Which tripod for Burzynski protec

[Asle F]

I was fortunate to find a Burzynski ball head after several years searching. Then the question came up, which tripod for it?
For my Berlebach mini, it feels too big, the RRS BH40 is a better match.
For my very small Berlebach report, it is a good match for field usage with 300mm/2.8 or longer/heavier, for everything shorter or more lightweigh the 'module insert 3' saves me 700g and is almost as good. Both weight and size do matter in the field, that is the reason why I even have these small tripods.
When I actually was ordering a Burzynski head several years ago, but didn't get it, my plan was to use it on my bigger Berlebach report 2012. It is a good match, but at it highest setting and with focal length longer than 300mm I feel the tripod is the weak link. It does the job, but I feel it can be better. At least it is not the ball head that is the weak link anymore, so I am looking for suggestions on even better tripods. It has to be a good match with the Burzynski head and works with 600mm, what I think is my limit for the head (for landscapes), not much heavier than what I allready have (2,5kg without head), easy and fast to set up and down. I have small tripods, so I am looking for more normal size. But taller is also more heavy, and weigth is more important because it has to be transportable even by foot. I have a heavier heavy duty tripod for usage near home and car.

[Birna Rørslett]

Look into a carbon-fibre version of a Sachtler tripod. All my Burzynski heads are used with one of those tripods.

By the way, congratulations with getting a Burzynski. They are rapidly becoming rare as hen's teeth.

[Asle F]

Thanks. Sachtler CF 100L looks appealing.

[MILLIREHM]

Congrats as well!
There are two Versions of the Burzynsky head, the old one and a weight reduced newer one  (-500g? need to look it up again ) btw. I have got the old one and not seen the need to "upgrade". It is a good match with my Sachtler ENG 2CF, but I see its main niche in static subjects, with heavy Superteles handling/positioning is a bit delicate, a fluid head is a better option  then.

[Mexecutioner]

I use mine on a Gitzo giant and I like it. I was lucky to have purchased the adapter for the head to sit in the larger opening of the 5 series compared to the 3. I also bought the bowl adapter so if I ever get a Sachtler (which i doubt) I can use it with it.

[Asle F]

Congrats as well!
There are two Versions of the Burzynsky head, the old one and a weight reduced newer one  (-500g? need to look it up again ) btw. I have got the old one and not seen the need to "upgrade". It is a good match with my Sachtler ENG 2CF, but I see its main niche in static subjects, with heavy Superteles handling/positioning is a bit delicate, a fluid head is a better option  then.

I find the Burzynski head working for 600mm for almost static subjects, contrary to RRS BH-55 that is a little pain with 300mm. I am really impressed with the Burzynski, both the rigidity and the ease of usage, and very happy finding it.
Even if fluid heads are better, I have one for the heavy duty tripod, sometimes weight and size do matter, and then the Burzynski wins. The tripod I am looking for now is the hard one, the perfect (for my usage) compromise between size, weight and structural rigidity.

[MILLIREHM]

Burzynsky also makes/made? an Adapter for his head - suiting the 100 mm Sachtler-half-cubes.
and if you want a hard tripod, i second Birna, go for a Sachtler.

[Birna Rørslett]

Actually, with the 100mm class Sachtlers, the Burzynski sits neatly into the top of the tripod. No extra half-bowl is required, just a suitable locking screw with a washer run into the head from below.

[MILLIREHM]

Actually, with the 100mm class Sachtlers, the Burzynski sits neatly into the top of the tripod. No extra half-bowl is required, just a suitable locking screw with a washer run into the head from below.

Did not give that a try so far, but good to know just in case

[Mexecutioner]

Not the most elegant, but yes, it will work.

[Asle F]

For me, not adding unnecessary mass actually looks elegant… This is meant to be a portable tripod, so weight do matter.

Comparing ENG 2 CF and CF 100 L:
ENG 2 CF is 3 section so 12cm shorter transport length but 13cm higher. The 2 section CF 100 L should be faster to use. I like the easy to open and adjust without shifting grip, that doesn't work for the lower section on the 3 section tripod.
ENG 2 CF looks more bulky, the legs looks wider. I wonder how that affects portability.
ENG 2 CF is 0,2kg heavier, and have 5kg less payload. The payload is just a number, and much more than I ever will load it with. Torsion rigidity is what matter. I remember Erik Lund questioned the thin, single leg, lowest section on some Sachtler tripods in a former thread. CF 100 L is twin leg all the way.

When considering the price tags, I have to look for a second hand tripod, so maybe it will not be even my own decision in the very end… I have to be prepared, so I can hit the strike when the opportunity presents itself. It tooks me 6 years to find the ball head.

[Birna Rørslett]

In practice, these two are about equal in their supporting capacity. The lower section of the ENG 2 CF adds a bit more versatility regarding how the tripod can be set up and arranged than the simpler structure of the CF 100L. Theory might predict the additional section to add to instability, but I have noticed nothing of the sort probably because the top of the ENG is wider and effectively prevents any torsional movement.

The 100 might be easier to transport due to the narrower outline, but again difference is small between them. It is, however, the cheapest of the two.

I ended up loaning my 100 to a friend on a (semi-)permanent basis and using the ENG CF as my usual tripod. It can be put in a suitcase if the Burzynski is removed so I have brought it with me on numerous travels abroad.

One of my Burzynski heads sits atop a cut-down DA 75L and is dedicated to plant photography.

The bigger model ENG 2 CF HD is a superb tripod yet heavier and even more bulky than "smaller" 2 CF. I combine it with a large fluid head (Video 20) for long lens usage.

[Asle F]

In practice, these two are about equal in their supporting capacity. The lower section of the ENG 2 CF adds a bit more versatility regarding how the tripod can be set up and arranged than the simpler structure of the CF 100L. Theory might predict the additional section to add to instability, but I have noticed nothing of the sort probably because the top of the ENG is wider and effectively prevents any torsional movement.

The 100 might be easier to transport due to the narrower outline, but again difference is small between them. It is, however, the cheapest of the two.

I ended up loaning my 100 to a friend on a (semi-)permanent basis and using the ENG CF as my usual tripod. It can be put in a suitcase if the Burzynski is removed so I have brought it with me on numerous travels abroad.

Seems that both of them will do the job. It is a pity I will never see both of them in person for comparing them myself. That would make the decission much easier.
I have never traveled abroad with any bigger tripod than Berlebach mini.

The bigger model ENG 2 CF HD is a superb tripod yet heavier and even more bulky than "smaller" 2 CF. I combine it with a large fluid head (Video 20) for long lens usage.

I know that model, and have used it with a DV6SB-head, it is the very best tripod I have ever used, but nothing I would hike with. I have seen how elegant my Burzynski sit in the 100mm bowl of the CF HD. It looks much more elegant than sitting on top of my Berlebachs, or on top of a 75mm bowl like the DA75L. Good to hear that the 2 smaller Sachtler 100mm tripods is less bulky.

[Birna Rørslett]

There isn't much difference regarding the size of the tripod top between ENG 2 CF and CF HD models. Thus, the Burzynski sits equally well into the bowl of either of them. You only need to find a sufficiently large screw and a washer to make this happen.

[Bill De Jager]

There are some Burzynski ballheads here, but they are missing the curved, shaped ring that helps them to fit a video bowl.  I suppose the unit can still be used as a normal flat-bottomed head.