Need a tall tripod for the parks

[Experiment_626]

So, I have a little money to spend and would like to get a tripod that meets my needs a little better than what I currently have.

First, this is what I currently have: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/717676-REG/Manfrotto_190XDB_Tripod_Kit_with.html

Frankly, I'm mostly satisfied with this, with one important caveat. The biggest problem I have with my current set-up is the height. I'm an inch or two over six feet, and I either have to stoop or raise the center column to almost full height with what I have — and neither is a solution I particularly like.

I want something tall enough to keep me from hunching over and also either not having to raise the center column — or at worst, raising it no more than a few inches so stability is compromised to a minimal degree. My eye height is about 68 inches, so I want something that can get the viewfinder to about that level.

Photography in the Disney parks is probably what I tend to take most seriously. I have a D7000 and a D300 and use both of them for this purpose. I generally have a Rokinon 8mm fisheye, a Sigma 10-20, or a Tamron 17-50 on the camera when it's on the tripod, with 55-300 from time to time. I don't anticipate buying heavier lenses any time in the foreseeable future. I already have an older, larger and extremely stable Manfrotto tripod for studio-type use or when my need to walk is minimal. Folded size just needs to be manageable when I carry it around or have it strapped to a camera bag. And I'm not concerned about airline regulations — I rarely do any flying. I haven't been on a plane is six years or so and don't have any plans to be on one.

My budget is an etched-in-stone $400 maximum. I'm okay with using the ballhead I have if it is compatible with the tripod I buy, which could save me some money.

I'm of two minds on this with regard to materials. I'm going to be carrying a lot of gear already, so on the one hand a carbon-fiber or maybe basalt model might be worth it to save a little weight. On the other hand, I'm already carrying a lot of weight, so I also wonder if spending the extra money just to save a pound or two is worth it, especially if by not doing so I could afford a better tripod overall.

Suggestions? Thoughts? I'd like to move on this within the next week or so — before someone manages to spend the money on something else.

SSB

 

[Experiment_626]

Really? No one?

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I really would like to help you out, unfortunately I had to go the opposite way because I fly. Thats why I went with the Cullmann (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/799992-REG/Cullmann_CU_53583_MAGIC_TRIPOD_SYSTEM_w_CB.html). It wouldn't suit your needs. I have my older Slik for around home which I hope to replace in the near future. I will be monitoring this thread to get some insight into my replacement. Good luck.

 

[Experiment_626]

I actually didn't think about how many people here have to fly and take that into account. I asked over at Nikon Cafe and got a couple of what appear to be good recommendations -- the Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 and the Feisol 3441T.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...5CXPRO3_055CXPRO3_3_Section_Carbon_Fiber.html

http://reallybigcameras.com/Feisol/Tall_Traveler.htm

Both are the same price, at $319 US.

SSB

 

[BBQMonster]

Increase your budget by $59 and you can have this one.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/813043-REG/3_Legged_Thing_3LTX1_1KITBK_3LT_X1_1_BRIAN_AH1_KIT.html

Except for the $59 this one looks like what you are searching for.

BBQMonster

 

[pgowder]

Really? No one?

I upgraded my tripod recently to a taller one because of my WDW trips.

For shooting Wishes or Illuminations it really comes in handy!

 

[rmattman]

I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 and used it on the last trip to WDW. My eye height is about 67" and it was plenty tall with room to spare. Very stable also. I could easily shoot over the heads of the crowd for fireworks. There is also a $40 rebate currently.

 

[ELinder]

I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO4, the 4 section version of the CXPRO3 because it folds a few inches shorter. The difference makes it much easier to hang on the back of my camera backpack when walking around. You'll probably have to raise the center column part way for your height, but I've found it to still be plenty stable that way with a D90 and a 17-55mm 2.8 lens on a ball head.

 

[Pixel Dust]

I also have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO4, 4 section tripod. One of the main reasons I got this over the 3 section is that it folds smaller and it fits into the lockers at Magic Kingdom. Toss it in there for the day and bring it out for the evenings. It's maybe a couple inches shorter than the 3 section when both are fully extended. About 67", then add the height of the head and the distance from the base of the camera to the view finder. That's way above my eye level so I use a remote release for my D7000. It folds 4 inches shorter and actually fits in my carry-on roller bag for airplane travel. Same load capacity as the 3 section.

It's very stable fully raised. I use it for wishes all the time. It gets above the heads.

 

[zackiedawg]

I also couldn't really help, even though I don't fly. I am about the same height as you, but when I need the camera up at eye level, I've always been OK with just using the center post, mostly because I don't need that height all that often, so it only gets raised occasionally. When I tend to most use the tripod, it's during night shooting, and most of the time I switch my camera to live view since I have a tilting LCD screen. That lets me just leave the tripod center post down, tilt the LCD towards me and view the LCD screen from a comfortable distance while setting up and taking my shot, either with the remote release or timer. I can get by with a smaller and cheaper tripod, and no stooping or bending!