Best travel tripod/gimbal setup?

[Roy]

I'm going on some bird trips this year and need help choosing the best travel tripod with lightweight gimbal head set up for my Sony A1 with 200-600. Closer to home I use a monopod and Wimberly head. I have a fine RRS tripod with gimbal head - but it's too heavy to carry more than a short distance. Apparently on these trips the monopod is not a great solution. Recommendations much appreciated!

Of the lighter travel type tripods I like the Manfrotto be-free.
Although I'm not a fan of ballheads.
There are some impressive looking carbon fibre options instead of the Wimberly head that I;m looking into. (mine is heavy too)
I hope Gitzo get over their quality control problems soon - they were a great company.

 

[SandyW]

I've heard good things about the Leofoto PG-1 Gimbal Head. It only weights 2.2 lbs.

 

[Roy]

I've heard good things about the Leofoto PG-1 Gimbal Head. It only weights 2.2 lbs.

That Leofoto still seems a little heavy - unless you have a heavy camera and big glass?

 

[eaj101]

Something like the Gitzo Series 2 or the RRS Versa 2 (there's also a new RRS Ultralight I haven't tried) Series (or the Induro/Benro knockoff equivalents) would do for legs at @3lbs. The Acratech ballhead is the lightest solid ball head I've ever seen, less than 1lb. Add a Wimberley Sidekick or one of the acceptable knockoffs and you'd have a lightweight rig that would handle it.

You imply that your trip is shooting from blinds, so I understand the trip leader's insistence.

p.s. Someone said that you might as well pay the money for a good tripod up front, because ultimately you'll spend a lot more buying cheap ones and end up buying the expensive one anyway.

 

[Roy]

Something like the Gitzo Series 2 or the RRS Versa 2 (there's also a new RRS Ultralight I haven't tried) Series (or the Induro/Benro knockoff equivalents) would do for legs at @3lbs. The Acratech ballhead is the lightest solid ball head I've ever seen, less than 1lb. Add a Wimberley Sidekick or one of the acceptable knockoffs and you'd have a lightweight rig that would handle it.

You imply that your trip is shooting from blinds, so I understand the trip leader's insistence.

p.s. Someone said that you might as well pay the money for a good tripod up front, because ultimately you'll spend a lot more buying cheap ones and end up buying the expensive one anyway.

I agree - cheap tripods are a waste of money.
But Gitzo lately seems to be having quality control problems - My systematic was a dead loss - I've always liked Gitzo and I hope they come good soon.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Maybe the truth is the opposite. "Tripods are a waste of money" They certainly limit how far I can move and how quickly I can set up for a shot. The question is when and why they have advantages. Even in a blind I can track a bird in flight better hand-held. I use a Nikon d-500 and a Nikkor 500pf so someone tell me why I need a heavy expensive tripod. I have a monopod/monogimble that I use if I need to put a TC on. I only purchased a lightweight tripod/gimble setup because I suspect that the blind operator requires it as all the monster tripod users with me in the blind will get upset otherwise.

Bottom line: When you can hand hold your rig, do so. When you can't use a monopod/monogimble. When you can't ????.

 

[eaj101]

Maybe the truth is the opposite. "Tripods are a waste of money" They certainly limit how far I can move and how quickly I can set up for a shot. The question is when and why they have advantages. Even in a blind I can track a bird in flight better hand-held. I use a Nikon d-500 and a Nikkor 500pf so someone tell me why I need a heavy expensive tripod. I have a monopod/monogimble that I use if I need to put a TC on. I only purchased a lightweight tripod/gimble setup because I suspect that the blind operator requires it as all the monster tripod users with me in the blind will get upset otherwise.

Bottom line: When you can hand hold your rig, do so. When you can't use a monopod/monogimble. When you can't ????.

In my experience, you're going to be sitting in a blind for *hours*. Some blinds also have very small shooting ports. You can't handhold a lens of any kind, even a 20mm, for hours at a time. I often have the bird framed and I sit and wait for it to do something interesting, sometimes for quite a while. I agree that the 500PF removes the need for the monster tripod you'd need for a 600mm f4, but a shaky tripod is worse than none because it'll add vibration to everything. Personally, I'd think you'd miss a *lot* of shots. But that's just my two cents.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I think that your description of blinds ("small shooting ports", "sitting in blinds for hours") is why I purchased a travel tripod. It was at the insistence of the tour operator. Given that description I think I need a full gimble to gain any advantage over a monopod/monogimble. I agree that a proper tripod is less tiresome than a monopod. However, is a tripod, ballhead less tiresome than a monopod/monogimble?

When "sitting" in a blind the legs of a tripod are not extended fully. With my travel tripod with a full gimble sitting on top the rig seems quite stable. (If I extend to its full height (I am 6'2") not so much.

Tom

 

[DRwyoming]

I agree that a proper tripod is less tiresome than a monopod. However, is a tripod, ballhead less tiresome than a monopod/monogimble?

That depends on the ballhead as well as the camera and lens. I shot for several years with big ballheads and long lenses before I invested in my first Wimberley gimbal and the better bullheads work pretty well once you get the friction adjusted. You don't get the pure tilt/pan action of a gimbal head or something like a Flexshooter and you do have to keep an eye on the friction setting but for moderate sized lenses like a Nikon 200-500mm or a 500mm PF a decent ballhead can work pretty well. For really big setups like a 500mm or 600mm f/4 a good gimbal head or Flexshooter is a lot more stable and you'll eliminate the risk of ballhead flop if the load gets off center but for modest lens setups a ballhead can work.

If you don't yet own a gimbal head and want the kind of pan/tilt tracking with no risk of ballhead flop I'd recommend a Flexshooter head (mini is great for 150-600mm or 200-500mm class lenses as well as the 500mm PF) as a good alternative to a full gimbal head. If you already own a good ballhead then something like a Wimberley Sidekick can be a great way to go.

 

[jhorsch]

I also recommend a Wimberley Sidekick. Bought one for size/weight considerations and it easily supports a Nikon 200-500m (heavy) lens on a RRS BH55 ballhead. Another option is a Flex Shooter Pro ballhed/gimbal combo. Know a very accomplished pro who uses that with a 600mm lens. He hasn't used his full-sized gimbal since buying that.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Is there a big difference between the Wemberly Sidekick and the mono

For me, Steve created the perfect tool. Feb 2020 I was heading to Antarctica. I’d spotted Steve’s Video on the ultimate monopod head. Sold!
I had a carbon mefoto tripod which could easily split into a monopod, and with that wimberly monogimbel head, coupled to my Nikon D7500 with the brilliant 200-500 lens, it proved an awesome combination. On a moving deck it was brilliantly easy to track whales, dolphin, penguins, and birds like albatross etc etc….other photographers came to check out my setup.

What I am trying to find out is: "Does the monopod/monogimble setup replace a tripod for extended blind shooting?" and "Is there a better head than a gimble on a travel tripod for shooting in a blind when traveling?" (My gimble heads aren't light.)

The problem I have is that the only blinds I have shot in are completely open and are not the tricked out blinds on Southern Texas ranches. In those blinds hand-held was best until I needed to camp on a shot. Then I attached the monopod/monogimble. I had a tripod/gimble setup in the trunk and never used it.

Tom

 

[eaj101]

Yes, the Sidekick is very different from a full gimbal. (and much lighter) But it relies on a solid ballhead as well. I don't like it on the 600mm f4, but then I also should get a lower profile foot for that lens. On any lens that's lighter/smaller than the 600, the Sidekick is great.

 

[Calson]

An excellent travel tripod is the Feisol CT-3441T that weighs only 2.63 lbs and supports up to a 44 lb load. The only way to save some serious weight is with a Zenelli carbon fiber gimbal head.

I have found it much easier with my 600mm f/4 lens to make use of the Kirk SS-1 security strap that has a Arca-Swiss clamp and a shoulder strap with a padded section. Takes me seconds to remove the camera and lens from the gimbal head and attach it to the sling. At that point the strap is over my neck and shoulder and all I need to do is use one hand to keep it from swinging and with my other hand I carry the tripod with its head. Half the weight is carried by the Kirk strap and half the weight is carried in my hand. I find this much easier than having the tripod with the heavy lens and camera mounted and across a shoulder. I also don't have any concerns about the feet of the tripod hitting the brush or the ground.

The Sony 200-600mm lens is half the weight of my 600mm f/4 lens and so this setup would be even easier to manage. The strap takes up very little space and I keep it in a pocket of my backpack when not in use. At $80 the Kirk SS-1 strap and clamp is a bargain and can be bought from B&H.

 

[fcotterill]

This Leofoto PG1 is the latest of 4 gimbals I've tried over the past 4 years. I selected each of these only after much searching online, and comparing some examples directly when possible. These four range from a heavy (Gimpro at 1.63kg) to 1kg Leofoto and slightly lighter FotoPro Eagle. Only the Gimpro has not required modification to meet my exacting standards, All the others have required I change and often modify the locking mechanism of the lens plate, and other aspects.

Only Gimpro has all the safety and adjustment features, and it's very well made aircraft spec aluminum alloy using sealed needle bearings

Based on negative experiences with screw-clamps, I only use a Lever-locking plate, as in the Gimpro's, or the Leofoto Quick Release Lever Clamp LR-50 (or the RRS PG-CC)

• Fotopro Eagle E-6H is versatile with its tilt option, and so it is better suited to handle landscapes (panoramas too) as well as supporting lighter telephotos. I was not happy with the sideclamp, as its jaws are too thin IMHO. The bearings do not spin freely as do all other gimbals I've tried to date. There is a residual resistance, which is probably the set loading n the bearings to avoid play aka wobble on the spindles (?) So I had to modify a Leofoto clamp to attach with 4 capscrews. After importing this new gimbal from BandH, I was surprised Dan Carr was not more critical of its build quality https://shuttermuse.com/fotopro-eagle-tripod-and-gimbal-review/

• Jobu Design BWG-J3K Jobu Jr.3 This light, well made gimbal seems to be fairly popular, judging from reviews and forum threads. It is light weight and well made. The Clamp and Vertical Rail are integral, which is a limitation especially on balancing a telephoto to the align with the tilt axle. In fairness, Jobu's heavy duty DMG-HD4 Heavy Duty Gimbal Head MK IV has an adjustable vertical rail. Second, and most importantly, the locking clamp is the dreaded screw-clamp type. At the price, I have come to expect to be able to adjust the vertical rail, and the option to swop in a QR-Clamp for the ArcaSwiss lens-foot. After using the Jobu Jr 3 for a few months, I discarded the integral Vertical Rail and Lens Clamp and screwed on a modified Sirui Clamp (happened to have) to use a telephoto QR-arca-swiss plate as the vertical Arm/Rail. I also replaced the original cradle clamp with a robust Gimpro clamp (with its unique adjusting Quick Release Lever Clamp). This modification demanded a fair amount of machining to align shorten the Gimpro arms; now it positions the telephoto directly over the central axis of the gimbal and tripod axis.

• Leofoto PG-1 Suffice to say, this is a very good gimbal, which can support a heavy rig. The bearings run smoothly, and I like both clamps on the outer side (not having to tighten the bottom bearing under the clamp. Incidentally, bear in mind this chinese gimbal is an exact knockoff of the PromediaGear GKJ Katana Pro!

I am still finishing the review for the company who've asked me to review this Leofoto PG-1. In this, I will compare the above models in more detail based on field use and not only specifications. This will include the heavier Gimpro. As for legs, the emerging consensus is Leofoto carbon tripods are very close in quality to the Gitzo but Leofoto are much more affordable. I am happy with my LM323C, and there are lighter models, which also use an integral leveling base.

EDIT - since posting the above, I completed a Review of 4 gimbal heads with comparisons and some context to modifications I made:

https://chambeshiphotographyblog.wo...aphy-comparing-4-models-for-heavy-telephotos/

I've heard good things about the Leofoto PG-1 Gimbal Head. It only weights 2.2 lbs.

 

[Michelelabelle]

For me, Steve created the perfect tool. Feb 2020 I was heading to Antarctica. I’d spotted Steve’s Video on the ultimate monopod head. Sold!
I had a carbon mefoto tripod which could easily split into a monopod, and with that wimberly monogimbel head, coupled to my Nikon D7500 with the brilliant 200-500 lens, it proved an awesome combination. On a moving deck it was brilliantly easy to track whales, dolphin, penguins, and birds like albatross etc etc….other photographers came to check out my setup.

I have a wimberly head which I love with my gitzo monopod, but it sounds like you're saying that head will also work on a mefoto tripod- which would be awesome! Thanks!

 

[Patrick M]

To answer the question, No, the monogimbel does not replace the tripod. You can swing the gimbal in one plane, up and down, to shoot sideways does mean rotating the monopod...and you'll not be able to do that on a tripod. The monogimbel is excellent on the monopod but that's it.

to be clear on this. The monogimbel works well by itself mounted on a monopod. It can't swing left and right but the monopod itself allows one to do that quite freely. It was great on a ship when I could easily track birds and then swing around for what's etc.
But on a tripod, you'll need to mount the gimbal on a swivel head, otherwise you won't be able to rotate it. So I only use the monogimbel when I use a monopod.

 

[fcotterill]

Quick bump to this thread... I finally completed a comparative summary-review of the 4 different gimbals, which I've bought and tried out since late 2016. When I find the time, I will replace the existing photos taken with a macroflash rig (existing images are off a smartphone!).

None of these gimbal models turned out to tick all my standards for features in versatility, ease of usage and safety. Each is missing a feature or more. And I've probably wasted too much in resources - not least time - modifying the Fotopro into an more improved gimbal head. I still plan to modify the Quick-Lever action of the RRS clamp to be adjustable (as in the Gimpro).

 

[FB101]

Not sure about a travel tripod but I can recommend the Flexshooter Pro head, which is a ball-style head with gimbal capabilities, and is small and lightweight. It provides good stability and smooth operation, even for large, heavy rigs - many pros have replaced their gimbals with one, and are quite happy.

For travel, I pack my Gitzo carbon fiber tripod in my checked baggage, and have never regretted doing it when out in the field. If I were in your situation, I'd pack the RRS tripod, and buy a Flexshooter Pro head (about $600). https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1505192-REG/flexshooter_fs02010_pro_ball_head.html

Another vote here for flex shooter- over 90% of the functionality of a gimbal head but much more compact and light. Coupled with a gitzo series 2 or 3 and you are in business. Over the $1000 budget but about as good as it gets for light and effective.

 

[FB101]

Maybe the truth is the opposite. "Tripods are a waste of money" They certainly limit how far I can move and how quickly I can set up for a shot. The question is when and why they have advantages. Even in a blind I can track a bird in flight better hand-held. I use a Nikon d-500 and a Nikkor 500pf so someone tell me why I need a heavy expensive tripod. I have a monopod/monogimble that I use if I need to put a TC on. I only purchased a lightweight tripod/gimble setup because I suspect that the blind operator requires it as all the monster tripod users with me in the blind will get upset otherwise.

Bottom line: When you can hand hold your rig, do so. When you can't use a monopod/monogimble. When you can't ????.

I agree with the 500pf is meant to be hand held, that’s the very reason for that lens; and I can shoot all day with a 500f:4 on monopod. But a 600 f:4 gets more tricky, depending on the shooting position (crouched, or shooting upwards for a period of time) a tripod is more viable than a monopod. And I wouldn’t dream to shoot the 800 f:5.6 on anything but a tripod (or a beanbag in a car or a mounted gimbal - something very stable). Horses for courses.

 

[Calson]

The Feisol CT-3441T has a working height (center column all the way down) of 57 inches. With a ballhead and the Sidekick the height of the lens will be up to 61 inches without raising the center column. It collapses down to 18.9 inches and weighs only 2.63 lb and has a load capacity of 44 lb which is an accurate figure. My wife uses this tripod and with the legs fully extended if I put my weigh on the top there is no flexing of the legs (a test that the majority of tripods fail). As a bonus, Feisol provides an excellent tripod carry case for all their tripods as compared to the cardboard boxes provided by Gitzo and RRS.

The 200-500mm is what I have used with the Sidekick and it was OK on the 15 lb rated Kirk BH-3 ballhead. With a heavier 500mm f/4 lens I needed to use the Kirk BH-1 to support the Sidekick properly. The Sidekick puts a leveraged load on the ballhead and so you need 2-3 times the load capacity with the ballhead being used for any given camera and lens.