Tripod Help

[ClaudioG]

Hi, I finally decided to take the plunge and buy a good tripod. I tried to read many of the available threads on this and other forums as well as the very well written article by Thom Hogan on tripods and his reasoning on why it make sense to spend a lot of money from the getgo rather than spend even more at the end. Again it makes sense.

My camera is a d200 with a mb200 battery pack. I like to photograph nature scenes as landscapes or particulars. The lenses find myself using the most are a 18-70 dx kit lens and a 70-200 f2.8 vr. I have a very lightweight velbon maxy tripod that allows me to take decent pictures if I use mirror lock up and timer and a weight to stabilize the whole contraption.

I recently had the pleasure to accompany a friend pro photographer on a nature photo shootout and I could use one of his tripods. What a difference it was. The ball head was an old arca swiss. very smoth and easy to use. I do not know the brand of the legs, they were heavy aluminum, without center column but again night and day difference form my velbon. I could actually trip the shutter without having the whole thing shaking as usual.

Now I am left with the formidable task of choosing a tripod. Money is an issue, but I do not mind spending a little more if there is a good reason for it.

I would like to concentrate on the head at first. From what I read on this and other forums it seems that there are 3-4 favorite heads:

RRS BH-55 LR $455
Markings Q-Ball M10 $339
Arca Swiss B1 $399
Arca Swiss Z1 $339

All of this heads have quick release clamps and use standard arca swiss plates.

Each one of them seems to have strong proponents and I haven't read really anything bad about any of the above. The exception being the Arca Swiss lock problem but it seems to be a thing of the past not affecting the new models.

There is a lot of enthusiasm about the BH-55. Is it really so much better to justify the extra $120 compared to a Markings M10 or the Arca Swiss Z1?

It is so hard to make a decision without having the possibility to actually touch and work a little with any of these products.

I would really appreciate any help on making this decision.

If you have any of these heads or better if you used more than one, would you like to elaborate on what you did like and what you didn't.

Once i settle on the head I would also appreciate tremendously some help on the even more confusing issue of purchasing the right legs.

Thanks

ClaudioG

--
Claudio

 

[yatesd399606]

I own the Markins Q3 for a lightweigt setup and like it so far (have only owned it for about a week). I would think the Markins M10 would be plenty for your needs. Again, it just depends on your lenses and your priorities.

I believe Nikonians recommend the M10 with the Gitzo 2530 as a lightweight setup.

Good Luck!

--
Doug

 

[NRothschild]

I own an M10 (almost 3 years now) and recently added an M20. I've been very happy with my Markins heads. Any of the 4 heads will do the job very well, and I doubt you will ever get a concensus that one is better than the other.

I don't want to start a war here, but my impression of the BH-55, relative to the comments you see on the net, is that many peope are bowled over by the cosmetics. You've read rthe same posts, I guess, so you can come to your own conclusions. I'm NOT saying the Markins or A-S is better or worse than the BH-55; I think there are few people that are in a position to make that call, and I'm not one of them. With your lenses or even with a lens in the 300 2.8 or 200-400VR class, I doubt your would see an appreciable difference for your $120 extra. Personally, I like the smaller and lighter package of the Markins, especially for a Gitzo series 2 leg set, and I don't think I pay a penalty for that. I personally would not put a BH-55 on a series 2 legset because it weighs almost 2 LBs, and is fat. The main reason for for a series 2 leg set is portability. You should pick your legs before picking a head because you want to marry them up properly if possible. On a 3 series leg set, the extra weight and bulk might not be as much of a concern, but that is a very personal decision.

I have seen comments to the affect that the RRS is "better built" than others, such as the Markins. I tend to discount that because I'm not convinced that "better built" isn't directed more at the cosmetics than what I percieve to be build quality. My Markins M10, after lamost 3 years, works just like new and not a single scratch or blemish on the housing. The anodization used is miraculous; heads tend to get a lot of abuse over time. I don't see any deficiencies in the Markins build quality.

I also like the screw tension adjustment of the Markins. The A-S has a similar arrangement. It is so easy to set, it only has to be set once unless the payload changes dramatically, and, most importantly to me, it is impossible to loosen accidentally in use, by turning th ewrong knob when your attention is elsewhere and your eye to the viewfinder. I have never once had an accidental head flop and that might be the most important aspect of the decision of one tensioning system over another. The BH-55 tension knob is differentiated enough that it probably isn't an issue.

One issue that kept me away from the BH-55 (which I carefully considered prior to purchasing the M20) was the discussion in the manual that you can lube the head for more smoothness, but if you do, you may lose some holding power. Holding power is important to me because I use a Sidekick. I didn't like the idea of having to make that choice. I ahve played with a BH-55 in the field and the one I used was very smooth. I have seen comments both ways on this. I did note that Wimberly publishes "mini-reviews" of various ballheads and they found the BH-55 to e not as smooth as other heads. Smoothness is THE most important operational attrib ute, IMHO.

http://www.tripodhead.com/faqs-ballhead-recommendation.cfm

The elliptical ball of the A-S models has an advantage when shooting at extreme angles. The price paid, in earlier days, was the lockup problem. Supposedly that was fixed but for a lot of people (including me) that cast a shadow over the line, which may be undeserved for current production. theya re a bit heavier than the Markins, but not as heavy as a BH-55.

I would research carefully before buying an A-S with a lever clamp, only because compatibility issues are inherent to any lever clamp system and I have not seen a lot of feedback on the A-S lever, except for one post over at Nikonian's, I think, suggesting it is not a great clamp. It is certianly reasonably priced. I have no opinion on it myself; only noting as a point of reasearch. I put an RRS lever clamp on my M20 and, although I really like it, I'm not sure if poitential future plate compatibility issues aren't going to be problem down the road. My RRS lever works with my Kirk 300/4 replacement collar/foot, and it works with my Wimberly Sidekick (which Wimberly says could be a problem requiring an additional adpater plate). In general, though, I'm not sure that introducing compatibility issues in a system whose benefit is inter-make compatibility is such a good idea. Very personal choice here; I'm just givning you some food for thought.

I will say that my Markins screw clamp on my M10 works fine and if any of the above is a concern, or the huge extra cost of a lever clamp is a concern, I would not worry about using a screw clamp. The differences in speed of use are not that great once you get the feel of it. Much more time has been spent on these forums discussing the relative differences than anyone has ever spent actually screwing and unscrewing those clamps

--
Regards,
Neil

 

[ClaudioG]

Thanks Neal and Doug for your kind answers.

The lever release clamp is not essential and i did not realize that it can introduce potential incompatibilities with standard multi brand AS style plates. I was under the impression that both screw knob or lever release clamp would accept and work fine with any AS style plate or accessory. What is the problem? Maybe the relative fixed amount of tightening of the lever clamp requires a specific width of the plate? Do all AS style plate have the same width? (so much to learn.....)

Also Neal you mentioned that AS ball heads work best if you need extreme angles. Can you elaborate on that? Extreme angles as in the lens pointing straight down for example? I would like to learn macro photography and that would be a welcome feature. I haven't seen many comments on the AS Z1. It seems a good ball head, light, strong and reasonably priced. Any remarks on that? Did you read any comments that you cal direct me to?
--
ClaudioG

 

[furryberry711]

I bought both an M20 and a BH55. The BH55 looks great, but the M20 had smoother action. When I tightened down the one knob that puts some drag on the ball, say when using a heavy 70-200 f2.8, the BH55 had some stickiness, where the Markins was as smooth as can be.

I suspect an M10 would be sufficient for your needs. I would steer clear of the Q-ball, except for very lightweight setups. I also don't think you need an Arcaswiss. A great many photographers find they do not need an elliptical ball. The second drag knob is sufficient.

As for tripods, I can strongly recommend a GT3530LSV. One amazing tripod, it's the replacement for the venerable 1325. Difference is that the ALR feature makes the new Gitzos SO easy and fast to setup. Also, the GT3530LSV uses a plastic bushing in the legs now, no longer using the problematic fiber bushing. The old fiber bushing was prone to swelling when used in water, thus locking up the leg, sometimes for days until it dried out.

Thanks Neal and Doug for your kind answers.

The lever release clamp is not essential and i did not realize that
it can introduce potential incompatibilities with standard multi
brand AS style plates. I was under the impression that both screw
knob or lever release clamp would accept and work fine with any AS
style plate or accessory. What is the problem? Maybe the relative
fixed amount of tightening of the lever clamp requires a specific
width of the plate? Do all AS style plate have the same width? (so
much to learn.....)

Also Neal you mentioned that AS ball heads work best if you need
extreme angles. Can you elaborate on that? Extreme angles as in the
lens pointing straight down for example? I would like to learn
macro photography and that would be a welcome feature. I haven't
seen many comments on the AS Z1. It seems a good ball head, light,
strong and reasonably priced. Any remarks on that? Did you read any
comments that you cal direct me to?
--
ClaudioG

--
Beware of Greeks bearing interpolation software...

 

[BRJR]

ClaudioG:

This link describes the Ball Head I use and I recommend it highly: http://www.kirkphoto.com/ballheads.html
--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)

 

[NRothschild]

Do all AS style plate have the same width? (so
much to learn.....)

RRS's site specifically says that, with the sole exception of Wimberly plates, their lever clamp could be incompatible with other plates. They do not mention (and they should!) that the Wimberly Sidekick is an exception to that. I base that on Wimberly's own extensive comments about particualr problems and how they may relate to Sidekicks of different manufacturing eras. I only becamse aware of Wimberly's concerns AFTER permanetly installing an RRS lever clamp on my M20. I was lucky; my Sidekick is fine. For now. I've also seen comments to the effect that a plate could wear over time and become a future problem. Never actually seen reports of an example.

I have seen a number of comments from people who are successfully using the Kirk 300/4 collar (including me), and other Kirk plates on an RRS lever clamp. It is impossible to evaluate the relative chances of actually having a problem. I don't think I've ever seen a post reporting an actual problem, but I could be wrong on that and I certainly don't read them all.

Apparently the widths of all these clamps have some tolerance, despite the fact there is an official "spec" on these things. The nature of a screw clamp is that it has a fair amount of extra travel to accomodate a too-narrow plate. The nature of the lever clamp is such that a too-narrow plate would not work with the more limited travel of the lever clamp's jaws. There is no adjustment for this.

I can't tell you if the problem is real or theoretical. I can only assume that RRS had a specific reason for posting their warning. It is also possible that other makers such as Kirk have tightened or even changed their tolerances and specs to accomodate that lever clamp; I would if I were them. It is all unkown, but the basic fact is that no one has ever posted any concerns about any screw clamps from the major makers.

Also Neal you mentioned that AS ball heads work best if you need
extreme angles. Can you elaborate on that? ....

It is the nature of a spherial ballhead that it takes increasingly more tension to hold a position at increasingly extreme angles. I can tension my Markins heads so that they will only hold, say, + - 10 or 15 degrees and that setting will result in the minimum amount of "stick-slip" and hence the smoothest action. Stick-slip refers to the physics that dictates that there is more friction required to start the head moving than to keep it moving. The result is that it "jumps" when you move it. With a typical 70-200 zoom or a smaller lens with shorter focal length, this is totally a non-issue with a Markins- more something a scientist might like to test. On the other extreme, say my 500 F/4P with a 1.4 or 2x TC, now stick slip becomes more of an issue, exspecially if you are trying to do a very precise framing. This is one of several reasons why long lens users (including me) tend to use a gimbal mount, either replacing the head totally with a full Wimberly or with a Sidekick attached to the head to take over the vertical movement.

Stick-slip is also why payload ratings have little meaning in terms of actual payloads that are comfortably handled. For example, the Markins M10 is rated at 90LBs. I have no doubt that the rating is valid for what it means, but it has little bearing on how smooth the pans in a sweetspot with a given load. The M10 comfortable with around a 12-15LB payload (my 500P), except as I mentioned above. it can probably handle more but I don't have anything heavier to test. The general rule of thumb is that ALL THINGS EQUAL a larger ball diameter will result in a smoother pan in the sweetspot. Markins claims to be a superior design that does not depend on ball diameter as much as other designs, which is their clame to fame of smaller/lighter/just as good or better. I have never seen anything that would contradict their claims and I doubt you could come to any firm conclusion without testing them all yourself. I can only say that the M10 is "more than good enough" for my lenses and the M20 is even a tad better in that regard.

One thing to consdier is Macro. Put a 105 Micro on your body, and then add either a ring flash, or R1C1 system, and/or a focusing rail, and you actually put more stress on the ball, requiring more tension, than my 500P! Having played with my heads with various macro configurations, I would suggest the M20 (or whatever is the largest head in the line you select) for the best macro performance, if that is your thing.

After all the above, I'll say that I can tension my Markins to support about + - 40 or 45 degree angles and still maintain a smooth sweetspot. I often tension it for about 30 degrees unless I know I am going further, and if I tension it light and then need to go to a more extreme angle, all I have to do is give the main control dial a small nudge to temporarily retension it as needed.

(constinued on next post. I talk too much)

--
Regards,
Neil

 

[NRothschild]

Now on to the A-S. The purpose of the elliptical ball is that it's net holding power actually increases as the angle changes. Think of an elliptical ball in a round holder. As you move it, it "wedges" itself more in place. That is not an accurate engineering description but it hopefully conveys the idea. I have played with A-S heads in the field, specifically looking at this issue, and it does perform impressively. However, for me personally it is somewhat a solution in search of a problem because, although all things equal the elliptical ball performs better, I just don't see this as a day to day problem in real life.

Here are a couple of interesting threads discussing A-S ballheads:

This guy bought an M20 and Z1 and returned the Z1:

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID15/16472.html

This guy couldn't find many comments on A-S heads. After a short exchange, the A-S users came out of the woodwork praising their heads:

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID15/16477.html

Good luck evaluating the relative merits of the two threads. You will see this when researching any of the heads. Sample variation? User variation? Your guess is as good as mine

--
Regards,
Neil

 

[ClaudioG]

Thank you again everybody for the helpful hints and explanations.

It seems that the Arca Swiss B1 or Z1 do not have a lot of supporters or detractors. I have to assume that it is a good product but the Markins ball heads have left a better impression on who had a chance to work with them.

BRJR threw a curved ball. He seems very happy with a Kirk ballhead.

Gosh... they all look so similar in design and features.

Between the M10 and M20, what the extra $50 gets you?

Neal you have them both, is it a big difference?

Thanks

--
ClaudioG

 

[furryberry711]

Thank you again everybody for the helpful hints and explanations.

It seems that the Arca Swiss B1 or Z1 do not have a lot of
supporters or detractors. I have to assume that it is a good
product but the Markins ball heads have left a better impression on
who had a chance to work with them.

BRJR threw a curved ball. He seems very happy with a Kirk ballhead.

Gosh... they all look so similar in design and features.

Between the M10 and M20, what the extra $50 gets you?

A slightly larger ball diameter.

 

[NRothschild]

What does the $50 for the M10 extra buy me?

1) Peace of mind that I have a bigger ballhead.

2) I think I see a difference with my longer lenses (300 2.8 a nd 500P). I think I pretend to see a difference on smaller lenses.

3) No regrets after the fact after reading all the posts extolling the virtues of an M20 because I bought an M20.

4) Room for growth. It should be a lifetime investment and you never know what glass lies in your future.

5) It looks better on a Gitzo 3 series, more balanced in size and weight. The M0 looks more at home on a 2 series, and I think my 1228 carries better with the M10 because it isn't as top heavy. Either head works well on a 2 series, meaning the M20 is not way too heavy or way too big, as I personally consider a BH-55 on those legs..

6) The M20 will perform better with any lens at extreme macro, especially a collarless 60 or especially 105mm class lens, and with a focusing rail.

I'm actually serious about all the above. There is a lot of obsession when it comes to high end support, as I'm sure you've seen in your research. A lot of this is just having mroe confidence when you are out shooting. Worrying about support gets old, fast.

When I first got the head, I put my 500P + TC14B on it and marvelled at how smooth it was. Then I swapped heads and honestly could not tell much if any difference after doing a quick A-B. One difference with my samples at least, is that the horizontal pan base of the M20 feels better; it is better damped. I have heard this from othersw who ownor owned at one time both. I have done some tests and I haven't found that there is an actual difference in performance based on images. It just feels better. In fact, although my M10 is what I would call a bit "loose" when the pan base is unlocked, it actually performs better unlocked than locked and so far appears to perform about the same as the M20. That was at 1/8s shutter speed using a remote without MLU, which is actually the worst way to consistently shoot a slow shutter speed image, but very good for vibration testing.

If money is an issue, don't hesitate to go with the M10; this all has to end somewhere. You can spend another $500 just spending another $50 here and there. If, OTOH, money is not a huge issue and you view it in the context of a $1000 investment in a support system, I think the $50 is well spent, especially with a 3 series class or larger leg set. Plus, for you, the M20 is in line with or less than most of the others on your shoirt list.

--
Regards,
Neil

 

[ClaudioG]

Ok I think I am sold on the Markins M20. I keep on reading very good things about it and I really appreciate all of you guys taking time to give advice.

Now the most difficult issue is to chose the proper legs.

It appears that several of you are very happy with the Gitzo. Good solid construction and lifetime warranty.

I would consider both the serie 2 or 3.

I was very impressed on the sturdiness of the aluminum legs my friend let me use but I have to say that lugging around the contraption for the 45 minutes hike we had to take to reach the lake, left a dent on my shoulder.

I would like something as sturdy but a little bit more manageable. Carbon fiber appears to be the natural choice and the 3 serie with a 3 element leg seems to be a good choice. I carry around my gear on a kata backpack. the thing is approx 17 lb already and I would not mind to shave some weight but I do not want to compromise in stability.

Again I like to photograph people, nature and interesting architecture and I tend to carry around my gear a lot.

I am 5 foot 11 so I need something of appropriate height.

What should I consider serie 2 or 3

Again any input is warmly appreciated.

--
ClaudioG

 

[yatesd399606]

I can only give you advise based on research, not first hand knowledge in this regard. But the 2530 seems to be the recommended match for most people with the M10 and the 3 series legs are normally matched to the M20.

From my thinking this seems about right. I essentially bought a 1 series knockoff (Induro A114) and have it paired with the Q3 and it matches up perfectly. I am very happy with my setup, but it is definitely limited to the lighter end.

--
Doug

 

[FrithjofA]

I own an M10 (almost 3 years now) and recently added an M20. I've
been very happy with my Markins heads. Any of the 4 heads will do
the job very well, and I doubt you will ever get a concensus that
one is better than the other.

I second Neils in detail review. I also a happy M10 owner and can recommend it for your setup. The is a compartibility issue with RRS ballhead clamps as addressed on their website. While theor plates are A-S compartible, ther clamps are not.

A Gitzo tripod would be the best and only choice 5-10 years ago. Nowadays you have strong competitive contenders. If you are adventerous , you might look into Benro tripods which allegingly manufacture the Gitzo carbon fiber legs nowadays . I bough one of those chinese legs and are very pleased with it. Another highly regard set of carbon fiber legs are made by Velbon, the Sherpa Pro CF 630/640 version. In the same stability range as the Gitzo 2 series and particularly usefull for field trips. The Gitzo 3 series is excellent but rememeber you have to carry them, too, if you do not have a sherpa working for you.

Frithjof

 

[FrithjofA]

From my thinking this seems about right. I essentially bought a 1

series knockoff (Induro A114)

yep, Berno markets their tripods now as Induro in the US. As I mentioned earlier, the are probably not Gitzo knockoffs since there has been a lot of evidence put forward in a german foto forum that Benro manufactures the carbon fiber and basalt legs which are then assembled in Italy in the Manfrotto factory, to be markeded as Gitzo by bogen-images, the distributer of the vitec group ( http://www.vitecgroup.com ), which owns Gitzo, Manfrotto, bogen-imaging.

 

[NRothschild]

Before I get into the legs discussion, here are a couple images to put a perspective on which head "fits" well with which legs.

Here is an M10 on a Series 2, with a Markins TB-20 base plate. I'd have to pull my stuff out to see how it fits with the standard Gitzo plate, and even then there could some changes between my G1228 and the current 25x0 series, aside from the switch fro a plastic to aluminum disk (a good nehancement IMHO):



Here is the M20 on the same legs:



Although the M10 fits perfectly, at least with the TB-20, the M20 also fits well, and is "elegently oversized", if at all. The difference to me is that the M20 weighs a few ounces more. I don't think those few ounces affect performance in use- not enough to make it top heavy, I do notice it a little when I am carrying the legs in one hand because of the way it balances. Not a big deal, and maybe I just need to adjust my grip; I rarely need to shoot the M20 on those legs.

--
Regards,
Neil

 

[NRothschild]

Ah... the eternal question. And this applies to any other legs since the Gitzo 2 and 3 series have some commmon brethern, regardless of who is knocking off who (that's an inside joke to another poster in this thread)

I have a G1228 and G1410. I wish I had something in between. I understand your concern about the metal legs you hiked- check the specs on the 1410

In general, you want to use the largest and heaviest legs you can carry. It's that simple. Making that call is tough, though. The ideal would be the 3 section 3 series 3530LSV for your height, but you might not want to tote that.

I've used my G1228 (2 series 4 section) and 70-200 quite often. A 2 series leg handles it pretty well. Gitzo has what I think is a very conservative rating system for their legs and they recommend up to 200mm lenses with the 2 series. Not sure if they mean film or DX sensor; I assume film, but I think their rating is conservative enough that that distinction isn't critical. Take that lens and add a TC, for 280mm, and you're pushing the envelope of what the legs can easily deliver. With a 2x TC, I would be more inclined to go with a 3 serries. I think getting maximum results from a 400+mm lens is serious business and deserves all the support you can muster.

On a windy day, you may not be happy with a 2 series, you will wish you either had a 3 serries or maybe a concrete block.

I have shot my G1228 with a 300 2.8 AFS II, with TC's. You don't want to do that at slow shutter speeds on a windy day, but in better conditions I got by. I'm much more comfortable with the 1410, but if I have to be on the move all day, I'm taking the 1228, knowing there may be some images I can't get or won't get the quality I want. The 2 and 3 series has been updated twice since I got my legs; I have no way to evaluate the relative benefits of the newer 6X Glock features. I just assume the new stuff is better at the margins than mine.

In the 2 series, you should stick with a 3 section vs 4 section. That was my one mistake, possibly, although my 4 section G1228 is a pleasure to carry.

You now have some interesting alternatives to the traditional 1227/1228 and 1325 options. You could get a 3540S (57.5" max height), which is only 0.7LB heavier than a 2530 and 3" shorter. It is the same folded length as my G1228. Since it is 57" tall, I'm not sure where Gitzo came up with an extra 6 inches in the same 22" folded length. Hopefully my spec sheet is accurate.

With the 3540 verses 2530, you trade off the 4th section for generally bigger legs and it may be that 4th section of a 3 series isn't all that much thinner than the 3rd section of a 2 series. It would be interesting to get actual measurements of the respective final leg sections. In any event, I think it would be very interesting to shoot off a 2530 against a 3540S.

If it were me, planning on doing a lot of hiking with that lens, and thinking about maybe a larger lens in the future, and I were starting over, I would very seriously look at the 3540S because I think Gitzo was trying to thread a needle between the old 2 and 3 series portability vs stability choices and they very well may have hit a home run with it. In the good ole days, you really needed two leg sets, especially with longer lenses. Today that may not be the case.

Not having had a chance to work with the new models, I can't say how, for example, a 3540S will perform against a 2530, but not knowing any more, my money would be on the 3540. Plus, in bad conditions, you just have to drop down and pull in the lower legs, or do whatever you need to do to get the shot. I've done a lot of shooting sitting down, with the G1228 sitting on just the top legs, more or less splayed across my lap. Very stable platform in that configuration.

--
Regards,
Neil

 

[NRothschild]

Frithjof,

I'd be interesested in your thoughts on my suggestion (and reasoning) below to look at the 3540S.

--
Regards,
Neil

 

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

It seems that the Arca Swiss B1 or Z1 do not have a lot of
supporters or detractors.

Quite the contrary. Arca Swiss B1 owners rave about it. Even their competitors respect it, say good things about it, and compare themselves to the AS B1. When you consider it's age, you have to admit they got a lot of things right.

Yes, lots of Markins owners are very vocal about their choice. At times, they seem almost defensive of the product, perhaps because it comes from Asia. But it looks like a really great product, and would be a great choice.

I considered the Markins, RRS, Kirk and Arcatech and decided on an Arca Swiss B1. It's smooth, has a huge number of accessories (many from competitors) and is rock solid. But the best part is the eliptical ball.

Sometimes I like to run the ball a bit loose. If I drop the camera, the AS eliptical ball gets tight and prevents damage. All the others will let it drop.

Arca Swiss is actually a camera manufacturer. They make 4x5 view camera, and they designed the B1 to support that. My tiny D200 is easily supported. Nuff said.

 

[yatesd399606]

And to build off these pictures, here is an example of the Q3 with a 1 series size tripod:





--
Doug