Which Tripod?

[MarkBarbieri]

I've got it narrowed down to 3 tripods. They are all from the same maker and are in the same series. The difference is the size and number of leg sections. These are really beefy tripods, so I'm not concerned about the stability for the ones with more leg sections.

Tripod #1 - Sets up to 52.4" tall, packs to 24.8" long, and weighs 5.9 lbs. It has 3 leg sections.

Tripod #2 - Sets up to 60.2" tall, packs to 23.6" long, and weighs 6.3 lbs. It has 4 leg sections.

Tripod #3 - Sets up to 102.4" tall (that's not a typo), packs to 28" long, and weighs 7.5 lbs. It has 6 leg sections.

Tripod #1 is the cheapest. Tripod #2 is about 10% more expensive. Tripod #3 is about 25% more expensive. The cost isn't a major factor as I plan to use this tripod for at least a couple of decades.

I plan to use this tripod for video shooting and big lenses. All three support a flat base and have available adapters for 75mm and 100mm bowls for video heads. They are all designed to handle 600mm+ lenses.

I'm leaning towards #2. I think that 52.4" is a bit too short, even for me (I'm only about a foot taller). I also think that the extra inch in packing length could be an issue for sticking this thing in a suitcase.

Any suggestions or thoughts?

 

[mabas9395]

Can you ever see yourself needing 102.4 inches? That seems to be the only advantage #2 has over #3 and you already eliminated #1 due to size. So it really comes down to that single question about the 102.4 inches (assuming of course you feel that #2's shorter pack length, lighter weight, fewer legs and cheaper are all pluses, which I would).

 

[JoeDif]

Based on the specs you provided, I'd definitely go with #2. 102" on #3 seems like a bit overkill to me.

 

[YesDear]

I just recently got this tripod

It is about the same height and only weighs 1.6lbs. I put a med size rrs head on it. It folds down to about 13 inches.

I was very impressed with it when I used at WDW in Sept.

So I would agree with your choice!

 

[GrillMouster]

#1 is definitely too short, and #3 has to many leg sections (I wouldn't want to deal with that many x 3) and the extra height would rarely be used, so I'd go with #2.

 

[boBQuincy]

I just recently got this tripod

It is about the same height and only weighs 1.6lbs. I put a med size rrs head on it. It folds down to about 13 inches.

I was very impressed with it when I used at WDW in Sept.

So I would agree with your choice!

The ballhead weighs more (and costs more) than the tripod! I was looking at the baby Benros, they do look like a good solution for a tiny & light tripod as long as we don't need to photograph over some heads.

Chalk up another purchase to DisBoards!

 

[WDWFigment]

I've got it narrowed down to 3 tripods. They are all from the same maker and are in the same series. The difference is the size and number of leg sections. These are really beefy tripods, so I'm not concerned about the stability for the ones with more leg sections.

Tripod #1 - Sets up to 52.4" tall, packs to 24.8" long, and weighs 5.9 lbs. It has 3 leg sections.

Tripod #2 - Sets up to 60.2" tall, packs to 23.6" long, and weighs 6.3 lbs. It has 4 leg sections.

Tripod #3 - Sets up to 102.4" tall (that's not a typo), packs to 28" long, and weighs 7.5 lbs. It has 6 leg sections.

Tripod #1 is the cheapest. Tripod #2 is about 10% more expensive. Tripod #3 is about 25% more expensive. The cost isn't a major factor as I plan to use this tripod for at least a couple of decades.

I plan to use this tripod for video shooting and big lenses. All three support a flat base and have available adapters for 75mm and 100mm bowls for video heads. They are all designed to handle 600mm+ lenses.

I'm leaning towards #2. I think that 52.4" is a bit too short, even for me (I'm only about a foot taller). I also think that the extra inch in packing length could be an issue for sticking this thing in a suitcase.

Any suggestions or thoughts?

If you're planning on doing any traveling to WDW besides during value season, 52.4" will be too short for some shooting. I wouldn't use a tripod shorter than 60" at WDW. Conversely, I think 102" is bigtime overkill.

Then again, I definitely don't fall in the camp of those who can justify spending more than $200 for a tripod + good ball head. I also don't have 600mm+ lenses.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I've heard a few arguments for the 102". For video, it can be useful to shoot above a crowd. This can be helpful shooting weddings, for example. Personally, I can't think of a case where I'd have the space to set up the tripod and still want to shoot over a crowd. I'm not saying that I never will, but I think it will be infrequent.

The more compelling issue is that the extra reach can be good on rough surfaces. I've been in a lot of cases where I'm shooting on steep slopes and it would be nice to be able to drop a leg an extra few feet down the slope. Still, I don't think that justifies the extra size, weight, and complexity for my shooting.

I've looked at some Benro tripods. I've been told that started as a direct rip-off of some Gitzo designs. Supposedly, Benro was the Chinese manufacturer of some Gitzo models and they decided to make the same gear under their own brand. I don't know whether that is true, but their early designs were very similar to some older Gitzos. In this particular case, it doesn't matter.

I want something that can take a 75mm bowl for use with a video head and I don't see that Benro makes anything like that. As far as I can tell, my options are video tripods from companies like Miller or Sachtler or a hybrid from Gitzo. I like the Gitzos because I'll be able to use them down the road for when I inevitably give in and buy the Canon 400 f/2.8 or other beast-like lens. I tend to stick with Gitzo tripods because it's what I know and what my friends all use. Tripods last for so long that I get pretty conservative when buying them.

A friend has the prior model 4 leg section Gitzo Systematic tripod for his 600mm. I've borrowed it for video and loved it. It looks a little out of place shooting with a camo covered tripod in a school auditorium, but that thing was solid as a rock.

Over the weekend, I was planning to get one soon so I'd have it for the 4th grade play next month. After reviewing my finances, I think I'm going to wait until my spring budget thaw, so I'm less pressured to decide now. I'll make do with what I have (and can borrow) for now. Who knows what I'll decide by this spring.

 

[mabas9395]

The other thing to think about is where will this tripod fit in with your other tripod(s). Since I'm pretty sure you already have a nice one, what will be the primary use for this one? Is it a replacement for your current tripod, if so, was there something about that one you did not like? If it's for a different purpose, what need are you trying to fill?

 

[Gdad]

I vote for the tall one- just for Wishes! Don't forget a ladder.

(Taken last night before Hallowishes)

 

[annnewjerz]

I vote for the tall one- just for Wishes! Don't forget a ladder.

(Taken last night before Hallowishes)

.....................

there are no words.

 

[WDWFigment]

So you've gotta figure that lady is with Yellow Shoes, right?

 

[pointandshoot]

.....................

there are no words.

+1....total loss of words.

 

[Gdad]

So you've gotta figure that lady is with Yellow Shoes, right?

I guess- who knows. In addition to the tripod and CM escort she had a pair of D3's (or maybe D3x's) one with the 24-70 on the tripod and the other with a 70-200vr slung over her shoulder.

 

[YesDear]

Well at least she had good equipment!

I wonder how she got the ladder through security at the airport!!!

 

[boBQuincy]

So YesDear, did you notice the targeted ad at the bottom of this thread now? Yep, Benro Travel Angel has found us!

And thanks to you I now *need* another tripod to add to the two I already have (four if you count the Gorilla and the heavy yet flimsy $15 Slik). I mean it's obvious, I have a nice full size carbon fiber tripod and an inexpensive aluminum one but my arsenal is missing a tiny carbon fiber tripod for when I don't want to carry any of the others.

The four section 14" Benro wants to travel with me. Where's my credit card?

 

[Suburbanmom]

I guess- who knows. In addition to the tripod and CM escort she had a pair of D3's (or maybe D3x's) one with the 24-70 on the tripod and the other with a 70-200vr slung over her shoulder.

I may not know who she is or how she got there, but I do know that I like her. I like her a lot.

 

[YesDear]

I may not know who she is or how she got there, but I do know that I like her. I like her a lot.

And they always talk about boys and their toys!!!!! You women are just as bad and I like it!!!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I vote for the tall one- just for Wishes! Don't forget a ladder.

I think that is the tall one that I was looking at. It certainly looks like it. I wonder if you can by a set of spreaders that you can also use as a ladder.