Tripod for the following set-up...

10/20/2005 12:52:44 PM · #1

Greetings,

I am looking for tripod suggestions for the following set-up.

Canon 20D w/battery grip
70-200mm f/2.8 IS
(occasionally w/2x extender)

I want something solid for outdoor use (wind resistant as I live near the water).

My budget is approx. $150 with about $220 max. I already have a Bogen-Manfrotto Monopod. I am contemplating a 486 Compact Ball Head for it. But I need something with more stability for telephoto and macro shooting.

10/20/2005 12:55:20 PM · #2

Which Bogen-Manfrotto you have?

R.

10/20/2005 01:45:57 PM · #3

The 486 is too small. Had one and sold it for a 488RC2. The midi is better than the compact. Have mine mounted on a Bogen/Manfrotto 3021pro. Plenty stable for me with the D70 and Sigma's 50-500 Ex.

Your tripod should have an attachment point for added weight to increase stability. Many use their camera bag

Message edited by author 2005-10-20 13:48:32.

10/20/2005 04:04:59 PM · #4

I thought the 486 was rated for 13lbs. ???

If I recall correctly my monopod is the 680B

Message edited by author 2005-10-20 16:05:23.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

10/20/2005 05:29:49 PM · #5

Given your price range, the Manfrotto 3021 Pro is the obvious choice I think. It's what I use, anyway, and it works just extremely well. Versatile too, you can cantilever the center column horizontally and the legs can be assymetrically splayed. I don't like ball heads at all, certainly not the small/cheap ones. I'd go with a 3031 3-way, not too expensive and very solid.

R.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

10/20/2005 05:32:54 PM · #6

I have a similar one to bear if not the exact same one. I have the joystick ball head and don't know what I'd do without it. It's so convenient. I also have the elbow bracket which makes switching between horizontal and vertical painless.

10/20/2005 06:13:45 PM · #7

Question, what is the difference between a 3-way and 2-way head?

Other notes, the ballhead I was considering was for the monopod not the tripod. And my budget of $150-$220 is for tripod + head.

10/20/2005 07:48:37 PM · #8

Originally posted by theSaj:

Question, what is the difference between a 3-way and 2-way head?

Other notes, the ballhead I was considering was for the monopod not the tripod. And my budget of $150-$220 is for tripod + head.

2-way head doesn't have a pan function; you have to rotate the center column itself to rotate the camera horizontally. Doesn't work on tripods like manfrotto that don't have a round center column.

Robt.

10/21/2005 07:33:01 AM · #9

A ball head is not needed on a monopod. The only function required is to transition from landscape to portrait and Manfrotto's 3229 head does this easily. It is the head attached to my Manfrotto 680 monopod. Additionally it receives the same quick release plate as my 488RC2 head attached to my 3021pro. All my bodies and lenses with tripod collars have the QR plate attached. Use on either the 3229 or 488RC2 heads is nearly instantaneous. The locking mechanism has never failed me.

For your consideration.

There are more expensive heads, but this system serves me and my needs.

hdogg4u

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/21/2005 07:43:46 AM · #10

Originally posted by bear_music:

I have to agree with Robert's choice the 3021 Pro is just great and I too use the 3 way head with quick release. This combination makes a very steady tripod and secure camera movement. The craftsmanship is incredible. Everytime I use it and some sees it they want to know what it is and touch its quality.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

10/21/2005 07:45:39 AM · #11

Each photographer must assess their own needs regarding their photographic subjects. Ball heads have an advantage in action shots, while still being usable for stationary subjects like landscapes.

see attached:

Message edited by author 2005-10-21 07:49:58.

pgatt

Canon EOS-5D

10/21/2005 08:40:49 AM · #12

I have the 3021 pro as well - great tripod in my opinion. I have a ball head (322RC2) and love it on my monopod and tripod for what it's worth. But then I'm fidgety and get annoyed that I couldn't change all three directions at once with a 3/2-way head. That's just my opinion, definitely give the actual tripod another stamp of approval.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

10/21/2005 09:01:42 AM · #13

I'm also a 3021 pro user, and would concur that this is a wonderful tripod. I have two heads, a 3-wya pan/tilt (the 3030) and a 488RC4 (same as RC2 but with a larger mounting plate. I definitely like the RC4-style mounting plate better, it's much more positive when locked down, and has its own bubble level, a nice touch. The plate that goes on the cam is fairly large, but for me the convenience and stability are the key attributes.
I rarley use the 3030 anymore, the 488 is at least as stable (I think more stable) and is easier to adjust. It's easy to pan with the 488, and it has degrees of rotation marked on the base ring, another nice touch.

11/02/2005 01:58:54 PM · #14

3021 vs 3221

3221

3021

The pro appears to be able to remove the center column and mount it horizontally. What would the benefit of doing such be?

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 13:59:39.

11/02/2005 02:04:00 PM · #15

Originally posted by theSaj:

The pro appears to be able to remove the center column and mount it horizontally. What would the benefit of doing such be?

You can shoot macro from directly above. Think "copy stand". You can also cantilever out to the side when using wide angle, to remove foreground elements when you can't reposition the tripod; like if you're set up on a bridge and the railing is showing diagonally in the lower left corner of the shot.

Robt.

11/02/2005 02:09:10 PM · #16

This challenge shot was done using the horizontal position, allowing a Nikon 4300 to look directly down into a tapered beer glass.

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 14:09:48.

11/02/2005 02:18:39 PM · #17

Originally posted by theSaj:

3021 vs 3221

3221

3021

The pro appears to be able to remove the center column and mount it horizontally. What would the benefit of doing such be?

The advantage of the horizontal position is addressed above. The advantage fo the 3221 is its higher height w/o the center column. The down side to the 3221 is the added 3 pounds in weight, unless this is a studio or landscape tripod. The 3021pro is a bit more versatile, 3 pounds lighter, and yet still stable for all but the most serious of lenses......like 40-80,000 dollar telephotos.

11/02/2005 02:40:08 PM · #18

Originally posted by Flash:

The 3221 also has retractable spikes in the rubber feet, allowing more stability on questionable surfaces. The height difference w/o extending center column is less than half an inch, and with cenhter column fully extended is just an inch: negligible IMO.

R.

11/02/2005 02:45:20 PM · #19

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by Flash:

The advantage of the horizontal position is addressed above. The advantage fo the 3221 is its higher height w/o the center column. The down side to the 3221 is the added 3 pounds in weight, unless this is a studio or landscape tripod. The 3021pro is a bit more versatile, 3 pounds lighter, and yet still stable for all but the most serious of lenses......like 40-80,000 dollar telephotos.

The 3221 also has retractable spikes in the rubber feet, allowing more stability on questionable surfaces. The height difference w/o extending center column is less than half an inch, and with cenhter column fully extended is just an inch: negligible IMO.

R.

Must have read it wrong, thought there was like 6 inches difference. 53" vs 59". I'll double check.

Nope. Double checked the specifications of each.
3221 maximum height w/o the center column is 59.6"
3021 maximum height w/o the center column is 53.2"

but maybe that was metric....better check again.

No, I was correct. 6" diffference. And the 3021 can get 4" closer to the ground.

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 14:49:43.

11/02/2005 02:51:55 PM · #20

Originally posted by Flash:

No, I was correct. 6" diffference. And the 3021 can get 4" closer to the ground.

hmmm... I was checking specs at the Bogen site, lemme look again...

R.

11/02/2005 02:57:01 PM · #21

53.2 vs 53.6 in the Bogen catalogue:

**************************

Cat. No.: 3021BPRO
3021BPRO TRIPOD (BLACK)
Manfrotto has taken the 3021BPRO tripod and made it even more versatile! The main refinement to this series is with the cente -- (more info)

Max load Max height Max height w/Column Min height Closed length Weight
13.3 lbs 53.2 inches 69.3 inches 4.4 inches 25.6 inches 5.3 lbs

***********************

Cat. No.: 3221WN
3221WN WILDERNESS TRIPOD (BLACK)
(Replaces the 055BWB.) The 3221WNâ��s solid construction offers total stability and support up to13lbs. The 3221WN is a favorite with video, w -- (more info)

Max load Max height Max height w/Column Min height Closed length Weight
13.3 lbs 53.6 inches 71.3 inches 3.2 inches 25.2 inches 6.2 lbs

11/02/2005 02:58:02 PM · #22

theSaj,

Another thing to consider is the height after you add a head and body. Normally 7-8" is added to the height of the legs with the head abd camera body, therefore 53" legs become 60" at eye level for the viewfinder. may or may not fit your needs, but worth considering. Your height should match the height of the legs+head+camera body without raising the center column. Or at least that is a rule to consider.

11/02/2005 03:01:31 PM · #23

Originally posted by bear_music:

The links that theSaj provided 3221 and 3021 go directly to B&H Photo. Each has a specifications page which has the information I was reveiwing.