Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Tripod and Ball Head for Nikon D3 and 70-200 f/2.8

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
John Smith - 28 May 2008 20:44 GMT
Hi all,

I'd like to get some advice for a Gitzo Carbon Fiber tripod and center ball
head for my Nikon D3 and lenses, the heaviest being my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8.

I'd like it sturdy, but as light as reasonably possible (that's why I've
decided on Carbon Fiber). I'm not interested in Basalt.

I've long used a Gitzo 320 (now a 1320) and Bogen 3039 head for both my
Large Format system and my 35mm/DSLR needs. They both work wonderfully, but
I'd like something significantly lighter.  I believe my current 320/3039
combo weighs in about 11.2 lbs.

Thanks for any advice you may be able to provide.
Floyd L. Davidson - 29 May 2008 01:12 GMT
>Hi all,
>
>I'd like to get some advice for a Gitzo Carbon Fiber tripod and center ball
>head for my Nikon D3 and lenses, the heaviest being my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8.

Is that always going to be your high end limit for
weight?  Or might someday want to hold up something that
puts more of a load on the tripod?

>I'd like it sturdy, but as light as reasonably possible (that's why I've
>decided on Carbon Fiber). I'm not interested in Basalt.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>I'd like something significantly lighter.  I believe my current 320/3039
>combo weighs in about 11.2 lbs.

A G1320 is rated for a 22 pound load.

If you are willing to go for less, the GT1530 and
GT1540, each of which weighs 2.4 pounds) are rated for
17.6 pound loads.  These are adequate for a D3 with a
70-200mm lense, but not much more, and not rock solid.
But it only weighs 2.4 pounds too!

The next up options are tripods that are rated for 26.4
pound loads.  The GT2530 and GT2540 weigh 3.1 pounds.

Oddly the GT1530/40 models are longer (at their
shortest, and when folded, and when fully extended) than
the GT2530/40 models.  If you travel, or have some other
space considerations, the heavier GT2530/40 models might
be better.  If your primary consideration is shedding
weight, the GT1330/40 are 0.7 pounds lighter.

The GT3530 adds another 1.5 pound of weight (4.6 lbs),
but is rated for a 39.6 pound load (which means it is
rock solid with a D3+flash and the largest lense on it).
Its dimensions are close to the GT2530 model, so the
only real consideration with this model is probably
weight and load capacity.

The GT5530 models are up there in the 6 pound category,
with a load rating of 55 pounds.  It almost certainly is
out of the running.

Signature

Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

John Smith - 29 May 2008 19:33 GMT
Thank you Floyd for your thoughtful and thorough reply!

For the foreseeable future, the 70-200 is my upper limit. I'm disabled and
the monster 500mm and 600mm lenses, while seductive, just aren't practical
for me. Besides even if I did get one of those, it would probably be for
shooting birds at a local wildlife sanctuary or on the sidelines of my
nephew's football game, and for those settings, I already have a nice
monopod.

So I think my D3 and 70-200 is about my upper end weight limit. They come to
just under 6 lbs, so my weight demands aren't that great.  What I do want is
quality and sturdiness.  Backpacking is not really an option for me, so I
don't need super-light weight nor extremely small size when collapsed. I'm a
car camera kind of guy. <s>

I'm 6'3" so sufficient height of the tripod and head setup is important - so
that I don't have to crane my neck down to see the viewfinder. And ease of
switching from horizontal to vertical perspectives is important (I don't
know how that works in ball heads because I've always used the 3039
3-handle, 3-way system).  I've heard that ball heads can be sloppy, and move
all over the place when you want to make minor adjustments, so the ball head
must be solid, smooth, and capable of making fine adjustments in any of the
three directions.

Thanks again Floyd for your kind reply.
John

>>Hi all,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> with a load rating of 55 pounds.  It almost certainly is
> out of the running.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.