I'm fond of stout carbon fiber legs and a full Whimberly head. I have a pad installed on the top pivot of the head, and I use that as a rest for a body with an 80-200 lens for shots showing more of the landscape. Saves time on lens changes and lets you shoot both tight and wider shots easily.
After trying a couple of cheeper ways around the problem I wound up with Gitzo carbon fiber legs and a wimberly head and have no regrets. I very noticeable difference in stability with a long lens. I can see once I got the technique down I saw a vast improvement in my shots.
I prefer lever-action legs rather than the twist-type, and Manfrotto makes great carbon-fiber tripods, and for a lot less than the Gitzo's. Feisol also makes excellent twist- tripods for much less than Gitzo. This was discussed here recently, so do a search for "feisol tripod" to find that thread.
But with flying birds, tripods are useless. There is a great product called the Quick Action Harness that makes "hand" -holding a 500 or 600 mm lens easy.
I have one now, even though i have always preferred hand-holding, and it is a back-blessing!
More info here:
www.naturesportal.net/...
A GOOD tripod is an absolute must. For lenses such as 300 f2.8 and even 500 f4, a Wimberly Sidekick can be an acceptable alternative to the full Wimberly gimbal mount. It can be quickly removed from your ballhead to allow you to mount smaller lenses or the body directly. The downside is the side mount, which lacks some of the ease of use of the bottom-mount style. There are other brands of side-mount gimbal heads, e.g Cobra or Mongoose, but they mount directly to the tripod without a ball head and are therefor less versatile that the Sidekick, IMO. Of course, if you never use any lenses but big glass, then a ball head may be a superfluous expense.
My setup is a Gitzo 1325, Acratech Ultimate ballhead, and Wimberly Sidekick. I use a Canon 1D series body and 300 f2.8 lens. No complaints with this gear. When I remove the lens from the tripod, the Sidekick stays attached to the lens. For hand-held shooting, I can rotate the tripod collar and reposition the Sidekick and use the Sidekick as a more comfortable handle than holding the lens barrel in my hand.
I wouldn't say tripods are useless for flying birds. Surely we've all gotten good flight shots with a tripod-mounted lens. But it can limit upward movement, especially if one is sitting behind a low tripod.
Posted by Keith Bauer on March 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Quoted from Charlie:
"But with flying birds, tripods are useless. "
Do many agree with this? With or without gimbals?
I disagree. Tripods with flying birds are definitely not useless. In many many cases they are extremely valuable. Not to say that handheld isn't needed for some situations. Depending on the size of the lens, a gimbal head is needed.
Discussion
6 repliesI prefer lever-action legs rather than the twist-type, and Manfrotto makes great carbon-fiber tripods, and for a lot less than the Gitzo's. Feisol also makes excellent twist- tripods for much less than Gitzo. This was discussed here recently, so do a search for "feisol tripod" to find that thread.
But with flying birds, tripods are useless. There is a great product called the Quick Action Harness that makes "hand" -holding a 500 or 600 mm lens easy.
I have one now, even though i have always preferred hand-holding, and it is a back-blessing!
More info here:
www.naturesportal.net/...
Sandy r
Do many agree with this? With or without gimbals?
My setup is a Gitzo 1325, Acratech Ultimate ballhead, and Wimberly Sidekick. I use a Canon 1D series body and 300 f2.8 lens. No complaints with this gear. When I remove the lens from the tripod, the Sidekick stays attached to the lens. For hand-held shooting, I can rotate the tripod collar and reposition the Sidekick and use the Sidekick as a more comfortable handle than holding the lens barrel in my hand.
I wouldn't say tripods are useless for flying birds. Surely we've all gotten good flight shots with a tripod-mounted lens. But it can limit upward movement, especially if one is sitting behind a low tripod.
"But with flying birds, tripods are useless. "
Do many agree with this? With or without gimbals?
I disagree. Tripods with flying birds are definitely not useless. In many many cases they are extremely valuable. Not to say that handheld isn't needed for some situations. Depending on the size of the lens, a gimbal head is needed.