Steve'sDigicams

TimothyD · Feb 10, 2009, 12:13 PM

I would like to ask for Manfrotto and Gitzo tripod recommendationsthat would be sturdy enough to supporta Sony A300 and 70-300G lens. The choice seems to come down to the Manfrotto series 190 or the Gitzo series 2/3. At present I have a Manfrotto 728B which is rated at 7.7 lbs/3.5 kg that I purchased for use with a Panasonic FZ8, but am inclined to thinkthis tripod is not going to support a dslr andheavy telephoto lens. I do mostly landscape and wildlife photography.

Also whatis youropinionon basalttripods, and would the 728B be sufficient to support aSony A300 with 16-80mmCZ lens?

TCav · Feb 11, 2009, 9:21 AM

Sony A300, 70-300 G, and CZ 16-80. Nice kit!

The Manfrotto 728B is rated at 7.72 lbs., while the A300 with the 70-300 G weighs just a little over 3 lbs. That sounds good enough to me. I'd say this could do the job until you start using lenses that have their own tripod mount.

Have you experienced any problems with this setup?

TimothyD · Feb 12, 2009, 8:41 AM

I have tried the 728B with the 16-80 lens and it seemed steady, the pan head was sufficient to hold the camera/lens without tilting downward. Have not tried the longer lens combo yet, only had lens couple weeks. The 728B was recommended for compact and lightweight ulta-zooms like the Panasonic FZ8 so I was uncertain if the 70-300 would place too much downward weightand cause thehead to slip or tripod to topple. ThereforeI was wondering if there was arule that the tripod should be rated for a significantly greater weight than the camera and lens. Will give it a try this weekend. The tripod mount on the camera body will be sufficient to hold the weight of the longer lens?Will be nice to know that I cansave money for vacation this summer instead of investing in tripod.

Thank you for responses!

TCav · Feb 12, 2009, 9:18 AM

TimothyD wrote:

Quote:

I have tried the 728B with the 16-80 lens and it seemed steady, the pan head was sufficient to hold the camera/lens without tilting downward. Have not tried the longer lens combo yet, only had lens couple weeks. The 728B was recommended for compact and lightweight ulta-zooms like the Panasonic FZ8 so I was uncertain if the 70-300 would place too much downward weightand cause thehead to slip or tripod to topple. ThereforeI was wondering if there was arule that the tripod should be rated for a significantly greater weight than the camera and lens.

The 70-300 G is longer and heavier than the CZ 16-80, so there is a greater potential that the tripod will topple, but the fix is to get a heavier tripod or use a counterweight. But tripods are tested to not fail while holding twice their rated capacity, and you're mounting less than half the tripod's rated capacity, so I think you're safe.

TimothyD wrote:

Quote:

... The tripod mount on the camera body will be sufficient to hold the weight of the longer lens?

If the lens has a tripod mount, then the mount is strong enough to hold up the weight of the camera but not the lens, so you should use the tripod mount on the lens. If the lens doesn't have a tripod mount, then the mount is strong enough to hold up the weight of the camera plus the lens.

StevieDgpt · Feb 13, 2009, 5:30 PM

The 70-300G is an awesome lens. It is also awesome heavy (relatively speaking).

My setup:

70-300G,Minolta 5D,Manfrotto 410 Gear Head with RC4 Rapid Connect Plate (rated to 11 lbs) using 055XPRO legs.

Using the 70-300G on my Minolta 5D in portrait mode I found the weight of the lens was high enough to cause my camera to droop if the set screw for the quick release plate was not tighten down enough to cause the rubber sheet on the QR plate to really grip the camera.

Beyond that little issue.....

Even with the 70-300G fully extended ........

No weebles, no woobles, no falling over.

Considering the weight rating of your 728B, I would have little concern over your equipment mounted on the 728B.

TimothyD · Feb 17, 2009, 8:33 AM

Over the weekend I set up the 728B and camera with the 70-300G lens. I made sure that one of the tripod legs was facing foward directly in front of the camera to give it support so that the tripod did not topple over. The tripod withpan head and QR was sufficient to support the camera and lens and did not appear to have any creep when tightened down. As this is the first time using a tripod one thing I did notice is how much aluminum transmits vibrations through it. I tinked one of the legs lightly with my fingernail and noticed that the vibration was easily transmitted to the camera. Do basalt and carbon fiber tripods also have this characteristic orare the vibrations less likely to travel through the legs? I just ordered the wireless IR shutter release from Gadget Infinity so that I could trigger the camera without having to touch the camera itself in hope to keep vibration to a minimun and get as sharp a picture as possible.

StevieDgpt · Feb 17, 2009, 7:10 PM

TimothyD wrote:

Quote:

Over the weekend I set up the 728B and camera with the 70-300G lens. I made sure that one of the tripod legs was facing foward directly in front of the camera to give it support so that the tripod did not topple over. The tripod withpan head and QR was sufficient to support the camera and lens and did not appear to have any creep when tightened down. As this is the first time using a tripod one thing I did notice is how much aluminum transmits vibrations through it. I tinked one of the legs lightly with my fingernail and noticed that the vibration was easily transmitted to the camera. Do basalt and carbon fiber tripods also have this characteristic orare the vibrations less likely to travel through the legs? I just ordered the wireless IR shutter release from Gadget Infinity so that I could trigger the camera without having to touch the camera itself in hope to keep vibration to a minimun and get as sharp a picture as possible.

I did a bunch of researching prior to my tripod purchase.

What I found:

Vibration is inherent to thin tubular Aluminum, but the mass of the camera should help dampen the vibration .... up to a point.

The best solution? Just wait a second or two and the vibrations should quickly disappear (much like the ripples on a small pond disappear faster thanon a large pond). Keeping the legs less than fully extended also help reduce the vibration.

mtngal · Feb 19, 2009, 1:57 PM

What I have read (I'm in the market for a tripod myself, so I can't speak from first hand knowledge) is that one of the several advantages to carbon fiber is that it doesn't transmit vibrations as much. I haven't read about basalt yet.

StevieDgpt · Feb 20, 2009, 10:50 AM

mtngal wrote:

Quote:

What I have read (I'm in the market for a tripod myself, so I can't speak from first hand knowledge) is that one of the several advantages to carbon fiber is that it doesn't transmit vibrations as much. I haven't read about basalt yet.

Yep, correct.

Basalt works nearlysimilar.

Of course wood is best, but who really wants to carry a heavytripod with them?

Personally I am using Aluminum. I can wait a few seconds to take a picture.

mtngal · Feb 21, 2009, 5:22 PM

I read about basalt last night, it made for some interesting reading, and would be an advantage for some people but not for others.

I'll probably be getting a CF tripod of some sort - weight is very important to me, even more than price. Otherwise it seems like basalt would be a good alternative - cheaper than CF but lighter than aluminum.

While going through my father's photo stuff I found a beautiful, fairly small tripod in an old, cracked leather case. It must be made out of stainless steel or something like that - beautifully made, the leg locks work like silk but it weighs a ton. A lovely piece of equipment but not for me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Feb 10, 2009, 12:13 PM	#1
TimothyD Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 27	I would like to ask for Manfrotto and Gitzo tripod recommendationsthat would be sturdy enough to supporta Sony A300 and 70-300G lens. The choice seems to come down to the Manfrotto series 190 or the Gitzo series 2/3. At present I have a Manfrotto 728B which is rated at 7.7 lbs/3.5 kg that I purchased for use with a Panasonic FZ8, but am inclined to thinkthis tripod is not going to support a dslr andheavy telephoto lens. I do mostly landscape and wildlife photography. Also whatis youropinionon basalttripods, and would the 728B be sufficient to support aSony A300 with 16-80mmCZ lens?

Feb 11, 2009, 9:21 AM	#2
TCav Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland Posts: 13,733	Sony A300, 70-300 G, and CZ 16-80. Nice kit! The Manfrotto 728B is rated at 7.72 lbs., while the A300 with the 70-300 G weighs just a little over 3 lbs. That sounds good enough to me. I'd say this could do the job until you start using lenses that have their own tripod mount. Have you experienced any problems with this setup?

Feb 12, 2009, 8:41 AM	#3
TimothyD Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 27	I have tried the 728B with the 16-80 lens and it seemed steady, the pan head was sufficient to hold the camera/lens without tilting downward. Have not tried the longer lens combo yet, only had lens couple weeks. The 728B was recommended for compact and lightweight ulta-zooms like the Panasonic FZ8 so I was uncertain if the 70-300 would place too much downward weightand cause thehead to slip or tripod to topple. ThereforeI was wondering if there was arule that the tripod should be rated for a significantly greater weight than the camera and lens. Will give it a try this weekend. The tripod mount on the camera body will be sufficient to hold the weight of the longer lens?Will be nice to know that I cansave money for vacation this summer instead of investing in tripod. Thank you for responses!

Feb 13, 2009, 5:30 PM	#5
StevieDgpt Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 324	The 70-300G is an awesome lens. It is also awesome heavy (relatively speaking). My setup: 70-300G,Minolta 5D,Manfrotto 410 Gear Head with RC4 Rapid Connect Plate (rated to 11 lbs) using 055XPRO legs. Using the 70-300G on my Minolta 5D in portrait mode I found the weight of the lens was high enough to cause my camera to droop if the set screw for the quick release plate was not tighten down enough to cause the rubber sheet on the QR plate to really grip the camera. Beyond that little issue..... Even with the 70-300G fully extended ........ No weebles, no woobles, no falling over. Considering the weight rating of your 728B, I would have little concern over your equipment mounted on the 728B.

Feb 17, 2009, 8:33 AM	#6
TimothyD Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 27	Over the weekend I set up the 728B and camera with the 70-300G lens. I made sure that one of the tripod legs was facing foward directly in front of the camera to give it support so that the tripod did not topple over. The tripod withpan head and QR was sufficient to support the camera and lens and did not appear to have any creep when tightened down. As this is the first time using a tripod one thing I did notice is how much aluminum transmits vibrations through it. I tinked one of the legs lightly with my fingernail and noticed that the vibration was easily transmitted to the camera. Do basalt and carbon fiber tripods also have this characteristic orare the vibrations less likely to travel through the legs? I just ordered the wireless IR shutter release from Gadget Infinity so that I could trigger the camera without having to touch the camera itself in hope to keep vibration to a minimun and get as sharp a picture as possible.

Feb 19, 2009, 1:57 PM	#8
mtngal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Frazier Park, CA Posts: 16,122	What I have read (I'm in the market for a tripod myself, so I can't speak from first hand knowledge) is that one of the several advantages to carbon fiber is that it doesn't transmit vibrations as much. I haven't read about basalt yet.

Feb 21, 2009, 5:22 PM	#10
mtngal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Frazier Park, CA Posts: 16,122	I read about basalt last night, it made for some interesting reading, and would be an advantage for some people but not for others. I'll probably be getting a CF tripod of some sort - weight is very important to me, even more than price. Otherwise it seems like basalt would be a good alternative - cheaper than CF but lighter than aluminum. While going through my father's photo stuff I found a beautiful, fairly small tripod in an old, cracked leather case. It must be made out of stainless steel or something like that - beautifully made, the leg locks work like silk but it weighs a ton. A lovely piece of equipment but not for me.