New Tripod

[MILLIREHM]

I don't consider ballheads as an optimal support for lenses with supertele focal lenghts - its doable of course

[Hugh_3170]

I can attest to the ever present dangers of the "Manfrotto Effect", as can a number of others.

RRS makes good stuff.  Do be careful to periodically check the clamp lever for looseness.  While the lever clamp is faster and slightly more compact, I chose the screw clamp on my BH-55 to avoid the potential for unnoticed loosening and a consequent "Manfrotto effect' disaster. Happy shooting!

[MFloyd]

I’m used to the RRS quick release clamp. I always take off my camera from the monopod, when I have to go from A to B. Most of the people keep their camera on the monopod, probably because it takes too much time to disassemble. Everybody has his habits.

[Bill De Jager]

I don't consider ballheads as an optimal support for lenses with supertele focal lenghts - its doable of course

Agreed.  Alternatives include fluid heads, gimbal heads, and the Acratech Long Lens Head.  The last item is also available as a panorama head for a bit more.

[Erik Lund]

The machining and workmanship is top notch. Congratulations on the new set.As always just be alert when using cantilevers, but that go for all quick release connections/fasteners
I would love to stick my Burzynski ball head into a brand new RRS tripod  But the old Gitzo Series 5 is so strong and bullet proof that I can't justify to abandon it 

[ColinM]

Hi Wolfgang

I don't consider ballheads as an optimal support for lenses with supertele focal lenghts - its doable of course

I see Bill's suggested a few.
I was wrestling with a Kirk one yesterday (I'm only using 300mm PF, but the Kirk still managed to get in the way enough)

Can you suggest any others you feel are better?

Plus suggestions from anyone else too if you'd like

Whilst scrolling back through this thread, I noticed Akira's setup
This reminded me of what I used to be able to do with a Benbo tripod when I needed low angles
Did this perform well enough to still be in use Akira, or have you moved on?

[Matthew Currie]

If you are using a ball head normally and have only one good tripod, I think the "sidekick" style gimbal works very well, and it's handy not to have to change heads.  I find my home-made ersatz sidekick works very well on bigger lenses like the 200-500 Nikkor and the old 500/4 AIS.  My usual go-to tripod is an old Manfrotto with a Kirk ball head, and it works well.

I have a plethora of big old Manfrottos, and one of the other things I find works well if you want to fix your location rather than following motion with a gimbal is a 3-way head with adjustable drag.  I'm not sure what Manfrotto's current model is, but the old 3039 is a big three way head the same size and appearance as their more common 3047, but with an added set of adjustments for residual drag, so that it does not flop as the conventional three-way heads and ball heads do.  If you set it up right, it will hold a big lens pretty easily, and allows pretty precise aim.

[MFloyd]

I don't consider ballheads as an optimal support for lenses with supertele focal lenghts - its doable of course

I agree. I took the first lens, which was close, to shoot the illustration. It happens that I shoot some landscape pictures with (super)teles, not enough to justify another mount. 

_8505160.jpg
Landscape with 500mm

[Akira]

I agree. I took the first lens, which was close, to shoot the illustration. It happens that I shoot some landscape pictures with (super)teles, not enough to justify another mount. 

Landscape with 500mm

This proves it is well worth the effort!

[MFloyd]

This proves it is well worth the effort!

Thank you, Akira San 

[MILLIREHM]

Mfloyd
understand, and wish you a lot of fun with your new tripod support!!!
Great shot BTW!

I had considerd the BH55 for myself but there are already the Burzynski Ballhead, the Arca Swiss Z1 and the -most used - Markisn Q3 Emille (due to size reasons) in my arsenal - and ballheads see more limited use now.

For supertele Support I am with Bill De Jaeger: Fluid heads, Gimbals and to especially mention the Acratech-long-lens head which is very compact. Of course it makes a difference if you consider a 500 mm PF or a heavier lens. my first supertele lens was the first 600/4 Nikkor with 6,5 Kilos mounted on a very comfortable but also superheavy Manfrotto 058 and a completely improper Linhof ballhead which gave me all the nasty tilting troubles. The Burzynsky  was stable enough but still allowed mainly static movements and formed a slow setup. Avoiding a ballhead means avoiding the need for tilting control. For long years i have thought the Wimberley is an optimally agility (though prone to wind vibration) head until i aquired a Sachtler FSB8 fluidhead. I never exchanged it again ever since - although it is significantly heavier. It is both more stable, wind resistant, and it enables faster pannings as there is no need to carefully center the camera lens combo.

I like the Acratech long lens head, when more compactness is required. Together with a more compact tripod (Feisol heavy duty instead of Sachtler ENG2-CF) it forms a universally usable combination that can carry heavy lenses and give at least some kind of gimbal usabiliy but also a camera with L-Bracket.

[Asle F]

I had considerd the BH55 for myself but there are already the Burzynski Ballhead, the Arca Swiss Z1 and the -most used - Markisn Q3 Emille (due to size reasons) in my arsenal - and ballheads see more limited use now.

<…>

 Avoiding a ballhead means avoiding the need for tilting control. For long years i have thought the Wimberley is an optimally agility (though prone to wind vibration) head until i aquired a Sachtler FSB8 fluidhead. I never exchanged it again ever since - although it is significantly heavier. It is both more stable, wind resistant, and it enables faster pannings as there is no need to carefully center the camera lens combo.

I have both BH-55 and Burzynski, but after I was fortunate to find the Burzynski, BH-55 has almost not been used anymore. The Burzynski head is so much better, both with heavy telephoto lenses (I use it without any real problem at least with 600mm/5.6), and with light weight cameras like Fuijifilm X100. BH-55 is now mostly used indoors, because Burzynski sit on an outdoor tripod.

The Wimberley head did never worked for me. And after I got a Sachtler DV6SB, which has about the same specifications as the newer FSB8, I have never missed the Wimberley. I now use the fluid head for anything from 300mm/2.8 and bigger/longer when I can. But sometimes Burzynski is my only option because of the fluid head is too big and heavy.

[pluton]

To Asle and Wolfgang: In your opinion, would the Sachtler DV6SB or FSB8(+ matching legs) be acceptable for shooting with a 300mm (mine is f/4) plus heavyish DSLR (mine is D800) at the "danger zone" shutter speeds between approximately 1/160th and 2 seconds, as one might do when shooting a tele landscape in low light?
 I know a giant Sachtler Video 18 would work, but it's big and many $$$.

[MILLIREHM]

To Asle and Wolfgang: In your opinion, would the Sachtler DV6SB or FSB8(+ matching legs) be acceptable for shooting with a 300mm (mine is f/4) plus heavyish DSLR (mine is D800) at the "danger zone" shutter speeds between approximately 1/160th and 2 seconds, as one might do when shooting a tele landscape in low light?
 I know a giant Sachtler Video 18 would work, but it's big and many $$$.

in my opinion it would, but i'dhave to test it out because this is not the range i am working, so far i have not used it too much in low light. Mostly i am working with 600-1000 mm focal lengths but faster speeds, sometimes touching the danger zone (say 1/125 or 1/60but not going down to 1 sec and at medium distances.

I have chosen the FSB8 (after intensive discussion with  Mr Burzinsky) because it is optimized for "weight balance" of 8 kilogramms which equals the gear i am using, the heavy video heads are dedicated forheavier video-cameras, it was adapted from 75mm to 100 mm to suit the ENG 2CF.

Shooting low- light landscape (including larger distances) is a differnt story

I would not consider the head beign a potential problem but too much leg extention of the last segment (single tube instead of double) in combination with windy conditions

then atmospheric haze (did series of bird in wetlands shots where it was impossible to gain the desired sharpness due to this influence)

and finally the 300/4 itself (don't have any , just a 300/2,8)  and its tripod collar, might be worse compared to a heavier lens, i know the old 400/5,6 to be very intricate in this aspect.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

To Asle and Wolfgang: In your opinion, would the Sachtler DV6SB or FSB8(+ matching legs) be acceptable for shooting with a 300mm (mine is f/4) plus heavyish DSLR (mine is D800) at the "danger zone" shutter speeds between approximately 1/160th and 2 seconds, as one might do when shooting a tele landscape in low light?
 I know a giant Sachtler Video 18 would work, but it's big and many $$$.

The most effective solution to shooting in the danger zone of shutter speeds is to use EFCS or fully electronic shutter. E.g. D780, D6 and D850 allow EFCS also in viewfinder photography using Q/Qc modes. With some of the earlier bodies, EFCS is only available in live view (D5, D810) and going further back in time, not available at all. For long-lens photos at 1/100s and thereabouts, EFCS makes a big difference.

A good tripod and head are very beneficial as well, but probably not enough to fully mitigate shutter vibration. Against wind, good support does help, of course, but one may be surprised how much vibration the shutter can cause.