Tripod and Head Help

Hi folks!

I need some additional opinions on a tripod and gimbal head.

Current setup is a D300 w/ a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 and occasionally SB-600. 90% of the time I've got it on a monopod (handheld the other) with a ballhead. I went this route when I got the lens due to not wanting to lug around the extra weight of a tripod, but I'm starting to re-think that.

Here's the catch...I simply do not have $900 to spend on a Gitzo Tripod and I know a full Wimberley Gimbal is overkill for the camera/lens combo. I'd really rather not spend $1000 on a combo either.

I know there are lots of options out there for tripods and gimbal heads, and opinions seem to vary. I understand completely that when it comes to photography equipment you get what you pay for, but I just can't swing $1500 for a combo right now.

So anyone have any experience with any of the cheaper options? Sidekick? Flashpoint tripod/heads? Etc.

Thanks!

$100 Gimbal head - I have it and it works 100% fine for my 800mm F5.6 and 500 F4:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1105558/0

Look at the Benro tripods - about $500 for top of line Carbon Fiber models.

Take a look at this article from Thom Hogan on tripods and ballheads.http://bythom.com/support.htmSaving money can mean don't buy multiple versions of tripods and heads as you upgrade.

If you need a Sidekick, you'll also need a god ballhead to support the rig. I'd put your budget toward a good ballhead and a Sidekick. I have the Really Right Stuff BH-55, but the Markins Q20 is also a good option. The Benron legs, or the Manfrotto 055 are good choices. There are some good options from Feisol as well. If you need to save money, buy alloy legs rather than carbon fiber. You can get Gitzo alloy legs for $450 - and good used Gitzo legs for under $300.

Buy a good ballhead once - don't mess around with cheaper versions and future upgrades. Good legs are important - you can't go cheap - but you can compromise a little. Look for used legs to save a little money. The Gitzo 3540LS is nearly the same as the $900 current model but $300 cheaper. The Gitzo 1340 is an alloy model going for $275-300.

Or buy used...the Gitzo 1325 can be found (check FM forums regularly) for $300 including shipping...

I have owned Gitzo, RRS tripods and now Benro. Benro (the high end CF models) are just as good as the others. Here is one example:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/310408032618...84.m1423.l2649

Markins for a ball head - good value. I had a very bad experience with RRS with their BH-55 and given their politics vis-a-vis Prop 8 in California, I no longer purchase their products if others are available.

The Gimbal Head I linked to above is wonderful - for $100 you cannot go wrong. If you are shooting birds and such as I do, you can forego the ball head and just get a Gimbal (for $100, shipped!)

Hand holding is free and I find that I get more keepers hand held than with my tripod/gimbal combination. I'm shooting a Canon 7D, EF 500mm f/4L IS combination.

My Induro C-414 is a great tripod, which cost much less than comparable Gitzo.

I preface this with the comment that I'm only using a 400/5.6 (sometimes with TC) and not a super-tele but --

I've been extremely happy with my Induro combo (www.indurogear.com).

I use the AT-214 pod. It's lightweight (but not carbon) and is well built and strong.

I use the Indure GHB2 Gimbal. It is a bit under $500 (I got mine as an open-box deal for about $400) and is smooth and solidly built.

Not inexpensive, but the Wimberley Sidekick combined with a strong ballhead, like the Arca-Swiss Z1, is a really versatile combination. It's great for birds and wildlife and then take the Sidekick off and use it for scenics and night photography.

Yes but that is $700...Sidekick ($200) plus the A-S Z-1 ($500)...

Buy used; hand-hold if possible or see the Gimbal Head for $100 I linked to above...

Well, if you don't need a good ballhead, then buy a cheap gimbal. Most of us have much use for our ballheads for scenics, night shots, archetecture, etc.

"Here's the catch...I simply do not have $900 to spend on a Gitzo Tripod and I know a full Wimberley Gimbal is overkill for the camera/lens combo. I'd really rather not spend $1000 on a combo either." Those are the words of the Original Poster (OP) - in his initial post.

It seems to me the OP (Joseph Cala) is looking for quality items that don't cost an arm and a leg...We all are! are...the Induro tripod suggested above (or a Benro) - or even a used Carbon Fiber tripod (Gitzo) are all great suggestions. I buy many items used...and from the right source(s), are excellent value - sometimes 50% less than retail/list price.

Inexpensive does not imply "cheap" - you can find quality items for less than what the Gitzos and RRS's and even Manfrettos charge...Save your money for trips - or to put the kids through college, etc.

"It seems to me the OP (Joseph Cala) is looking for quality items that don't cost an arm and a leg...We all are! are...the Induro tripod suggested above (or a Benro) - or even a used Carbon Fiber tripod (Gitzo) are all great suggestions. I buy many items used...and from the right source(s), are excellent value - sometimes 50% less than retail/list price.

Inexpensive does not imply "cheap" - you can find quality items for less than what the Gitzos and RRS's and even Manfrettos charge...Save your money for trips - or to put the kids through college, etc."

This is exactly right. I already shoot with a monopod and ballhead (Flashpoint F-4....and no, it's not as smooth as the Markins M10 I rented a while back with the Nikon 500mm f/4, but it gets the job done for 1/4 of the price). So, if a 'Sidekick' type item (or even the sidekick) is the best option I feel like the ballhead will be fine with it.

If the $100 gimbal head is actually decent, I'd rather go that route. I just can't justify spending $1500+ on a tripod and gimbal head when I know there's cheaper options out there. I don't want to spend $500 on junk only to throw it away six months down the road, either. I'm perfectly fine with buying used....the Sigma 500 I shoot with was a used purchase (at almost a 50% savings), so I can certainly go that route as well.

Aside from weight and strength, what's the main difference between carbon fiber and aluminum? Several of the suggested aluminum tripods in this thread are under $200, while all the carbon fiber ones are $500+.

Joseph,

I'm not sure carbon fiber is any stronger than aluminum, but it IS lighter. Aluminum is MUCH less expensive.

People carried wooden tripods for around 100-years before aluminum became widely available. Putting your money into aluminum is a great way to save some money, the only downside is weight. A Sidekick on an existing ballhead is what I had in mind.

Does your existing ballhead have a dropdown slot so that the Sidekick can be mounted vertically? Does your ballhead have a panorama function (the Sidekick only moves in the vertical plane and requires the ballhead to provide the horizontal plane. The smoothness in the horizontal plane is totally dependent on your ballhead.

Does your Sigma have image stabilization? If so, you should seriously work on hand holding. I've got a great tripod/ballhead/Sidekick combo, but I hand hold over 99% of my shots with my Canon 500mm/f4.

Properly designed CF is much stronger than aluminum, but the real issue is damping and vibration transmission, which will favor aluminum, or for the ultimate, wood. This characteristic varies widely by make and model.

Quote:

---

Does your existing ballhead have a dropdown slot so that the Sidekick can be mounted vertically? Does your ballhead have a panorama function (the Sidekick only moves in the vertical plane and requires the ballhead to provide the horizontal plane. The smoothness in the horizontal plane is totally dependent on your ballhead.

Does your Sigma have image stabilization? If so, you should seriously work on hand holding. I've got a great tripod/ballhead/Sidekick combo, but I hand hold over 99% of my shots with my Canon 500mm/f4.

---

Ballhead does have a dropdown slot and a panorama function. I'll be honest, I don't know that I've ever used the panorama function, so that's something I'll need to check out.

And unfortunately, no, the Sigma does not have IS/VR. It was one of those trade offs I made (the other being f/4.5) when I picked that over the Nikon 500mm f/4 VR. I just wasn't willing to spend $8k on the Nikon version for VR and 1/3 of a stop of light when I could get the Sigma used for almost 70% less.