 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / December 2006Tripod for MF
I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all the tradeoffs involved. But I thought I'd get some ideas on this. All I have at the moment is a Benbo Trecker used for 35mm work. And it's really not the ideal thing for a Mamiya RZ67 with motordrive and maybe a big lens... The solution needs to be portable for outside use, and stowable in a domestic situation. I am the sort of person who is prepared to lug an RZ, so can tolerate a bit of weight. Also what head should I put with this? Recommendations welcome. Steve >I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods > come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prepared to lug an RZ, so can tolerate a bit of weight. Also what > head should I put with this? Recommendations welcome. The Velbon 730 (which I use with 645, Mamiya 7, and the 5D) is kind of overkill for those but probably only barely adequate for RZ67 with motor drive and big lens. Leave the motor drive off and it'd probably be OK. The Velbon 730 + Kirk head is stowable in my tiny Japanese abode. If you can afford the cost and weight and bulk if the Velbon 830, I'd consider that if you are serious about the motor drive. But the 830 really is a monster. The Really Right Stuff BH-55 looks good to me... http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/ballheads/index.html (Between already having a Kirk head, the BH-55 being noticeably heavier than the Kirk head, and the BH-55 being a tad pricey, I haven't sprung for the BH-55. But I'm tempted.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >If you can afford the cost and weight and bulk if the Velbon 830, I'd >consider that if you are serious about the motor drive. But the 830 really >is a monster. > >The Really Right Stuff BH-55 looks good to me... The Velbon looks great. That head I'd have to get shipped from the US, looks cool though, wonder if an international order is worth doing, or whether a bigger company type product could be as good... Steve >>If you can afford the cost and weight and bulk if the Velbon 830, I'd >>consider that if you are serious about the motor drive. But the 830 really [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > looks cool though, wonder if an international order is worth doing, or > whether a bigger company type product could be as good... I've ordered a lot of stuff from RRS and have no problems. They make good stuff. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods >come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >prepared to lug an RZ, so can tolerate a bit of weight. Also what >head should I put with this? Recommendations welcome. No-one would ever get fired for buying a Bogen/Manfrotto 5021 Pro. Outside the USA, it is known as the Manfrotto 055 Pro. Superbly strong and rigid, yet surprisingly light, this is a fine tripod that is more than man enough for the job of supporting an RZ. It will last you many years if treated well. Don't be tempted to get anything heavier because the weight and bulk will be a big disincentive to using it. As for the tripod head, this is such an intensely personal decision that it is difficult to make a recommendation. Your first choice is between a ball head and a 3-way head. If you choose a 3-way head there are also geared versions whose fine adjustment is superb for product photography in the studio and for landscapes. Best advice is to take your camera and lens to a good photo store and try as many different heads as you can. Whichever type and brand of head you buy, make sure you get a quick release version, or add a quick release kit later. >No-one would ever get fired for buying a Bogen/Manfrotto 5021 Pro. >Outside the USA, it is known as the Manfrotto 055 Pro. At 6kg, this weighs in at twice the weight of the Velbon 830 mentioned here. I'm just wondering if that extra weight gives returns, and am not ruling this out. Would appreciate any comments on the relative merits of these two contenders, can lug 6kg if I have to :-) Steve >>No-one would ever get fired for buying a Bogen/Manfrotto 5021 Pro. >>Outside the USA, it is known as the Manfrotto 055 Pro. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >not ruling this out. Would appreciate any comments on the relative >merits of these two contenders, can lug 6kg if I have to :-) A carbon fibre tripod is certainly easier to carry, but weight saved is stability lost. Any tripod offers two things; rigidity and stability. Rigidity is defined by the ability of the tripod to retain its geometry while resisting external forces. Stability is defined by the ability of the tripod to resist toppling by external forces such as wind or you stumbling into it. Carbon fibre tripods are potentially very rigid - potentially even more rigid than alloy tube tripods. But their lack of weight means that the overall centre of gravity of the camera/lens/tripod combination is much higher than when using a heavier tripod. You can put this weight back by hanging your camera bag on a hook under the tripod head. However, stability is not always fully restored because the camera bag is not a rigid component of the camera/lens/tripod combination. It can swing, and that reduces overall stability of the system. So you trade some stability for the reduction in weight. All depends whether low weight is more important to you, but didn't you say at the outset that it wasn't? Long experience of Velbon products over the last 35 years would also cause me to take the greatest care before ever buying another one! >>>No-one would ever get fired for buying a Bogen/Manfrotto 5021 Pro. >>>Outside the USA, it is known as the Manfrotto 055 Pro. I'm not familiar with this particular tripod, so I'm not arguing. >>At 6kg, this weighs in at twice the weight of the Velbon 830 mentioned >>here. I'm just wondering if that extra weight gives returns, and am >>not ruling this out. Would appreciate any comments on the relative >>merits of these two contenders, can lug 6kg if I have to :-) The Manfrotto 055 Pro _weighs_ 2.4 kg, and will _hold_ 6kg. The Velbon 730, at 2.3 kg, is in the same weight class. The 830 is 3.05 kg. > A carbon fibre tripod is certainly easier to carry, but weight saved > is stability lost. Yep. When I went looking to replace my cheap metal tripod (Slik 300DX, not all that bad a tripod, actually, but too short), my conclusion was also that saving weight with CF was a bad idea. On the other hand, if you look for a CF tripod in a similar weight class to the metal/wood tripod you are using, you get a much nicer tripod. > Any tripod offers two things; rigidity and stability. Rigidity is > defined by the ability of the tripod to retain its geometry while > resisting external forces. Stability is defined by the ability of the > tripod to resist toppling by external forces such as wind or you > stumbling into it. Yep, again. My Kirk head has a nasty ding in it where the wind blew over the tripod while I was changing lenses. Oops. > Carbon fibre tripods are potentially very rigid - potentially even > more rigid than alloy tube tripods. But their lack of weight means [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > camera/lens/tripod combination. It can swing, and that reduces > overall stability of the system. The Velbon tripods have a triangular hammock that hooks onto each leg, and thus doesn't swing. The product might be usefull with other tripods, since it uses velcro bands to provide loops on the legs for the snaps on the hammock. > So you trade some stability for the reduction in weight. All depends > whether low weight is more important to you, but didn't you say at the > outset that it wasn't? > > Long experience of Velbon products over the last 35 years would also > cause me to take the greatest care before ever buying another one! Velbon products do get bad press in the English-speaking net. And I am seriously unimpressed with their 630 and lighter tripods, even for 30D/5D class dSLRs. But I really like the 730 and 830 legsets. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >The Manfrotto 055 Pro _weighs_ 2.4 kg, and will _hold_ 6kg. The Velbon 730, >at 2.3 kg, is in the same weight class. The 830 is 3.05 kg. Ooops thanks for that correction, my misread. Reading this debate with interest! Steve > >>No-one would ever get fired for buying a Bogen/Manfrotto > >>5021 Pro. Outside the USA, it is known as the Manfrotto [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > camera/lens/tripod combination. It can swing, and that reduces > overall stability of the system. One answer to this is not to let the bag swing free in the air. Put it on the ground and then run some elastic shock cord from bag to tripod apex, tight, but not tight enough to lift the bag. Peter >One answer to this is not to let the bag swing free in the air. Put it on >the ground and then run some elastic shock cord from bag to tripod apex, >tight, but not tight enough to lift the bag. That's a good idea. Personally, I just take the heavier tripod. It isn't *that* heavy, and it has more weight where it is most needed - low down. >Long experience of Velbon products over the last 35 years would also >cause me to take the greatest care before ever buying another one! December 5, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, I wasn't going to enter into it, but I must agree. Velbon took my money in the late sixties and I was so impressed I have spat on the ground at the sound of their name ever since. I'm sure they have improved ever so much since they realized their mistake... The money I spent on wrong tripods over the years would have paid twice for the correct tripod I finally acquired (a nice heavy Gitzo). They make light ones, too. The wrong ones included Star-D, Slik, Davis and Sanford (might have spelling wrong), among others. I was a sucker for a long time. I'm sure my remarks are obsolete by now, and all these outfits have great quality control and customer relations. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- >>No-one would ever get fired for buying a Bogen/Manfrotto 5021 Pro. >>Outside the USA, it is known as the Manfrotto 055 Pro. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not ruling this out. Would appreciate any comments on the relative > merits of these two contenders, can lug 6kg if I have to :-) The Velbon 830 is 3.3 kg or so (if memory serves) _without_ the head. Toss in the RRS head I recommended, and you'll be very close to 6kg. The Velbon 830 is a _serious_ monster and, including the head, will probably set you back over US$1,000. The Velbon 730 will a more frugal head (combined with losing the motor drive) is a more sensible (although still seriously pricey) approach. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan When I was testing hiking pods for Pentax 67 duty, I came upon an affordable combo that has worked well on the P67 up to my longest optic, a 200mm. A Gitzo 1320 Reporter topped by a Bogen 3047 head. I also have a Rationale 3 head that works about as well but isn't as handy or quick. I won't bore you with the testing details here, but I spent quite a bit of time testing rigs and this was the best solution that I found that didn't break the bank. The used prices aren't too high for this gear. It weighs about 8.5 pounds and I didn't find any lighter combos that truly controlled the weird vibes of the P67 at all speeds (I didn't test CF rigs, though). > I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods > come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve >When I was testing hiking pods for Pentax 67 duty, I came >upon an affordable combo that has worked well on the P67 up >to my longest optic, a 200mm. A Gitzo 1320 Reporter topped >by a Bogen 3047 head. Thanks for that recommendation, sounds like it's based on a lot of experience, considering it against the rest for sure. Steve Oops.... I meant to type Studex and was thinking of the Reporter series for some reason and only realized it as I read your response just now! >> When I was testing hiking pods for Pentax 67 duty, I came >> upon an affordable combo that has worked well on the P67 up [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve >Oops.... I meant to type Studex and was thinking of the >Reporter series for some reason and only realized it as I >read your response just now! No worries, thanks for the correction! Steve > I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods > come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve Benbo Mk 1. >> I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods >> come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Benbo Mk 1. If you want a tripod: that doesn't go very high, but is still surprisingly large and bulky when telescoped right down; that is heavy and cumbersome, without being especially sturdy; that will deposit you, your expensive camera and your expensive lens unceremoniously in a tangled heap on the ground (or in the muddy water) as a result of a nanosecond's lost concentration; whose operation is like wrestling with bagpipes; ... then the Benbo Mk 1 is exactly the tripod you need! >>> I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods >>> come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Come on Tony. Don't be shy. Tell us what you *really* think about it. ;-D >Come on Tony. Don't be shy. Tell us what you *really* think about it. ;-D :-) I'm assuming the Benbo Mk1 works a little like the trecker thing I have. I really don't know that I like that weird locking joint thing it has. Certainly using an RZ on it was a slightly nerve making experience, when you undo that lock lever anything can happen :-0. I got some shots anyway, mono, home developed, as advised here. Way to go, just need a better tripod. Steve >>>> I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods >>>> come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Come on Tony. Don't be shy. Tell us what you *really* think about it. ;-D Well, I have owned two Benbo Mk 1 tripods, plus a Benbo Mk 4, which is a very short version of the Mk 1, plus a Benbo Trekker, plus a Benbo Trekker 2. I bought one of them, the others came with whole outfits I bought mainly for other items. They are all abominations. ;-) >>>>> I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods >>>>> come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > They are all abominations. ;-) I have a Uni-lock System 1700 which I believe is the original design Benbo bought. It's a usable tripod under some situations, but I wouldn't try to use it as my primary tripod. >I have a Uni-lock System 1700 which I believe is the original design >Benbo bought. It's a usable tripod under some situations, but I wouldn't >try to use it as my primary tripod. Yes, it is the same design. >If you want a tripod: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >... then the Benbo Mk 1 is exactly the tripod you need! December 5, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, It's funny, but tripods are a pretty intense subject, eh? I've never used a Benbo, but I recognize the depth of feeling. A number of names could be slipped into your last sentence ... regards, --le > Benbo Mk 1. The Benbo came from the design of an old machine-gun mount. In the same literature of military arms there are articles extolling the desirability of a strong, but unstable platform which encourages a 'spray' of bullets rather than an rather singular path. The Benbo design facilitated just that. So, Benbo for those who want a bit of inconsistency and trouble. IMHO it's a very limited platform. > I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods > come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prepared to lug an RZ, so can tolerate a bit of weight. Also what > head should I put with this? Recommendations welcome. I use a Manfrotto 055MF3 "Magfibre" (3 carbon fibre leg sections) with a geared head (410) for a Hasselblad 500 C/M with normal and 150mm lens. It's an great overall combo. With the RZ67, motor drive, large lens it might be a bit on the light side. Best to try before you buy. Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods > come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve I like the Bogen 3021 legs with 488RC2 ball head. >I like the Bogen 3021 legs with 488RC2 ball head. Thanks again, yet another combo that appears to work well. I can see there is rather more than one way to skin this cat, as I sort of suspected. Steve > I know this is a "how long is a piece of string question", as tripods > come in an infinite variety of size/weight/cost variations with all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > am the sort of person who is prepared to lug an RZ, so can > tolerate a bit of weight. The carbon fibre Gitzo 1325 is my choice for MF. I have lighter 'pods, and I have a massive aluminium Gitzo 5 series for when I need the height, but the 1325 gets the most use. I also have a Manfrotto 075 - this is a very good tripod too, but I really do prefer the Gitzo, especially in the field, so the Manfrotto is used more often in the studio, on a dolly. > Also what head should I put with this? Recommendations > welcome. Do you like a pan and tilt, or a ball head? The set-up I have on my 1325 for at least 95% of the time is a Gitzo levelling base topped by an Arca-Swiss B1. The Arca is a superb head, but they are expensive (and heavy). The levelling base may or may not be useful to you in addition: for me it lets me get the panning base of the head levelled quickly without messing about with fine-tuning leg heights - something you may not necessarily need, but I like it. Peter >The carbon fibre Gitzo 1325 is my choice for MF. I have lighter 'pods, and >I have a massive aluminium Gitzo 5 series for when I need the height, but >the 1325 gets the most use. I also have a Manfrotto 075 - this is a very >good tripod too, but I really do prefer the Gitzo, especially in the field, >so the Manfrotto is used more often in the studio, on a dolly. I also have an 075 in the studio. I would never take it out without an assistant - it is a brute of a thing to carry along with MF gear. >Do you like a pan and tilt, or a ball head? The set-up I have on my 1325 >for at least 95% of the time is a Gitzo levelling base topped by an >Arca-Swiss B1. The Arca is a superb head, but they are expensive (and >heavy). I have to say I've preferred pan and tilt based on my admitedly limited past experience. The ball head I had for the Benbo seemed to suddenly go badly loose as I slackened it off for say a small horizontal pan adjustment. I can see an argument for having the two axes separate. Though I've not used a top-grade ball head as recommended here. Wonder if things can be better. >The levelling base may or may not be useful to you in addition: for me it >lets me get the panning base of the head levelled quickly without messing >about with fine-tuning leg heights - something you may not necessarily need, >but I like it. I see that point. Messing with leg heights is a pain, will consider this, thanks. Steve > >Do you like a pan and tilt, or a ball head? The set-up I have on my > >1325 for at least 95% of the time is a Gitzo levelling base topped [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > axes separate. Though I've not used a top-grade ball head as > recommended here. Wonder if things can be better. I had a Benbo head (still do, but not using it) and it is not a brilliant ball-head, though better than some. Mine improved a lot after I dismantled it and cleaned and re-lubricated the ball, but it still wasn't that wonderful. Making a good ball-head requires much better, and more complex, engineering than making a pan and tilt. This means that an expensive pan and tilt head is (hopefully) better than a cheaper one but not fundamentally _different_ to it. A cheap ball-head, however, is nothing at all like a really good one. For this reason I always say to people who are limiting their budget that they should try to work with a pan and tilt, because a cheap one can be OK, whereas a cheap ball-head is just a pain. At higher price levels you see what a ball-head is really able to do: for a long time I thought I didn't like ball-heads - then I tried a good one and realised what I'd been missing. As to which to use, it is down to personal preference and shooting style. I prefer the compactness and speed of a ball-head for much of my landscape work and when travelling, and will even put my lightweight 4x5 on it. But for architecture, high macro, and most studio type work I prefer a pan and tilt. My heavier 4x5 and my larger cameras never go on a ball head, not because I don't think the Arca would take the weight, but because they'd be awkward to operate on it: a geared head is best for this, and I have an ancient Majestic to do this job in the studio. > >The levelling base may or may not be useful to you in addition: for > >me it lets me get the panning base of the head levelled quickly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I see that point. Messing with leg heights is a pain, will consider > this, thanks. Something else nice about Gitzo's levelling base is that it uses a lever tightener for the screw that holds the head to it. This makes it much easier to take the head off and re-fit it or swap between heads. This can be good for travelling, to remove and protect the head. I use it when teaching too: I whip the head off, put on a Manfrotto projector table, and the tripod becomes a very sturdey and very quickly levelled projector stand for slides, without me having to carry much extra weight over the tripod which I'd have with me anyway. I sometimes use the Arca with a Wimberley sidekick, and that is another time that being able to level the panning base of the head quickly is very convenient. Peter >> I have to say I've preferred pan and tilt based on my admitedly >> limited past experience. The ball head I had for the Benbo seemed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >to it. A cheap ball-head, however, is nothing at all like a really good >one. This is really useful background thanks. I see the Arca-Swiss B1 is available locally (Robert White) and that's a plus point. Think that could be the choice of head, be interesting to try a quality ball head. Just considering the various options they offer now, there is quite a bit of choice available within the B1 range... In fact I'm quite overwhelmed by the detail, camera systems seem almost simpler by comparison, I can see this area is taken seriously by pro users for sure. Steve >This is really useful background thanks. I see the Arca-Swiss B1 is >available locally (Robert White) and that's a plus point. Think that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >comparison, I can see this area is taken seriously by pro users for >sure. There is a good reason why it is taken so seriously. You have set up your equipment, and you are almost ready to make the shot. But before you shoot, you need to adjust the tripod head slightly ... this is where quality tells. An inadequate ball head will come very loose (Whoops!) and you will have to start all over again. A good ball head will allow you to make fine adjustments without the risk of unwanted large ones. Consistent, fine control of friction between the ball and housing is what you pay for. And the best ball heads are very much more expensive than heads that look much the same, but don't deliver. The Arca B1 is probably the best available. For those who are prepared to pay the price, it is extremely predictable and makes fine adjustments easier than with almost any other head. But it is extremely expensive. Buying used might appear a good option, however there was a problem when Arca ramped up production to meet demand. They moved to a new factory and produced the heads at a much faster rate. The Arca heads from this period have an annoying tendency to lock up completely. Of course, these are the ones you will find over-represented on eBay. People with Arca heads generally don't sell them, because there is really nothing better to upgrade to. So buy new if you can. >An inadequate ball head will come very loose (Whoops!) and you will >have to start all over again. This has been my experience of tripod photography to date. It spoils the experience. I can now see there is a way forward. >Of course, these are the ones you will find over-represented on eBay. >People with Arca heads generally don't sell them, because there is >really nothing better to upgrade to. So buy new if you can. Will do, I see the argument to do so for something potentially prone to wear like a ball head. I think the Arca head will be worth the stretch cost-wise, last a lifetime of amateur use I guess. (Hmm, reflecting, this week someone asked me to photograph her daughter, how long does an amateur doing people stuff in a public context get allowed to stay amateur, I wonder). Steve >>An inadequate ball head will come very loose (Whoops!) and you will >>have to start all over again. > >This has been my experience of tripod photography to date. It spoils >the experience. I can now see there is a way forward. Indeed. >Will do, I see the argument to do so for something potentially prone >to wear like a ball head. I think the Arca head will be worth the >stretch cost-wise, last a lifetime of amateur use I guess. If you can afford the high first cost, it will certainly last you many years and you know there will probably never be anything significantly better. The best other manufacturers will be able to do is equal the quality of the Arca. >(Hmm, reflecting, this week someone asked me to photograph her >daughter, how long does an amateur doing people stuff in a public >context get allowed to stay amateur, I wonder). You are still officially an "amateur" until you earn more from your photography than from your day job, according to insurers. ;-) [SNIP] > You are still officially an "amateur" until you earn more from your > photography than from your day job, according to insurers. ;-) And, as the OP seems to be in the UK, one could add that the NUJ and the BIPP take the same line. Peter >You are still officially an "amateur" until you earn more from your >photography than from your day job, according to insurers. ;-) In that case I think my status is secure for the foresable ;-). Steve > Of course, these are the ones you will find over-represented on eBay. > People with Arca heads generally don't sell them, because there is > really nothing better to upgrade to. So buy new if you can. Too bad you haven't tried a Classic Ball 3 or 5 from Novoflex. But then, with all inclusive statements like yours there are many others you probably haven't tried either. For instance the Burzynski. There is no single best head, single best tripod, single best car, single best anything. There may be the best that you have tried and decided on but that by no means is the best for everyone. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > > Of course, these are the ones you will find over-represented on eBay. > > People with Arca heads generally don't sell them, because there is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with all inclusive statements like yours there are many others you > probably haven't tried either. For instance the Burzynski. Second your view. I remember a Russia made ball head, brand name Sput-somthing. It's like a three finger palm holding a big ball that is much larger than anything I've seen, and yet is very light and very strong. I wondered if the ball is empty inside. The increased size of the ball helps it it make firm. I should have bought that, but at that time I held off because of the concern on the quality and uniformity of anything made near the north pole circle. Do you know anything about that? where can I still find it? what about the Burzynski you mentioned, how is it performance, quality, etc. > There is no single best head, single best tripod, single best car, > single best anything. There may be the best that you have tried and > decided on but that by no means is the best for everyone. [SNIP] > This is really useful background thanks. I see the Arca-Swiss B1 is > available locally (Robert White) and that's a plus point. Think that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > simpler by comparison, I can see this area is taken seriously by pro > users for sure. The question of which version of the Arca to buy came up on here some while ago and I wrote a longish reply. If that would be helpful you could Google for it, or if you can't find it ask and I'll re-post it. Peter |
Reply to this Message |
 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.