New member needs help

[lurechunker]

I am new to the forum and asking for help. Our granddaughter plays basketball and I would like to photograph her. I kayak and would like to photograph birds. Is the EOS 760D the camera for me? Other? What lens or lenses? How can I protect my equipment form damage from saltwater? Thank you.

[lurechunker]

Mefoto specks say 26.5 pounds. Is that adequate?

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:
Mefoto specks say 26.5 pounds. Is that adequate?

---

It depends on how MeFOTO came up with that figure.  It would not surprise me if that figure represents the load capacity with the legs fully retracted, and center column fully lowered.  

Extending the legs can destabilize some tripods, depending upon how strong the legs are.  The more leg sections you have, then the more unstable the legs could be.  I like a maximum of three leg sections on my tripods.  I have a couple of tripods I use for traveling that have four sections.  

The MeFOTO GlobeTrotter is a "travel" tripod, through and through.  It has five leg sections, so that it can fold to a compact size.  They also throw in a mediocre ball head, which lacks friction control.  Friction control is a MUST have feature on a ball head.

You may consider shopping for just a set of legs, if you're buying just a pan/tilt head.  Tripod kits, like camera kits, usually cut corners on quality somewhere.  With many camera kits, it is the lens.  With tripod kits, it is the head.  

I have the Manfrotto 502, and the Benro S6 video heads.  I bought both of them in tripod kits, which were on sale at the time.  I tend sit back and wait until I see something on sale before I buy.  I usually pay about 50% of list price for tripod legs and heads.

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:
Mefoto specks say 26.5 pounds. Is that adequate?

---

No, that tripod is not adequate.  Not even close, IMHO.  I would love to recommend a type of tripod, but you need to say when, where, and how you plan to use.  Ernie's tripod setup is very robust.  It's also heavy, not ideal for trekking through the wilderness or the woods.

If you're thinking about a gimbal head, I hope you're looking at a real gimbal, and not one of those gimbal adapter things that attach to a ball head, or something or other.  Those don't work, because you cannot properly balance the camera/lens rig.

Also, if you're looking to use a gimbal, then you definitely do not want to be using an extended center column.  I have found video tripods to be FAR more stable, and usually far more robust, than your average "photography" tripod.  Good video tripods lack a center column, too.

The MeFOTO brand seems marketed for the casual photographer, who doesn't know that they're a casual photographer.  A tripod with a detachable leg, which converts into a monopod, is a dead giveaway.  But, MeFOTO is one of at least three brands from the same parent company.  Benro and Induro are two others that I am certain of, with MeFOTO being near the bottom of the performance scale.

Manfrotto makes great tripods, but the good ones tend to cost a good chunk, and they usually do not include a bag.  I like Benro and Induro because of the quality of the bags that come with their tripods, most of which perform as well as tripods costing 2-3 times the price.  Over the last few years, I have bought 2 Manfrotto video tripods, 2 Vanguard geared tripods, and a host of Induro and Benro tripods that lack center columns.  

I gave the Manfrotto and Vanguard tripods away as gifts.  I will never buy another Vanguard, but I will consider a Manfrotto, provided that it comes with a high quality bag.  Benro and Induro give you VERY high quality bags with seemingly all of their tripods.  I think these two brands have the best price/performance ratios currently on the market.  

If you want the best tripod, then take a look a Really Right Stuff.

[lurechunker]

A Sig 150-600 S is on Santa's list. It will join my 100-400 ll  and be used on my 80D. Please give me recommendations for a tripod with a gimbal head. I currently own a Mefoto globetrotter in carbon fibre. I will use the Sig for birding and would like a tripod and gimbal head that are sufficiently robust but will not break my back or my bank account. I hope that several birders will post. Thanks.

John in FL.

[Waddizzle]

Buy your tripod and head separately.  I would advise looking for a tripod without a center column, which means you're going to be in the $500 dollar ball park, at a minimum.  Benro and Induro used to make some high quality, aluminum tripods, which had flat plates, instead of a center column. They also sold for about half the cost of carbon fiber versions of the same tripods.

They discontinued them in the last couple of years.  Induro has gone to a full lineup of only carbon fiber tripods, which are still excellent buys for the asking prices.  They come with excellent cases.  Benro seems to have dropped that type of tripod, altogether.  I got lucky and picked up a couple just as they were discontinued.

One thing about gimbal heads.  I passed on buying one after watching a few videos about how to set one up, so that it balances and stays in whatever position you set it.  The key word here is balance, meaning the weight.

Setting up a gimbal means balancing the weight of the camera/lens combo.  I figured that if I were using a lens that could significangly change its' length, like many super telephoto zooms, that this would most likely throw the gimbal out of balance. 

I estimated that a gimbal would probably work well with a prime lens, or any zoom lens that both internal focusing and zooming.  But, it wouldn't work so well with a large lens that could extend itself, which would significantly change the distribution of the weight.  I could be dead wrong about this, though.  But, I don't think so.

You might consider a high quality pan/tilt, or even a fluid video head, instead of a gimbal, if you're using a longer, heavier lens that can significantly change its' length when zooming or focusing.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Buy your tripod and head separately.  I would advise looking for a tripod without a center column, which means you're going to be in the $500 dollar ball park, at a minimum.  Benro and Induro used to make some high quality, aluminum tripods, which had flat plates, instead of a center column. They also sold for about half the cost of carbon fiber versions of the same tripods.

They discontinued them in the last couple of years.  Induro has gone to a full lineup of only carbon fiber tripods, which are still excellent buys for the asking prices.  They come with excellent cases.  Benro seems to have dropped that type of tripod, altogether.  I got lucky and picked up a couple just as they were discontinued.

One thing about gimbal heads.  I passed on buying one after watching a few videos about how to set one up, so that it balances and stays in whatever position you set it.  The key word here is balance, meaning the weight.

Setting up a gimbal means balancing the weight of the camera/lens combo.  I figured that if I were using a lens that could significangly change its' length, like many super telephoto zooms, that this would most likely throw the gimbal out of balance. 

I estimated that a gimbal would probably work well with a prime lens, or any zoom lens that both internal focusing and zooming.  But, it wouldn't work so well with a large lens that could extend itself, which would significantly change the distribution of the weight.  I could be dead wrong about this, though.  But, I don't think so.

You might consider a high quality pan/tilt, or even a fluid video head, instead of a gimbal, if you're using a longer, heavier lens that can significantly change its' length when zooming or focusing.

---

More often than not I agree with Waddizzle, but I have to disagree this time. I would not buy a tripod without a center column. Setting up a tripod is tedious enough in any event; trying to achieve the exactly correct height by adjusting only the leg length is over the top. If extending the center column would make the tripod unstable with your rig, buy a bigger, beefier tripod.

That said, it's important to make sure that the center column is actually vertical. Otherwise, extending it could quickly make any tripod unstable.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

Waddizzle wrote: 

---

More often than not I agree with Waddizzle, but I have to disagree this time. I would not buy a tripod without a center column. Setting up a tripod is tedious enough in any event; trying to achieve the exactly correct height by adjusting only the leg length is over the top. If extending the center column would make the tripod unstable with your rig, buy a bigger, beefier tripod.

That said, it's important to make sure that the center column is actually vertical. Otherwise, extending it could quickly make any tripod unstable.

---

Yes, setting up a tripod without a center column to just the right height can be tedious.  However, if you're going to be swinging a gimbal around with several pounds of weight on it, I would think one would want either a "short" column, or none at all. 

You're right about needing to get the center column aligned vertically.  If you look in the above photo, I have a leveling base between the head and the tripod platform.  It is far easier to accurately level a head, than to accurately level a set of legs.  This is why virtually all qualtiy video tripods and heads use a ball mount, instead of a flat base.

As far as getting it setup goes, it can be easier than you might think.  I have a Vanguard, or had it until I gave it to my son, that had graduated markings engraved into the legs, just like a ruler.  You could extend each leg to the same identical distance, without having to fully extend the leg to be certain the legs had equal lengths.

I took that idea and ran with it on the tripod on the posted photo.  I spend a few minutes finding the ideal height for when I am standing, and marked the legs.  I marked position to use when I am seated in my travel chair.  

[TCampbell]

You can buy an optional "short" center column for many of the better model tripods.

On my high-end Manfrotto 057 carbon fiber tripod the top-plate and bottom hook unscrew from the center column and there's a long bolt.  The center column can be pulled out of the tripod and the top plate and bottom hook assembly actually thread together (sandwhiching the shoulder assembly on the tripod).  Basically it "converts" into a tripod that has no center column.

On my Induro tripod, the center column can be swapped for a short column.

I wont buy a tripod unless it has an option to remove the column OR install a short column.  Often I want to get thet tripod VERY low to the ground and the standard height center columns prevent me from getting the camera as low as I want.  The better tripods have leg assemblies that allow you to adjust how wide the leg will spread.  You can basically get the tripod to "do the splits" - with the legs so wide that the tripod's shoulder assembly is just barely above the ground height.

Once upon a time, there was a guide to tripod height that suggested that that you should be able to adjust a tripod so that when you're standing upright, the center column should be set to 1/2 height, attach the camera, and extend the legs.  The viewfinder should be at eye-level.    If this is true, then it means you can use that tripod without having to bend over.  If you want to shoot objects in the sky... extend the center column.  If you want to shoot objects down low, drop the center column.  

Having said this, I generally do not fully extend my tripod legs and I usually prefer to have the tripod a bit lower.  When I shoot portraits, I quickly learned that you can create an illusion that your subject is "short" or "tall" based on the camera lens height relative to the subject -- so I set the height appropriately.  But I *can* set the tripod so that the camera is at eye-level (and I'm 6'4").

[TCampbell]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

One thing about gimbal heads.  I passed on buying one after watching a few videos about how to set one up, so that it balances and stays in whatever position you set it.  The key word here is balance, meaning the weight.

Setting up a gimbal means balancing the weight of the camera/lens combo.  I figured that if I were using a lens that could significangly change its' length, like many super telephoto zooms, that this would most likely throw the gimbal out of balance. 

I estimated that a gimbal would probably work well with a prime lens, or any zoom lens that both internal focusing and zooming.  But, it wouldn't work so well with a large lens that could extend itself, which would significantly change the distribution of the weight.  I could be dead wrong about this, though.  But, I don't think so.

---

I own a gimbal head, and several ball heads.  I do use my gimbal head with my big Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM prime (it's a very long and very heavy lens) as well as the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.   Balance is no problem if you have the right mounting plate.

So the trick here is that those long lenses have their own tripod mounting collar (and you NEED that collar for a couple of reasons).  

First, a gimbal head can tilt up/down and swivel around, but what it wont do is let you rotate the camera to vertical orientation.  There's no ability to angle the plate left-to-right.  To do that, you use the tripod collar.  Slightly loosen the clamp, rotate the camera, then re-snug the clamp.  Problem solved.  If you have a shorter lens that doesn't have a lens mount and have to use the body mount, then you need the L-bracket type mount (and you REALLY need to pay attention to whether the tripod is level.  This one issue you don't have with ball heads because it doesn't matter if the tripod is level when you have a ball head.)

Second, you'll need to order some extended length Arca-Swiss mounting plates.  Those allow you to slide the camera & lens forward or aft as much as necessary to achieve balance.   You can get them in fairly long lengths.  I find I don't ever need the longest sizes because the tripod mounting foot on the lens is usually well-positioned so I don't need that much forward/aft travel... but I might need a bit more than a standard length plate can offer.

These gimbal mounts are great for aerial photography... birds, airshows, etc.  because once you balance the camera & lens, you can point it anywhere you want and it'll stay put - you never have to snug it down.  If you use a ball-head, everything is going to flop over on its side the moment you let go if you don't snug it down.

But as I don't do a lot of birding or airshows, my gimbal mount only gets occasional use.  95% of the time I'm using a ball head.

The tilt/pan heads (with the handle that you can use to point the camera) are great for video and if you shoot video then I'd get one (and get a fluid head - they are much smoother if you need to pan during a video shoot, you don't get jittery movement or abrupt stars & stops to the pans).  But for regular photography (not video) I much prefer the ball head.

[ebiggs1]

"..,.it wouldn't work so well with a large lens that could extend itself, which would significantly change the distribution of the weight.  I could be dead wrong about this, though.  But, I don't think so."

You have a point but you are wrong.  If you try to balance your gimbal head and then zoom a lens like the Sigma 150-600mm the balance does go off a bit.  But the nice thing about a gimbal head is, it is so versatile and adaptable. I have a video fluid head on my big tripod and it does the same thing. The fault doesn not exist just on a gimbal head.   It is just a thing you need to be aware of.

Where you run into trouble is when you try to use too heavy of gear for too little tripod.  If you have the correct and proper tripod for your gear it a go either way.

One last thing about a gimbal head, they are very expensive.  Cheap ones are cheap!