I'm wondering if any of you have used these heads on monopods [such as the Manfrotto 234}, and can give your verdict. They basically just allow vertical tilting in relation to the monopod.
Ive only seriously been using a monopod for the last few months, and have become pretty comfortable using it with the trusty 400 f2.8 + converters, fitted directly to the monopod bolt, and have found that having a slight side-ways incline on the attatched monopod gives me good horizontal stability {by slightly rotating the lens within the collar}, but there have been occasions where my shooting angle may be slightly downwards {such as in the posted image}, and this becomes slightly more tricky {as the heavy weight of the lens is 'falling away' from me.
The 'Tilt-Top' heads "seem" to be the answer, although its difficult to tell from catalogue pictures/info whether they are robust enough {plastic }to plonk a heavy lens on top of. They certainly seem to be pretty cheap, which makes me wonder if they are up to the job.
Anyone had any experience with these contraptions.
Hi Alan,
I'm a big fan of monopods without any heads........too many things to remember to twirl and twist on an already unstable platform
FWIW I tend to favour an off center weight distribution when shooting in any plane. Normally the base of the pod is braced into the arch of my right foot when shooting downward and the remainder of the forward weight is carried by my left calf muscle holding the lower part of the pod.
Something rings in my head that the much loved 393 Manfrotto head was designed for monopod use.........maybe that would be your answer to the question of flimsy plastic holding many £s worth of glass.
I agree with you John, that its worth keeping the set-up as simple as possible. My intention with a tilt-top would be to keep it locked at a slight angle for the majority of the time.
Thanks Steve,
it sounds like it is worth forking out for, especially as it won't break the bank . Although i am unlikely to put much strain on the head during shooting, i do tend to sling the lens over my shoulder when moving about, and my main concern regarding the build quality was when i am doing that. Sounds like it will do the job nicely!, so i shall give it a try.
see the really right stuff website for his simple conversion of the manfrotto tilt head, it is the main recommended set up for monopods and big glass. As you have identified if you simply clamp a big lens to head when tilted the weight causes the monopod foot to kick away.
I very rarely use a monopod, if I do I have the manfrotto tilt head with an arca swiss QR platform attached, my prefered low level set up is a Kirk Lowpod with a manfrotto 393 gimbal which has had the manfrotto qr platform removed and an arca swiss one fixed, I have yet to try this with my 400/2.8 but it works well with my 300 + extender, gives me a lot more stability than a monopod, and IMO works better on our pebble beaches than a skimmer type of base, (it was also cheaper).
The Kirk Lowpod looks ideal for my particular coastal haunt, as the roasting tin method would not be ideal for low level shooting on the shingle/rocks. I will probably end up getting one of those for next winter, as my particular area of coast is now becoming less ideal due to the light direction of the higher sun {unless i wade into the Irish sea }, and the lack of public transport to get me there for early in-coming tides {when the light direction is more favourable}.
The Manfrotto 393 looks useful, but i think i shall go with the much cheaper 234 as i don't intend doing a lot of monopod stuff, unless it is the only option, and i'm always looking to save a few quid
Would also add that the 393 on top of a tripod is very good as cheap form of Gimbal, I believe Tim uses one, so does Kevin Lewis, and Vince J, it makes a very cheap alternative to the wimberly type heads, with mine having an arca swiss type qr platform I can just 'drop' the 400 in rather than having to slide it in.... one of the problems Ray refered to.
Since getting the 400mm, my tripod use is now restricted entirely to my hide [or lowish level shooting}, as the weight is too much for my old tripod when extended.
After buying that lens i decided i ought to 'draw a line' under any more expensive purchase's, and work with what i have, for as long as possible
No dought i will eventually have to shell out for a more suitable tripod, and when that time arrives i will likely opt for the 393 as well. At the moment i have no complaints with my FLM ballhead for hide work, but maybe the 393 may be better suited for a wider range of situations with these heavy type lenses {especially as it would be in my price bracket}.
I shall keep it in mind for the future!
thanks
Alan
Posted by Paul King on November 16, 2007 at 11:42 AM
If I might add my twopenneth worth, I have used the 393 M'frotto for years and find it a more stable platform than many of the alternatives.
for use on a monopod it is excellent, giving real flexibility, 393 on groundpod brill.
only con is the washers on the tensioners do break up after a while.
and its cheap,,,,, compared to all othres.
Discussion
12 repliesI'm wondering if any of you have used these heads on monopods [such as the Manfrotto 234}, and can give your verdict. They basically just allow vertical tilting in relation to the monopod.
Ive only seriously been using a monopod for the last few months, and have become pretty comfortable using it with the trusty 400 f2.8 + converters, fitted directly to the monopod bolt, and have found that having a slight side-ways incline on the attatched monopod gives me good horizontal stability {by slightly rotating the lens within the collar}, but there have been occasions where my shooting angle may be slightly downwards {such as in the posted image}, and this becomes slightly more tricky {as the heavy weight of the lens is 'falling away' from me.
The 'Tilt-Top' heads "seem" to be the answer, although its difficult to tell from catalogue pictures/info whether they are robust enough {plastic
Anyone had any experience with these contraptions.
Thanks
Alan
I'm a big fan of monopods without any heads........too many things to remember to twirl and twist on an already unstable platform
FWIW I tend to favour an off center weight distribution when shooting in any plane. Normally the base of the pod is braced into the arch of my right foot when shooting downward and the remainder of the forward weight is carried by my left calf muscle holding the lower part of the pod.
Something rings in my head that the much loved 393 Manfrotto head was designed for monopod use.........maybe that would be your answer to the question of flimsy plastic holding many £s worth of glass.
A nicely exposed shot of the plover too.
John
I use a Manfrotto 234RC on my monopod. They are a cast metal and very robust. I've used mine to hold my Sigma 400 mm without a problem.
SteveHL
I agree with you John, that its worth keeping the set-up as simple as possible. My intention with a tilt-top would be to keep it locked at a slight angle for the majority of the time.
Thanks Steve,
it sounds like it is worth forking out for, especially as it won't break the bank
Thanks again
Alan
I don't know anything about monopods but I do know this is an excellent image.
cheers
Sean
Mike
A useful piece of info on that site!
cheers
Alan
I very rarely use a monopod, if I do I have the manfrotto tilt head with an arca swiss QR platform attached, my prefered low level set up is a Kirk Lowpod with a manfrotto 393 gimbal which has had the manfrotto qr platform removed and an arca swiss one fixed, I have yet to try this with my 400/2.8 but it works well with my 300 + extender, gives me a lot more stability than a monopod, and IMO works better on our pebble beaches than a skimmer type of base, (it was also cheaper).
HTH
All the best
The Kirk Lowpod looks ideal for my particular coastal haunt, as the roasting tin method would not be ideal for low level shooting on the shingle/rocks. I will probably end up getting one of those for next winter, as my particular area of coast is now becoming less ideal due to the light direction of the higher sun {unless i wade into the Irish sea
The Manfrotto 393 looks useful, but i think i shall go with the much cheaper 234 as i don't intend doing a lot of monopod stuff, unless it is the only option, and i'm always looking to save a few quid
thanks
Alan
Would also add that the 393 on top of a tripod is very good as cheap form of Gimbal, I believe Tim uses one, so does Kevin Lewis, and Vince J, it makes a very cheap alternative to the wimberly type heads, with mine having an arca swiss type qr platform I can just 'drop' the 400 in rather than having to slide it in.... one of the problems Ray refered to.
All the best
Since getting the 400mm, my tripod use is now restricted entirely to my hide [or lowish level shooting}, as the weight is too much for my old tripod when extended.
After buying that lens i decided i ought to 'draw a line' under any more expensive purchase's, and work with what i have, for as long as possible
No dought i will eventually have to shell out for a more suitable tripod, and when that time arrives i will likely opt for the 393 as well. At the moment i have no complaints with my FLM ballhead for hide work, but maybe the 393 may be better suited for a wider range of situations with these heavy type lenses {especially as it would be in my price bracket}.
I shall keep it in mind for the future!
thanks
Alan
for use on a monopod it is excellent, giving real flexibility, 393 on groundpod brill.
only con is the washers on the tensioners do break up after a while.
and its cheap,,,,, compared to all othres.
Paul