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.

[Waddizzle · Accepted solution]

---

@lurechunker wrote:
My 80D with 18-55 from Canon store will arrive tomorrow. I think I made a mistake by not getting the 28-135. Should I leave the 18-55 in the box and send it back? I'd like to start with an "all-round" lens and one long enough for back yard birds.

---

Do you mean 18-135, instead of 28-135?  The 18-135 lenses are pretty good.  BUT, they will likely cast a shadow when you try to use the flash.  I know that older 18-135mm lenses cast a major shadow on a T5, so I would expect a shadow on an 80D.  The 18-55mm lens has a 35mm equivalent of 29-88mm, which is pretty close to 24-70mm that is very popular for use with full frame camera bodies.

The  STM version of the 18-55mm is a really good lens.  I would hang on to it.  I can guarantee you that whatever plans you have for using the camera, you will find new scenarios to use it.  I would keep the 18-55mm, and pass on buying a 18-135, so that you can budget more money towards your birding lens.  If you can afford to do all of the above, then by all means, buy all of the lenses you want.

[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").

[John_SD]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

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. 

---

The cheap but surprisngly steady Vanguard Veo tripod I have now only gets to a minimum of about 14.7". But I have yet to find a use for that ability in the field, as I don't have time to fiddle with it and my subjects don't usually stay still. Maybe I can make use of it in low light while shooting a landscape. 

Most of what I shoot low to the ground are snakes, bugs, scorpions, tarantulas, and the occasional turtle that I come across while desert hiking. Most of them are on the move and so when I see them I quickly hit the ground on my belly and position myself to try to get eye-to-eye with them as much as reasonably possible. Sometimes I misjudge and they veer off at an agle that makes the shot no good. But in any event, the only ones that seem to pose are the lizards (on rocks and cacti), until they decide to take off like a bat out of hell. They are very skittish. Generally, I find that my tripod is useless in the field. YMMV. 

[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!

[jrhoffman75]

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

Very true. If one has a good ball head and only needs a gimbal infrequently the Wimberley Sidekick is an option to consider. Less than half the cost of a good gimbal. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

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

Very true. If one has a good ball head and only needs a gimbal infrequently the Wimberley Sidekick is an option to consider. Less than half the cost of a good gimbal. 

---

I have serious doubts about those things.  You will lack the ability to adjust the load up and down, which tells me that you will likely run into issues properly balancing your gear with one.  

You also cannot control easily adjust it side to side, in order to get the CofG over the ball head.  No doubt, you will get very different results using a camera body without a grip, compared to a body with one.

[jrhoffman75]

I don't understand. 

[Waddizzle]

Exactly, John.  Your goal is to get the Center of Gravity, CoG, aligned with the vertical panning axis and the horizontal tilting axis.

Look at how the actual gimbal head mounts the camera with the CoG over the CoG of the tripod.  The Sidekick will be a hit or miss proposition to get the Center of Gravity of your gear over the CoG of the tripod, which is the axis of rotation for panning..  

Look at how the actual gimbal head gives you a height adjustment of the quick release bracket.  This lets you get the CoG of the camera aligned with the axis of  rotation for tilting.  The Sidekick's design automatically aligns this for you, which is similar to how the real gimbal allows you to raise or lower the platform.  

With the Sidekick, you will need to get lucky to align your CoG with the panning axis.  I've seen photos of people who have installed shims on their ball heads, in order to align their load.  If you change lenses, then you may need to change your shims.

Finally, I don't see how a gimbal could work well with a lens that significantly changes its' length.  Sure, it will still pan and tilt all day long.  It just may not stay where you point it, which I thought is the whole point of using a gimbal.  That luxury is why you're paying the big bucks.  I think those Sidekick gizmos are not a good investment.  

[EDIT]. Benro and Induro made a couple of inexpensive gimbals and adapters.  The Benro gimbal was cheaper, but it also lacked the vertical adjustment of the platform height, so that you can align with the tilt axis.

[Waddizzle]

I notice how all of the sample photos of the gimbal make use of a tripod with a mounting plate, instead of center column.