Gahnix wrote:
Paul linked to Really Big Cameras in post # 7 above. They list the price without the RAL but i'm not sure if one can actually purchase them without.
Really Big Cameras lists the price with and without the RAL legs for the Feisol tripods. In the case of the CT-3442 I purchased from them, I paid $90 extra for the RAL legs and I am very glad I did. I have been using Manfrottos with lever clamps and I really like the rotating locks - much faster at least for me.
I got a feisol ct3441s tripod and I love mine. The weight capacity is greater than any of my gears and very sturdy. I did so much researched and wasn't going to overpay for gitzo. I too purchased mine from reallybigcameras and this might be my only tripod I will ever need. The quality is excellent and will last awhile. My is a traditional legs without RAL. Works just fine without RAL.
I originally bought a Photo Clam pc 36n ball head from RBC. I loved it but returned it.
My current set up is 5d2 with grip , 24-70, 70-200 2.8.
I suggest you contact Kerry so he can advise you on a proper tripod and ball head.
Thanks for all the help guys, I really appreciate it.
The Feisol stuff looks great and I'm definitely leaning in that direction. I'll send Kerry an e-mail and request a shipping quote to Canada. There are a few Canadian Feisol dealers so I'll need to do some looking.
I did a little more research on the ball heads and checked out the Markins Q3T. I really don't think I can go wrong between the BH-40 and the Q3T -- it seems like a trade off between a slightly smoother ballhead (Q3T) or a better panning clamp (BH-40). I guess I just need to make a decision
PSBaxter wrote:
I am 5' 11 1/2" and the CT-3442 with the center column kit is almost too tall for me - legs fully extended, center column collapsed with my BH-40 ball head.mounted. It is just right without the center column but I like having the column. The column adds about 2 1/2 inches.
I am about an inch shorter than you so this is very relevant to me. I was thinking about the 3301/3401 without the center column (to start at least) and was wondering if it would be too short. The 3301 has the same max height as the 3442 (without the center column) and the 3401 is only a couple inches shorter. Any particular reason you went with the 3442 over the 3401?
Gahnix wrote:
I did a little more research on the ball heads and checked out the Markins Q3T. I really don't think I can go wrong between the BH-40 and the Q3T -- it seems like a trade off between a slightly smoother ballhead (Q3T) or a better panning clamp (BH-40). I guess I just need to make a decision
The Markins panning knob is by design a brake rather than a lock. The design helps in dampening vibration according to the company. The BH-40 and Q3T are both very good so it's really a personal choice.
Remember to add the height of your camera and ball head. I have the 5Dc gripped and am planning on getting the giottos MH1300-657 which adds another 10". Even though it will be below eye level it will be tall enough for me (without the center column). There are a few advantages of the 3442 though. It is water resistant and can fold back over the ballhead to make it shorter.
Gahnix wrote:
Thanks for all the help guys, I really appreciate it.
The Feisol stuff looks great and I'm definitely leaning in that direction. I'll send Kerry an e-mail and request a shipping quote to Canada. There are a few Canadian Feisol dealers so I'll need to do some looking.
I did a little more research on the ball heads and checked out the Markins Q3T. I really don't think I can go wrong between the BH-40 and the Q3T -- it seems like a trade off between a slightly smoother ballhead (Q3T) or a better panning clamp (BH-40). I guess I just need to make a decision ...Show more →
The CT-3442 is a traveler type tripod and the legs fold upwards folding around the head. The RRS BH-40 I have is too large for this. Since, I prefer to remove the head and keep it in a pouch while travelling it is not a problem for me. It woulf fold around a Kirk BH-3 head. these are the only two I coukd test. Kerry Thalmann at Really Big cameras told me this would be the case.
PSBaxter wrote:
The CT-3442 is a traveler type tripod and the legs fold upwards folding around the head. The RRS BH-40 I have is too large for this. Since, I prefer to remove the head and keep it in a pouch while travelling it is not a problem for me. It woulf fold around a Kirk BH-3 head. these are the only two I coukd test. Kerry Thalmann at Really Big cameras told me this would be the case.
Is the base of the ballhead to big for the CT-3442?
Makaveli6103 wrote:
Oh ok. That's a good thing to keep in mind when getting a head.
One thin I did not mention. The Feisol comes with a really nice bag. Folded with the BH-40 as shown, the tripod will not fit in the bag. I don't use the bag so no problem for me.
I love my BH-40. I found the Markins heads a little fiddly - didn't like the tension adjustment, but that is just me.
I think you'll struggle to stay in the $500 budget - it is why Thom wrote the article. I went with the Gitzo 2531 and it is terrific. I looked at the Suiri tripods at CES and they seem very good, but I can't really comment on their durability or customer support (thought Manfrotto/Gitzo apparently have terrible customer support these days...).
Went thru same process before, so I know how you feel, not wanting to cheap out, but want something good...Well, I just went for the best I could afford and never regretted. I ended up with Gitzo 2541 and Arca Swiss Z1. Total weight about 5lbs. Sounds like a heavy setup, but trust me, I'm a small guy, but depends on how far you hike, I think you'll get used to the weight like me....and like I said, never regretted buying the best and keep for long time. So far, used it at death valley sand dunes, sea water areas, rain, mud, etc... no issue, minimal maintenance, still functioning like new both of these items are rock solid. Cheap out and you'll regret it. My gear is not light either, I used 1ds3 with 70-200 f2.8 with no issue, but that is the heaviest combo that I have...dont want to carry anything heavier than that on long hike anyway and not in bird/animal photography...yet. Hope it helps.
No, it filts on the head perfect for normal use. It is when you reverse fold the legs for the most compact configuration for travel that there is a problem. Basically, the legs fold up so that the feet are above the head enclosing the head. You first extend the center colum all the way up and the fold the legs up. The problem with the BH-40 in this cofiguration is the bulge on the back that has the clamp and tension knobs. it will not allow the legs to fold all the way.
I took 2 quick pics - forgive the quality. One shows the BH-40 in normal usage mode. The other shows the tripod reverse folded and you can see that the legs do not quite get to parallel....Show more →
Thanks for the pictures, I also did not know this. I was under the impression that the BH-40 would fit with the legs folded over backwards so its a good thing you brought this up. One other question -- If I get the 3442 without the center column, do the legs still fold over the head or would I need to purchase the additional center column to get this functionality?
Anybody order one of the Photoclam Ballheads to go along with the Feisol legs? I did a bit of research and it looks like the build quality on these are very similar to the Markins. Check this thread for reference.
Im thinking the PC-36N may be a great alternative to the QT3 Markins head.
There is no real reason to leave the BH-40 (or any BH) on a pod when traveling. The BH-40 takes about 30 seconds to remove/replace and comes with a sturdy travel pouch that will hold the BH and clamp.
Gahnix wrote:
If I get the 3442 without the center column, do the legs still fold over the head or would I need to purchase the additional center column to get this functionality?
If there's no center column then the ballhead sits directly on the base plate. Depending on the width of the head you might be able to fold the legs back but it's likely an impractical proposition.
Gahnix wrote:
Anybody order one of the Photoclam Ballheads to go along with the Feisol legs? I did a bit of research and it looks like the build quality on these are very similar to the Markins. Check this thread for reference. Im thinking the PC-36N may be a great alternative to the QT3 Markins head.
Similar is the word. I bought the PC-33NS for a travel tripod but sent it back and bought a second Q3T. Nice ballhead but not up to the Q3T. The PC-36N would be the same, smaller diameter ball (36 vs 38mm) and all other things being equal I'd always go for the larger diameter ball.
Similar is the word. I bought the PC-33NS for a travel tripod but sent it back and bought a second Q3T. Nice ballhead but not up to the Q3T. The PC-36N would be the same, smaller diameter ball (36 vs 38mm) and all other things being equal I'd always go for the larger diameter ball.
Hi Peter. Can you elaborate on the "not up to the Q3T" comment? In what way was it worse aside from the ball being smaller? Do you think you would notice much of a difference between the PC-36N and the Q3T? If so, what would those differences be?
