Manfrotto 682B Monopod

[itspeanutbutterjellytime]

Hi,

Does anyone have the Manfrotto 682B monopod and what are your thoughts on it?

I am looking for a decent monopod in the £60-70 bracket as it just isn't realistic to take my tripod with me at all times.

It looks rather nice, and the reviews I have read seem positive. Just wondered if there were any other stellar monopods in this price range?

Many thanks

--
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar ... and doesn't

 

[Billx08]

Hi,

Does anyone have the Manfrotto 682B monopod and what are your thoughts on it?

I am looking for a decent monopod in the £60-70 bracket as it just isn't realistic to take my tripod with me at all times.

It looks rather nice, and the reviews I have read seem positive. Just wondered if there were any other stellar monopods in this price range?

Manfrotto's 685B is a bit more expensive than the 682B but it's a better monopod. It's about 3/4 pound lighter than the 682b but is still solid enough to support large DSLRs with big pro lenses. It's much quicker setting up and breaking down and doesn't have latches to catch on brush if you're trekking off-road with it. You can compare the features and specifications at the two B&H links below and a review follows that has a small Powershot G10 mounted on it. Don't be fooled though. It's rated to support up to 17 pounds with an appropriate head, of course. Not Manfrotto's little 482 Micro-Ball head that was used in the review.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/387806-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_685B_685B_NeoTec_Monopod_Deluxe.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5495-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_682B_682B_Self_Standing_Monopod.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/monopod.shtml

 

[DemiLion]

The 685B is also £40 pounds more expensive in the UK ie about 40% more, and has a weight capacity rating of 8kg v 12kg, but to be fair is the same weight and roughly the same height when collapsed.

@ the OP - did you realise that the 682 is just the 681 (£40) with the stand legs bolted on (prod code 678)? If the legs are not that important, you can get the 681 and then decide to buy the legs seperately as a bolt on later, if you wanted. They will also fit the 679 and the 680.

In terms of other makes in comparison to the 681 (there are others that do stands, but more as additional support than stand alone) the two that stand out as similar are the Gitzo GM2541 and the Giottos MML3270B. The Giottos is about £30 and the Gitzo about £150. If you really wanted to splash out then the Gitzo does a pro level GM3350 which supports 18kg and has a max height of 186 cm w/o head at about £180. Giottos does a 184cm pod for c £45 but it only supports 12kg again, the MML3290B.

Basically you need to question yourself as to whether you will ever leave the camera on the monopod using the stand legs. If you won't then they become fairly irrelevant.

For preference I like the Giottos and am looking towards the MML3290B for the extra height, but each of the above have their own different merits.

Much as it pains me to say it (because I hate their PCWorld type approach), Jessops have some good prices for both Manfrotto and Giottos at the moment, albeit in a limited range.

In terms of heads the Manfrotto 234RC2 (£23) is pretty much there, but if you already have a tripod make sure that the QR is compatable with it.

For reference Bogen are the importers for both Manfrotto and Gitzo over here, and their site is:

http://www.bogenimaging.co.uk or

http://www.manfrotto.co.uk/

and

http://www.gitzo.co.uk/

which are redirects from the main Bogen site.

Giottos is here:

http://www.giottos-tripods.co.uk/index.php

Have fun!

 

[itspeanutbutterjellytime]

Thankyou both for your replies.

I certainly won't be looking at monopods that are more expensive than the 682B (well I will, I just won't be buying them ).
I do need a decent ballhead with it too which is why £60-70 is my cut off point.

In response to the legs, I do like the idea of having them actually

The QR is something I didn't think of though - how many versions are there?

The plate on my tripod is rectangular (like the Manfrotto 234) but even then, are there different sizes?

I presume I can use my ballhead on both the tripod and monopod with no problems?
--
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar ... and doesn't

 

[Billx08]

The 685B is also £40 pounds more expensive in the UK ie about 40% more, and has a weight capacity rating of 8kg v 12kg, but to be fair is the same weight and roughly the same height when collapsed.

How is it being fair to say that both tripods are the same weight? Do you have a different set of specifications to show us? The links I posted to both monopods show :

685B:

Weight 1.76 lbs (0.8kg)

682B:

Weight 2.5 lb (1.15 kg)

As I said, the 682B is about 3/4 pounds or 42% heavier. I did note that it was more expensive, but considering your sloppiness with numbers think it's only fair to also show the prices, since your "£40 pounds more expensive" may be similarly inflated, if you cherry picked the highest and lowest prices that you could find from different sellers. B&H sells the 685B for $149.95 and the 682B for $110.00, both also shown on the linked pages I provided. That's a difference of about $40, making the 685B about 36% more expensive. That's only slightly less than the 40% difference you quoted but it would still be worthwhile seeing links to the actual prices you've used, as I've provided. The supported weights are as we've both stated, 17.6 lb (8kg) for the 685B and 26.4 lb (12kg) for the 682B, but 8kg is far greater than the OP is likely to ever need, and the 685B would easily be able to support Canon's and Nikon's most expensive large lenses when mounted on their largest and heaviest DSLR bodies.

Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM, $10,900, 9.9 lbs (4.5kg)

Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR, $10,299.95, 11.2 lbs (5.1kg)


If the OP prefers saving a little money that's a perfectly good reason to also prefer the 682B over the 685B, but the latter really is the better monopod, and a quick look at the spec's I linked to as well as the review (which also contains an embedded video review) points out some of the 685B's advantages. There are reasons, after all, why the 682B is cheaper and its extra weight will make its presence known, especially if it's used with one of the lighter cameras.

 

[itspeanutbutterjellytime]

Taking the prices from one shop here in the UK for continuity, the prices when converted into Dollars are:

$184 and $126 respectively.

Obviously I will shop around and get it at the cheapest I can from a reputable dealer.

I have no doubts that the 685B will be better but perhaps for my D90 and 300mm lens the 682B is satisfactory for both my camera and my wallet - I'm sure I could do a lot worse than having one of these monopods.

--
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar ... and doesn't

 

[Billx08]

Taking the prices from one shop here in the UK for continuity, the prices when converted into Dollars are:

$184 and $126 respectively.

Obviously I will shop around and get it at the cheapest I can from a reputable dealer.

I have no doubts that the 685B will be better but perhaps for my D90 and 300mm lens the 682B is satisfactory for both my camera and my wallet - I'm sure I could do a lot worse than having one of these monopods.

I'm sure that you could. Both are excellent monopods. Though I paid more for the 685B I have consolation in that besides the better features, my 300mm lens and D300 and 685B weigh less than the same 300mm lens and D90 on a 682B. Heck, even the larger D700 with 300mm lens and 685B would only be one ounce heavier than the D90/682B combo. The monopods add more weight than may be immediately obvious. The 682B for instance, weighs nearly as much as two D90 DSLR bodies, 1.15kg vs 620g. x 2.

 

[DemiLion]

The 685B is also £40 pounds more expensive in the UK ie about 40% more, and has a weight capacity rating of 8kg v 12kg, but to be fair is the same weight and roughly the same height when collapsed.

How is it being fair to say that both tripods are the same weight? Do you have a different set of specifications to show us? The links I posted to both monopods show :

685B:

Weight 1.76 lbs (0.8kg)

682B:

Weight 2.5 lb (1.15 kg)

As I said, the 682B is about 3/4 pounds or 42% heavier. I did note that it was more expensive, but considering your sloppiness with numbers think it's only fair to also show the prices, since your "£40 pounds more expensive" may be similarly inflated, if you cherry picked the highest and lowest prices that you could find from different sellers. B&H sells the 685B for $149.95 and the 682B for $110.00, both also shown on the linked pages I provided. That's a difference of about $40, making the 685B about 36% more expensive. That's only slightly less than the 40% difference you quoted but it would still be worthwhile seeing links to the actual prices you've used, as I've provided. The supported weights are as we've both stated, 17.6 lb (8kg) for the 685B and 26.4 lb (12kg) for the 682B, but 8kg is far greater than the OP is likely to ever need, and the 685B would easily be able to support Canon's and Nikon's most expensive large lenses when mounted on their largest and heaviest DSLR bodies.

Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM, $10,900, 9.9 lbs (4.5kg)
Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR, $10,299.95, 11.2 lbs (5.1kg)

If the OP prefers saving a little money that's a perfectly good reason to also prefer the 682B over the 685B, but the latter really is the better monopod, and a quick look at the spec's I linked to as well as the review (which also contains an embedded video review) points out some of the 685B's advantages. There are reasons, after all, why the 682B is cheaper and its extra weight will make its presence known, especially if it's used with one of the lighter cameras.

OK, let's take this slowly for you then.

1. The prices that I quoted were aggregated from a few retailers, hence the 'about £40' rather than '£38.99'. See the websites for Park Cameras, Castle Cameras, Jessops and Camera World for reference.

2. It is absolutely pointless directing the OP to B&H prices. Pricing in the UK is on a totally different scale to the US. If I were going to quote to someone based in America I would use a US site, not a British one.

3. The weights of the monopods are available on the manufacturers website. I referenced the weights from there, not from a sales source. If you go to either their US site or UK site, the respective weights of each monopod are quoted as follows:

682B: 1.15Kg

685B: 1.08Kg

Hardly the difference that you have suggested, in fact it is 7 grams. Maybe B&H have got their weights wrong and have quoted the weight of the 680B or 681B by mistake? Also for reference, we no longer tend to use imperial weights in the UK, but the metric system.

I'm not certain what your problem is, but the OP asked for options including different manufacturers, not an explanation as to why the Monopod that one owns is the best on the market. I based my post on the original request, using UK references and data.

By the way, were you also aware that quite a few review sites, including posts on here, suggest that aiming for a factor of either two or three should be used when calculating the all up weight? For example a monopod rated at 18Kg should reliably support 6 to 9Kg.

The 685B is a perfectly good monopod, but it is not the only one available on the market. My post was based on what the OP asked, I didn't realise that I was expected to agree with you irrespective of your misquoted facts and spurious pricing.

Regards.

 

[Billx08]

The 685B is also £40 pounds more expensive in the UK ie about 40% more, and has a weight capacity rating of 8kg v 12kg, but to be fair is the same weight and roughly the same height when collapsed.

How is it being fair to say that both tripods are the same weight? Do you have a different set of specifications to show us? The links I posted to both monopods show :

685B:

Weight 1.76 lbs (0.8kg)

682B:

Weight 2.5 lb (1.15 kg)

As I said, the 682B is about 3/4 pounds or 42% heavier. I did note that it was more expensive, but considering your sloppiness with numbers think it's only fair to also show the prices, since your "£40 pounds more expensive" may be similarly inflated, if you cherry picked the highest and lowest prices that you could find from different sellers. B&H sells the 685B for $149.95 and the 682B for $110.00, both also shown on the linked pages I provided. That's a difference of about $40, making the 685B about 36% more expensive. That's only slightly less than the 40% difference you quoted but it would still be worthwhile seeing links to the actual prices you've used, as I've provided. The supported weights are as we've both stated, 17.6 lb (8kg) for the 685B and 26.4 lb (12kg) for the 682B, but 8kg is far greater than the OP is likely to ever need, and the 685B would easily be able to support Canon's and Nikon's most expensive large lenses when mounted on their largest and heaviest DSLR bodies.

Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM, $10,900, 9.9 lbs (4.5kg)
Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR, $10,299.95, 11.2 lbs (5.1kg)

If the OP prefers saving a little money that's a perfectly good reason to also prefer the 682B over the 685B, but the latter really is the better monopod, and a quick look at the spec's I linked to as well as the review (which also contains an embedded video review) points out some of the 685B's advantages. There are reasons, after all, why the 682B is cheaper and its extra weight will make its presence known, especially if it's used with one of the lighter cameras.

OK, let's take this slowly for you then.

No, speed is fine. But as this is only the first of your attempted insults it's clear that your anger is getting the upper hand and your many mistakes (if they're unintentional) may cause others to conclude that it's you that needs to take things very slowly.

1. The prices that I quoted were aggregated from a few retailers, hence the 'about £40' rather than '£38.99'. See the websites for Park Cameras, Castle Cameras, Jessops and Camera World for reference.

2. It is absolutely pointless directing the OP to B&H prices. Pricing in the UK is on a totally different scale to the US. If I were going to quote to someone based in America I would use a US site, not a British one.

You're the one that should have taken this "slowly". The pricing wasn't even close to being the reason I provided the links, although it's fair enough for showing comparative prices. The main reason was the very good information that the "Features" and "Specifications" tabs provide. It showed the many features that the 685B has that the 682B lacks as well as the extended and collapsed sizes, weights, load capacities, leg sections and thread sizes. And if the OP is interested in some other monopods, B&H is likely to have them listed as well, so even if he purchases locally, the information (including reviews from owners of the monopods) can be very useful.

3. The weights of the monopods are available on the manufacturers website. I referenced the weights from there, not from a sales source. If you go to either their US site or UK site, the respective weights of each monopod are quoted as follows:

682B: 1.15Kg

685B: 1.08Kg

Hardly the difference that you have suggested, in fact it is 7 grams. Maybe B&H have got their weights wrong and have quoted the weight of the 680B or 681B by mistake? Also for reference, we no longer tend to use imperial weights in the UK, but the metric system.

If the website is wrong it is wrong. But I didn't make a mistake as "682B" can be clearly seen in the link, and if you visited the link you'd have seen a photo of the 682B. You're not just slow, you're lazy and sloppy in your research. The 680B is much less expensive than either the 682B or the 685B and is listed by Manfrotto as a "Compact" monopod that is shorter than the other two monopods, has 4 sections vs. their 3 sections, and has a load capacity of 9.98kg vs the 682B's 12kg. Your previous reply mentioned the 8kg and 12kg load capacitites of the 685B and 682B so if you did even the slightest bit of halfway decent research you wouldn't have confused these with the 680B, and the the 681B is a 3 section version of the 680B and they're both close to 1/2 the price of the 682B.

(continued)

 

[Billx08]

&160; (continued)

As for the weight difference, I provided direct quotes with links, which you've so far failed to provide. I'll repeat them for you one more time.

685B:

Weight 1.76 lbs (0.8kg)

682B:

Weight 2.5 lb (1.15 kg)

If B&H's website listed the wrong weight for the 685B so be it. You research is still sloppy, or at least your conclusions, since the weights you quoted (682B: 1.15Kg and 685B: 1.08Kg) show a difference that's wrong by an order of magnitude. Not 7g but 70g.

I'm not certain what your problem is, but the OP asked for options including different manufacturers, not an explanation as to why the Monopod that one owns is the best on the market. I based my post on the original request, using UK references and data.

My problem is arrogant, ignorant posters such as you that makes dishonest statements to support their viewpoints. I never said that the 685B is the best product on the market. I noted that it was more expensive and stated only that it was a better monopod, and mentioned a number of it's superior features, which clearly stand out when comparing them on B&H's website, and some others not mentioned were mentioned and demonstrated (in the video) in the review. The only real advantage that the 682B has is that it's rated to support heavier cameras, but as I also pointed out, the largest, heaviest DSLRs with extremely expensive, extremely heavy "pro" lenses can easily be supported by both cameras. In fact, the one feature that is unique to the 682B (the mini tripod legs) is just extra useless weight, since they should almost never be used. I'll leave it to you or others to figure out why.

By the way, were you also aware that quite a few review sites, including posts on here, suggest that aiming for a factor of either two or three should be used when calculating the all up weight? For example a monopod rated at 18Kg should reliably support 6 to 9Kg.

I disagree that that should be a guide for monopods. It's much more reasonable as a guide for tripods though.

The 685B is a perfectly good monopod, but it is not the only one available on the market. My post was based on what the OP asked, I didn't realise that I was expected to agree with you irrespective of your misquoted facts and spurious pricing.

Definition: Spurious - 1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false. 2. Of illegitimate birth. Sorry Demi, but you either don't know what specious means or you're also a sloppy wordsmith. The prices I listed were accurate, not inauthentic or false. Perhaps you meant to say that your local prices aren't necessarily the same as my local prices. But as I noted above, while prices were far from the main point, they do show with good accuracy the relative prices. That and other clues should have spared you the wasted effort of spuriously mentioning the 680B and 681B. You're also completely confused when you say that I misquoted facts. It's possible that I accurately quoted inaccurate facts, but there's a big difference between the two, and you either deliberately got it wrong because it seemed to be a stronger insult, or you're just not very bright, unable to clearly and accurately state what might have happened. Anyway, the price difference is hardly substantial which is why I mentioned it in the first place. I've seen many people state a price range but are willing to go a bit higher than the upper limit of their range for a superior product. If people limit their replies to exactly what OPs ask, many of them may miss out on a choice that they'd have preferred, even if this OP prefers to stay within his stated budget. The 685B is far from being significantly higher in price than the 682B. In fact it was none other than you that mentioned several monopods that are considerably more expensive than the 685B, so it's utter hypocrisy to criticize me for mentioning the 685B because it's out of the OP's price range.

 

[DemiLion]

Can I just remind you that you started laying into my post first???

OK, here we go again even more slowly.......

OK, let's take this slowly for you then.

No, speed is fine. But as this is only the first of your attempted insults it's clear that your anger is getting the upper hand and your many mistakes (if they're unintentional) may cause others to conclude that it's you that needs to take things very slowly.

1. The prices that I quoted were aggregated from a few retailers, hence the 'about £40' rather than '£38.99'. See the websites for Park Cameras, Castle Cameras, Jessops and Camera World for reference.

2. It is absolutely pointless directing the OP to B&H prices. Pricing in the UK is on a totally different scale to the US. If I were going to quote to someone based in America I would use a US site, not a British one.

You're the one that should have taken this "slowly". The pricing wasn't even close to being the reason I provided the links, although it's fair enough for showing comparative prices. The main reason was the very good information that the "Features" and "Specifications" tabs provide. It showed the many features that the 685B has that the 682B lacks as well as the extended and collapsed sizes, weights, load capacities, leg sections and thread sizes. And if the OP is interested in some other monopods, B&H is likely to have them listed as well, so even if he purchases locally, the information (including reviews from owners of the monopods) can be very useful.

I would completely agree that the links were useful, however the pricing that I was referring to was in your second post, and had nothing to do with the links to B&H etc that you provided. I will reiterate the point that if you are going to quote prices (which you did in your second post) do it from an 'in country' supplier to the Questioner, otherwise it is totally pointless; you can't equate VAT (sales tax), import duty, suppliers wholesale pricing structure etc between different countries. It is up to the OP if they then want to source a grey import.

3. The weights of the monopods are available on the manufacturers website. I referenced the weights from there, not from a sales source. If you go to either their US site or UK site, the respective weights of each monopod are quoted as follows:

682B: 1.15Kg

685B: 1.08Kg

Hardly the difference that you have suggested, in fact it is 7 grams. Maybe B&H have got their weights wrong and have quoted the weight of the 680B or 681B by mistake? Also for reference, we no longer tend to use imperial weights in the UK, but the metric system.

If the website is wrong it is wrong. But I didn't make a mistake as "682B" can be clearly seen in the link, and if you visited the link you'd have seen a photo of the 682B. You're not just slow, you're lazy and sloppy in your research. The 680B is much less expensive than either the 682B or the 685B and is listed by Manfrotto as a "Compact" monopod that is shorter than the other two monopods, has 4 sections vs. their 3 sections, and has a load capacity of 9.98kg vs the 682B's 12kg. Your previous reply mentioned the 8kg and 12kg load capacitites of the 685B and 682B so if you did even the slightest bit of halfway decent research you wouldn't have confused these with the 680B, and the the 681B is a 3 section version of the 680B and they're both close to 1/2 the price of the 682B.

Please try reading what I wrote again. I said that B&H had mis-stated the weight which you were using in your comparisons. I also said that perhaps they had mixed up the weight with either the 680 or 681, which is extremely easy to do if you are filling out website templates. It has nothing to do with any of the other attributes. At no point did I confuse the different specs, and if I had not followed the link that you provided, how would I know that they had got the details wrong and not you?

JUst a few facts for you by the way:

Manfrotto does not list the 680 as a compact Monopod, that is the 676B.

Yes the 681B is much less than the 682B, the price difference is the legs. You did know that the 682B is a kit version of the 681B and the 678 legs set, as pointed out in my first post didn't you?

(continued)

If you really must...

 

[DemiLion]

As for the weight difference, I provided direct quotes with links, which you've so far failed to provide. I'll repeat them for you one more time.

Do you really need a link to Manfrotto's website??????

OK: http://www.manfrotto.com and http://www.manfrotto.co.uk

The UK one was in my first post.

If B&H's website listed the wrong weight for the 685B so be it. You research is still sloppy, or at least your conclusions, since the weights you quoted (682B: 1.15Kg and 685B: 1.08Kg) show a difference that's wrong by an order of magnitude. Not 7g but 70g.

Yup, I apologise I did get that wrong and you are right, it is 70 not 7 grams. I thought that it sounded a bit strange!

I'm not certain what your problem is, but the OP asked for options including different manufacturers, not an explanation as to why the Monopod that one owns is the best on the market. I based my post on the original request, using UK references and data.

My problem is arrogant, ignorant posters such as you that makes dishonest statements to support their viewpoints. I never said that the 685B is the best product on the market. I noted that it was more expensive and stated only that it was a better monopod, and mentioned a number of it's superior features, which clearly stand out when comparing them on B&H's website, and some others not mentioned were mentioned and demonstrated (in the video) in the review. The only real advantage that the 682B has is that it's rated to support heavier cameras, but as I also pointed out, the largest, heaviest DSLRs with extremely expensive, extremely heavy "pro" lenses can easily be supported by both cameras. In fact, the one feature that is unique to the 682B (the mini tripod legs) is just extra useless weight, since they should almost never be used. I'll leave it to you or others to figure out why.

I mentioned that same thing about the 682's legs in my first post, and would agree that they are mostly a gimic of sorts; hence my comment about the 681 which is the 682 without the legs set.

Ignorant and arrogant? You attacked my post, I am merely defending my position. You are the one that has been trumpeting about one single model from one manufacturer. As for dishonest statements, if misplacing a decimal point in error is dishonest, then I'll plead guilty.

By the way, were you also aware that quite a few review sites, including posts on here, suggest that aiming for a factor of either two or three should be used when calculating the all up weight? For example a monopod rated at 18Kg should reliably support 6 to 9Kg.

I disagree that that should be a guide for monopods. It's much more reasonable as a guide for tripods though.

Fair one. You may be right there, but others disagree.

The 685B is a perfectly good monopod, but it is not the only one available on the market. My post was based on what the OP asked, I didn't realise that I was expected to agree with you irrespective of your misquoted facts and spurious pricing.

Definition: Spurious - 1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false. 2. Of illegitimate birth. Sorry Demi, but you either don't know what specious means or you're also a sloppy wordsmith.

Intended as 'lacking validity in origin', due to the fact that US pricing does not affect the UK model.

The prices I listed were accurate, not inauthentic or false. Perhaps you meant to say that your local prices aren't necessarily the same as my local prices. But as I noted above, while prices were far from the main point, they do show with good accuracy the relative prices.

Prices were exactly the main point if you had read the OPs request, which is why I mentioned them. I was in no way implying that you listed inaccurately, just irelevantly.

That and other clues should have spared you the wasted effort of spuriously mentioning the 680B and 681B.

You misunderstood the reason that they were mentioned.

You're also completely confused when you say that I misquoted facts. It's possible that I accurately quoted inaccurate facts, but there's a big difference between the two, and you either deliberately got it wrong because it seemed to be a stronger insult, or you're just not very bright, unable to clearly and accurately state what might have happened.

ad hominem - no point in responding.

Anyway, the price difference is hardly substantial which is why I mentioned it in the first place. I've seen many people state a price range but are willing to go a bit higher than the upper limit of their range for a superior product. If people limit their replies to exactly what OPs ask, many of them may miss out on a choice that they'd have preferred, even if this OP prefers to stay within his stated budget. The 685B is far from being significantly higher in price than the 682B. In fact it was none other than you that mentioned several monopods that are considerably more expensive than the 685B, so it's utter hypocrisy to criticize me for mentioning the 685B because it's out of the OP's price range.

At what point did I critiscise you for including a higher priced monopod? If you had not mentioned it I would have included that in my post as well. I was just pointing out that it was more expensive that the one that the OP had enquired about, and the differences in its characteristics

My point is that you only mentioned the one monopod, and then proceeded to lash out when alternatives were offered. At no stage did I critiscise your suggestion.

You have attacked me for being ignorant and arrogant and yet you keep on about just one product. There is absolutely no harm in saying I have product X and I find that it is great for the job, but why lay into someone else for doing exactly what was asked for in the first place; ie what different types are available?

 

[Billx08]

Can I just remind you that you started laying into my post first???

OK, here we go again even more slowly.......

There you go again. You must really enjoy acting like a jerk.

I would completely agree that the links were useful,

"would", but how would anyone assume that since you obviously didn't check the links, either at all or not very well, since the B&H photos matched the 682B and 685B. Also your snotty remark showed where you were going :

Also for reference, we no longer tend to use imperial weights in the UK, but the metric system.

Both imperial and metric weights were listed, and only an utter fool would be confused by imperial weights even if they're much more familiar with metric measures. Making a point of that is worse than disingenuous and hypocritical to boot, since you quoted my quotes which provided the weights using both imperial and metric measures. If I was as arrogant as you I'd criticize you for reporting only the metric weights, showing your inherent chauvinist side, but I realize that you only quoted what was shown on Manfrotto's website. If you don't like to see imperial and metric measures side by side, simply avert your eyes because I'm not about to modify the way I post and provide less information, some of which may be useful for others just to make you happy. For reference, I and others easily see why you made that snotty remark.

I will reiterate the point that if you are going to quote prices (which you did in your second post) do it from an 'in country' supplier to the Questioner, otherwise it is totally pointless; you can't equate VAT (sales tax), import duty, suppliers wholesale pricing structure etc between different countries. It is up to the OP if they then want to source a grey import.

Mr. Clueless, I already explained why the local prices on this side of the Atlantic were useful. They were used to show the relative prices, which from your own info. were fairly accurate. You also make a foolish assumption, namely that I was suggesting that the OP should purchase the monopods from B&H. In fact I mentioned using B&H's information because they generally provide much more information in their Features and Specifications tabs (did you miss that?) than other merchants usually do and then the monopods could be purchased from the one of the OP's local camera shops.

Yes the 681B is much less than the 682B, the price difference is the legs. You did know that the 682B is a kit version of the 681B and the 678 legs set, as pointed out in my first post didn't you?

This is really irrelevant but I suppose you felt better saying it.

If you really must...

For you, anytime.

 

[DemiLion]

Can I just remind you that you started laying into my post first???

OK, here we go again even more slowly.......

There you go again. You must really enjoy acting like a jerk.

Yes that was probably out of order, but I am getting a touch frustrated by your continual attacks.

I would completely agree that the links were useful,

"would", but how would anyone assume that since you obviously didn't check the links, either at all or not very well, since the B&H photos matched the 682B and 685B.

How can you possibly take agreement as an insult?

Also your snotty remark showed where you were going :

Also for reference, we no longer tend to use imperial weights in the UK, but the metric system.

Both imperial and metric weights were listed, and only an utter fool would be confused by imperial weights even if they're much more familiar with metric measures. Making a point of that is worse than disingenuous and hypocritical to boot, since you quoted my quotes which provided the weights using both imperial and metric measures. If I was as arrogant as you I'd criticize you for reporting only the metric weights, showing your inherent chauvinist side, but I realize that you only quoted what was shown on Manfrotto's website. If you don't like to see imperial and metric measures side by side, simply avert your eyes because I'm not about to modify the way I post and provide less information, some of which may be useful for others just to make you happy. For reference, I and others easily see why you made that snotty remark.

Again slight assumed were none is intended. A lot of Americans don't realise that we no longer use the Imperial system, but metric instead now. Personally I prefer Imperial, but most Brits will understand metric better.

I will reiterate the point that if you are going to quote prices (which you did in your second post) do it from an 'in country' supplier to the Questioner, otherwise it is totally pointless; you can't equate VAT (sales tax), import duty, suppliers wholesale pricing structure etc between different countries. It is up to the OP if they then want to source a grey import.

Mr. Clueless, I already explained why the local prices on this side of the Atlantic were useful. They were used to show the relative prices, which from your own info. were fairly accurate. You also make a foolish assumption, namely that I was suggesting that the OP should purchase the monopods from B&H. In fact I mentioned using B&H's information because they generally provide much more information in their Features and Specifications tabs (did you miss that?) than other merchants usually do and then the monopods could be purchased from the one of the OP's local camera shops.

B&H does have a good site, but the comparable pricing is not the same over here, as was pointed out in the OPs post. That was my point that you still don't seem to get; there is a difference not only in the base cost but also in the jumps between models.

Yes the 681B is much less than the 682B, the price difference is the legs. You did know that the 682B is a kit version of the 681B and the 678 legs set, as pointed out in my first post didn't you?

This is really irrelevant but I suppose you felt better saying it.

It is utterly relevant when taken in context with your other comments about the line pricing, especially this:

Your previous reply mentioned the 8kg and 12kg load capacitites of the 685B and 682B so if you did even the slightest bit of halfway decent research you wouldn't have confused these with the 680B, and the the 681B is a 3 section version of the 680B and they're both close to 1/2 the price of the 682B.

 

[Craig Gillette]

Thankyou both for your replies.

I certainly won't be looking at monopods that are more expensive than the 682B (well I will, I just won't be buying them ).
I do need a decent ballhead with it too which is why £60-70 is my cut off point.

Ballheads can be frustrating on monopods, there are alternatives like the Bogen BG3229 or BG3232 which only tilt over to one side to acomodate "portrait" orientations. Ball heads do allow other angles to be taken but that can be difficult to deal with trying to hold the camera (etc.) up with one hand, adjust the angle of the pod with one hand and loosen/tighten the adjusting knobs/levers with one hand.

In response to the legs, I do like the idea of having them actually

They are somewhat effective in some situations, most people do not trust them to hold up a monopod equipped with a camera, even at minimal extensions due to the leverage involved. They can help if standing motionless and allow a little less attention. They can also interfere with movements like rotation of the monopod on it's foot, and tilting in any direction.

The QR is something I didn't think of though - how many versions are there?

The plate on my tripod is rectangular (like the Manfrotto 234) but even then, are there different sizes?

Bogen makes several different incompatible quick release systems, and if you begin to consider different brands, then it's likely they will not be across brand compatible either. The "Arca-Swiss" system is generally compatible across brands but just getting started in the "system" can be rather expensive.

I presume I can use my ballhead on both the tripod and monopod with no problems?

Yes, usually you can. But it can be a bit of a bother to be swapping them around. There are two main thread diameters used to connect heads to tripods, there are bushings available to fit a 1/4" stud into the 3/8" socket found on some heads. I believe the Bogens come with a way to use either 1/4" or 3/8" heads. Some tripods may come only with a 3/8" threaded stud so that can require another fitting to go with a head equipped with a 1/4" threaded base.

--

 

[Billx08]

As for the weight difference, I provided direct quotes with links, which you've so far failed to provide. I'll repeat them for you one more time.

Do you really need a link to Manfrotto's website??????

Of course not, I found it within seconds. It's polite to provide links since some forum members may not find them as easily as you or I.

OK: http://www.manfrotto.com and http://www.manfrotto.co.uk

The UK one was in my first post.

Did you notice that I provided a link to each of the monopods I mentioned? That's much more useful than if I had simply provided " http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ " and let others waste their time trying to locate the monopods. Your links are time wasters not only for that reason but also because Manfrotto's website is poorly designed, and it might frustrate some that aren't very web-savvy. Nowhere on Manfrotto's home page are monopods mentioned, while "tripod" is repeated 7 times. If the "Products" link at the top of the page is clicked, you're taken to another page that doesn't seem to provide links to monopods. That word is only mentioned once at the bottom of the page in a note that's devoid of links :

Note: Catalogues are pdf files, to download right click and "save object as", to view left click on the language link.

Tripods, heads, monopods and accessories for supporting still cameras from point-and-shoot 35mm to medium and large format, film or digital, and videocameras from MicroDV up to full-size ENG camcorders.

On the top left side of the page you see that "Camera Support" has six sub-sections, Tripods, Heads, Kits, Camera Supp. Accessories, Alternative Support System and Remote Control. Where would monopods be found? Ah yes, you have to expand Camera Supp. Accessories. Who would have thought that monopods were really just accessories for tripods? Do you see why it's wise to provide good links? When you were viewing the page that showed the monopod information it would have been a trivial matter to copy that page's URL.

If B&H's website listed the wrong weight for the 685B so be it. You research is still sloppy, or at least your conclusions, since the weights you quoted (682B: 1.15Kg and 685B: 1.08Kg) show a difference that's wrong by an order of magnitude. Not 7g but 70g.

Yup, I apologise I did get that wrong and you are right, it is 70 not 7 grams. I thought that it sounded a bit strange!

Ok, it was just a minor point.

Ignorant and arrogant?

Yes, whether you admit it or not.

You are the one that has been trumpeting about one single model from one manufacturer.

I only mentioned that one because it's the only other monopod of comparable quality and the price difference wasn't huge.

As for dishonest statements, if misplacing a decimal point in error is dishonest, then I'll plead guilty.

I wouldn't expect you to plead guilty for that minor misdemeanor. I considered that to be an insignificant mistake, equivalent to a typo. There were other things that you wrote that were dishonest. Without going back I can immediately recall one which is where you claimed that I was touting the 685B as the "best" tripod on the market, as I never claimed anything like that. Since I already commented on this (I recall saying that it was only better than the 682B, which may be obvious to others based on the higher selling price), it's clear why you'd choose to plead guilty the decimal point error. Pure distraction.

The 685B is a perfectly good monopod, but it is not the only one available on the market. My post was based on what the OP asked, I didn't realise that I was expected to agree with you irrespective of your misquoted facts and spurious pricing.

Definition: Spurious - 1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false. 2. Of illegitimate birth. Sorry Demi, but you either don't know what specious means or you're also a sloppy wordsmith.

Intended as 'lacking validity in origin', due to the fact that US pricing does not affect the UK model.

That's a lame excuse in the extreme, and I already mentioned that if you were a better wordsmith (see above) you probably would have written about the difference in local prices. Whatever you intended, one has to twist logic in knots to claim that "lacking validity in origin" was your definition for spurious. That's akin to claiming that if I specify the weight in my local units (pounds) that it's also spurious. Not hardly.

 

[Billx08]

(continued)

The prices I listed were accurate, not inauthentic or false. Perhaps you meant to say that your local prices aren't necessarily the same as my local prices. But as I noted above, while prices were far from the main point, they do show with good accuracy the relative prices.

Prices were exactly the main point if you had read the OPs request, which is why I mentioned them. I was in no way implying that you listed inaccurately, just irelevantly.

You just said that they were "spurious" which is what most people would assume means one of the several definitions I listed : "1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false." As far as irrelevancy is concerned, how many times does it have to be repeated that the reason for listing them (even if in my local units) was to show the relative prices. This would give the OP enough information to decide if the higher price of the 685B was modest enough to be worth considering. Or not. It wasn't irrelevant, whether you liked reading it or not.

That and other clues should have spared you the wasted effort of spuriously mentioning the 680B and 681B.

You misunderstood the reason that they were mentioned.

Not really.

You're also completely confused when you say that I misquoted facts. It's possible that I accurately quoted inaccurate facts, but there's a big difference between the two, and you either deliberately got it wrong because it seemed to be a stronger insult, or you're just not very bright, unable to clearly and accurately state what might have happened.

ad hominem - no point in responding.

Slippery, slippery. You were absolutely wrong in saying that I misquoted facts and if you're as bright as you think you are you should be able to see that this is true. If you don't like the reasons I listed as being possible causes for why your accusation was wrong, state a better, more palatable one. If it's reasonable I'll probably agree. But I think that you realize that I was correct and are using an excuse to avoid responding.

Anyway, the price difference is hardly substantial which is why I mentioned it in the first place. I've seen many people state a price range but are willing to go a bit higher than the upper limit of their range for a superior product. If people limit their replies to exactly what OPs ask, many of them may miss out on a choice that they'd have preferred, even if this OP prefers to stay within his stated budget. The 685B is far from being significantly higher in price than the 682B. In fact it was none other than you that mentioned several monopods that are considerably more expensive than the 685B, so it's utter hypocrisy to criticize me for mentioning the 685B because it's out of the OP's price range.

At what point did I critiscise you for including a higher priced monopod?

Here:

The 685B is a perfectly good monopod, but it is not the only one available on the market. My post was based on what the OP asked

I took that to be a criticism of mentioning the 685B because its price was above the OP's stated price range, whereas you were careful to base your reply on what the OP asked. Which ignores the fact that you mentioned several monopods that were more expensive than the 685B.

If you had not mentioned it I would have included that in my post as well. I was just pointing out that it was more expensive that the one that the OP had enquired about

Yes, see above.

You have attacked me for being ignorant and arrogant and yet you keep on about just one product. There is absolutely no harm in saying I have product X and I find that it is great for the job, but why lay into someone else for doing exactly what was asked for in the first place; ie what different types are available?

We're going in circles. This was explained previously.

 

[Billx08]

Also for reference, we no longer tend to use imperial weights in the UK, but the metric system.

Both imperial and metric weights were listed, and only an utter fool would be confused by imperial weights even if they're much more familiar with metric measures. Making a point of that is worse than disingenuous and hypocritical to boot, since you quoted my quotes which provided the weights using both imperial and metric measures. If I was as arrogant as you I'd criticize you for reporting only the metric weights, showing your inherent chauvinist side, but I realize that you only quoted what was shown on Manfrotto's website. If you don't like to see imperial and metric measures side by side, simply avert your eyes because I'm not about to modify the way I post and provide less information, some of which may be useful for others just to make you happy. For reference, I and others easily see why you made that snotty remark.

Again slight assumed were none is intended. A lot of Americans don't realise that we no longer use the Imperial system, but metric instead now. Personally I prefer Imperial, but most Brits will understand metric better.

A lot? Not as a percentage, I don't think. I'm amused at your preference since I prefer metric. At one point the USA was very close to adopting metric measures but in the end the plan was scuttled by politicians, probably paid off by corporate lobbyists. They were also against mandating auto seat belts.

Yes the 681B is much less than the 682B, the price difference is the legs. You did know that the 682B is a kit version of the 681B and the 678 legs set, as pointed out in my first post didn't you?

This is really irrelevant but I suppose you felt better saying it.

It is utterly relevant when taken in context with your other comments about the line pricing, especially this:

Your previous reply mentioned the 8kg and 12kg load capacitites of the 685B and 682B so if you did even the slightest bit of halfway decent research you wouldn't have confused these with the 680B, and the the 681B is a 3 section version of the 680B and they're both close to 1/2 the price of the 682B.

I disagree, but at this point it shouldn't be surprising.

 

[itspeanutbutterjellytime]

Thankyou both for your replies.

I certainly won't be looking at monopods that are more expensive than the 682B (well I will, I just won't be buying them ).
I do need a decent ballhead with it too which is why £60-70 is my cut off point.

Ballheads can be frustrating on monopods, there are alternatives like the Bogen BG3229 or BG3232 which only tilt over to one side to acomodate "portrait" orientations. Ball heads do allow other angles to be taken but that can be difficult to deal with trying to hold the camera (etc.) up with one hand, adjust the angle of the pod with one hand and loosen/tighten the adjusting knobs/levers with one hand.

In response to the legs, I do like the idea of having them actually

They are somewhat effective in some situations, most people do not trust them to hold up a monopod equipped with a camera, even at minimal extensions due to the leverage involved. They can help if standing motionless and allow a little less attention. They can also interfere with movements like rotation of the monopod on it's foot, and tilting in any direction.

The QR is something I didn't think of though - how many versions are there?

The plate on my tripod is rectangular (like the Manfrotto 234) but even then, are there different sizes?

Bogen makes several different incompatible quick release systems, and if you begin to consider different brands, then it's likely they will not be across brand compatible either. The "Arca-Swiss" system is generally compatible across brands but just getting started in the "system" can be rather expensive.

I presume I can use my ballhead on both the tripod and monopod with no problems?

Yes, usually you can. But it can be a bit of a bother to be swapping them around. There are two main thread diameters used to connect heads to tripods, there are bushings available to fit a 1/4" stud into the 3/8" socket found on some heads. I believe the Bogens come with a way to use either 1/4" or 3/8" heads. Some tripods may come only with a 3/8" threaded stud so that can require another fitting to go with a head equipped with a 1/4" threaded base.

--

Thanks for that Craig, it's cleared up my questions somewhat.

I'm most likely going to go for the 682B monopod and my tripod is the CAMLINK TP2800 Tripod (it was bought as a present, yes it's not a manfrotto but much to my surprise its a very study piece of kit).

I've been looking on amazon at quite a few ballheads, most coming in around the £45 mark. If you have any suggestions what might be a good one for the monopod and tripod I'd appreciate that greatly. The Manfrotto ones seem to have solid reviews in terms of quality and value for money.
--
Why did the chicken cross the mobius strip?

To get to the same side...

 

[Billx08]

I presume I can use my ballhead on both the tripod and monopod with no problems?

Yes, usually you can.
. . .

Thanks for that Craig, it's cleared up my questions somewhat.

I'm most likely going to go for the 682B monopod and my tripod is the CAMLINK TP2800 Tripod (it was bought as a present, yes it's not a manfrotto but much to my surprise its a very study piece of kit).

I've been looking on amazon at quite a few ballheads, most coming in around the £45 mark. If you have any suggestions what might be a good one for the monopod and tripod I'd appreciate that greatly. The Manfrotto ones seem to have solid reviews in terms of quality and value for money.

If you get one of Manfrotto's ballheads try to avoid their RC2 quick release. It may not be a bad choice if used only with a monopod but on a tripod it won't lock down nearly as well as Manfrotto's better models.