapsed size. What’s your preference for a small lightweight head for a 500mm F/4?

 

[David Burns]

Re.the Flexshooter Pro.
I have had a look at demonstrations and reviews of this and while it looks very good, I cannot see what the difference is between this and any other good quality ball head! My RRS BH55 ball head, that was a little cheaper than the Flexshooter, would seem to be able to do exactly the same thing. Personally, I prefer a gimbal head for big lenses but they are indeed heavy and bulky.

If using a long lens on a ball head, as well as using it like the Flexshooter in a vertical position, tipping the ball over sideways allows it to function almost as well as a gimbal head, with stable pan/elevation/depression movements available but not with the range of the gimbal. The lens is then also not central to the tripod head and thus not ideal in terms of weight distribution but it is possible to compensate for this. Some other ball heads that I have used do not lock very solidly though and would be untrustworthy in the vertical position with a heavy lens. The RRS ball head really does lock solidly and without needing to use much torque on the knob.

 

[Gillholm]

Re.the Flexshooter Pro.
I have had a look at demonstrations and reviews of this and while it looks very good, I cannot see what the difference is between this and any other good quality ball head! My RRS BH55 ball head, that was a little cheaper than the Flexshooter, would seem to be able to do exactly the same thing. Personally, I prefer a gimbal head for big lenses but they are indeed heavy and bulky.

If using a long lens on a ball head, as well as using it like the Flexshooter in a vertical position, tipping the ball over sideways allows it to function almost as well as a gimbal head, with stable pan/elevation/depression movements available but not with the range of the gimbal. The lens is then also not central to the tripod head and thus not ideal in terms of weight distribution but it is possible to compensate for this. Some other ball heads that I have used do not lock very solidly though and would be untrustworthy in the vertical position with a heavy lens. The RRS ball head really does lock solidly and without needing to use much torque on the knob.

There is a major difference , when the outer ball is leveled and locked and the lens balanced it works like a pan&tilt head,
is there a way to make a ordinary ballhead work like that, i guess not!?

So, a ordinary ballhead, a pan&tilt head with a built in levelingbase all in one, not at all like a BH55 !

 

[David Burns]

There is a major difference , when the outer ball is leveled and locked and the lens balanced it works like a pan&tilt head,
is there a way to make a ordinary ballhead work like that, i guess not!?

So, a ordinary ballhead, a pan&tilt head with a built in levelingbase all in one, not at all like a BH55 !

Thanks for the video link explaining the head. Very interesting.

 

[Gillholm]

Thanks for the video link explaining the head. Very interesting.

It really is, i haven't bought it yet but i will.
As Woodpecker states it functions well with the 800/5,6, then it
should work well with anything you want and replacing a ordinary ballhead,
a videohead and a gimbal it's actually the cheapest and lightest solution available.

It almost sounds to good to be true

 

[mrt]

Thanks for that video. The flexshooter is still in my top two.

 

[Linnea Lindahl]

I'm borrowing this thread if that's okay, as I'm also looking to get new tripod legs.

I'm running the Nikkor 500mm f/4 P which is a fairly light prime at 3 kg (6.6 lbs). Looking at what's available in my region and what's acceptable to my wallet (and to my wife), I've narrowed it down to two options, the Sirui R-3213x and the Sirui R-4213x. Both are carbon fiber, 3-section, full size tripods - the main differences apart from price are the leg sizes (at 1.0-1.3 inch vs. 1.1-1.4 inch) and the weight (at 4 lbs vs 5 lbs). In the near future I don't plan to bring the setup on any long hikes (because I'm still down after being run over by covid), but in the future I hope to go hiking/biking with it.

So I guess my question is; will I regret getting the smaller R-3213x? Or if I'm already carrying a 500, a gimbal and a couple of bodies in my backpack, will I even notice an extra pound of weight on the tripod with the R-4213x?

Thank you. You guys are the best!