This is proving to be a fantastic lightweight combo for hiking and camping. Nobody needs another review of either I'm sure, but I will say that both are exceptionally easy to use. Which is good, because I hate having to "think" about my gear (I'm looking at you Canon, with your poorly placed buttons and controls). My only real gripe so far is the rotating legs. I love being able to just grab all 3 locks and twist; however, a specific order is required when locking/unlocking the Feisol. Not a deal breaker, but I would be willing to give up another few ounces to see this changed.
I've included a few pics so that folks can see how the 3442 can be reverse folded over the BH-3...just barely. Maybe not a big deal to some, but it is to me, for at least two reasons. First, when backpack, space is at a premium and I need every inch I can get. Second, when crawling through trees and bushes, the ballhead isn't exposed and thus cannot snag on anything.
Since the pictures pretty much speak for themselves, I'll just add a couple of measurements that folks might find useful, and that I couldn't find anywhere when researching the Feisols. The mounting plate is roughly 3.25 inches across. The actual usable area, the part raised disc that mates with the head, is roughly 2.625 inches across.
P.s. Kirk sells "blemished" BH-3s on Ebay at a discounted price. Mine arrived without a mark on it; it looks better than new.
i think you might note that when folded the ballhead is inside the legs as in the first image. so deducing from the image since no length or width is imparted to the setup in this config the bag will allow the tripod to fit
Homer, good info that the BH-3 works well with these legs. I wish I had known that when I was choosing a ballhead. The Markins Q3, due to the position of the knobs, does not allow the 3342 legs to reverse-fold.
rjtmmt wrote:
The Feisol bags (or at least the one I have) are VERY tight fits and any additional width will not allow the the tripod to fit in its bag.
Thank you
Randy
Same experience here. I've had to ditch the Feisol bag in favor of a roomier Manfrotto bag.
Jul 08, 2008 at 03:25 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Interesting. I have the Feisol CT-3401 and the BH-3 and with that combo I can't fold the ballhead inside the legs. Still I have no problem using the Feisol bag. They must have changed the bags recently.
rjtmmt wrote:
The Feisol bags (or at least the one I have) are VERY tight fits and any additional width will not allow the the tripod to fit in its bag.
Mitchell Carter wrote:
Homer, good info that the BH-3 works well with these legs. I wish I had known that when I was choosing a ballhead. The Markins Q3, due to the position of the knobs, does not allow the 3342 legs to reverse-fold.
I have the Q3 along with the 3442 and the legs reverse fold quite nicely around the head...and the entire setup fits inside the Feisol tripod bag.
Mitchell Carter wrote:
The Markins Q3, due to the position of the knobs, does not allow the 3342 legs to reverse-fold.
Is the problem due to the radial position of the ballhead when fully seated? If so, you can wrap the threads with teflon tape which will allow you to chose a compatible position when setting the ballhead. dave
dasams wrote:
Is the problem due to the radial position of the ballhead when fully seated? If so, you can wrap the threads with teflon tape which will allow you to chose a compatible position when setting the ballhead. dave
Ah, good idea, Dave. By partially unscrewing the ballhead I can see that it will almost work. I can now reverse-fold the legs but -- no matter how I futz with it -- one of the legs still won't completely clear the clamp. It rests on it just a tad; if I travelled like that it wouldn't take much pressure at the foot to snap a leg off at the base. Worth a try anyway, thanks. With the center column attached, everything clears okay.
rjtmmt wrote:
Does the BH-3 head on the Feisol Tripod fit in the Feisol Bag, or do you carry it elsewhere.
Randy
Good question, Randy. I haven't tried it, but I don't think it will. I carry it inside, or strapped to, a dedicated hiking pack. My packs all have loops and straps for ice axes, and they happen to accommodate the Feisol nicely
I routinely hike the Columbia Gorge and have done some hiking in the Utah/Arizona region, having put several hundred miles on my 3441. I usually use the ice ax loop to carry the tripod, but my loops are a very tight fit, and it takes a few minutes to get out. I also find that I am not the best at protecting my tripod. While I love the Feisol tripod, I am just looking for a good quick and protective way to carry the pod. The bag that comes with the Feisol is too tight to use except on plane rides for me. I was just trying to brainstorm trying to find an ideal setup. I really like the idea of a BH-3 or Q3, as my Kirk head is much larger, and the head that came with the Feisol, had too much movement. I really like the idea of a short light compact tripod, and getting a big bag seems to defeat the purpose.
I guess I will keep looking, and thanks so much for all of the ideas.
Randy
Mitchell Carter wrote:
Homer, good info that the BH-3 works well with these legs. I wish I had known that when I was choosing a ballhead. The Markins Q3, due to the position of the knobs, does not allow the 3342 legs to reverse-fold.
Reviving a relatively old thread because my experience does not jive with that of the OP. After seeing those pics, I ordered a 3442 from Feisol and a discounted BH-3 from Kirk while the 25% live.com discount was going on with eBay BIN, goth them both for an awesome price.
However, the BH-3 does NOT fit inside the CT-3442 legs without forcing things a bit. In order to get to the state shown in the first post, one of the legs must be forced to a not entirely comfortable extent against the tension knob. I am concerned, because I have seen plenty of BH-3's with the tension knob bent, and it feels like if I put the legs in the bag that way and happen to lean against the bag I may bend the tension knob.
A workaround is to slide the foam insulation an inch down the side of all legs, which produces just enough clearance to BARELY fit the ballhead between the legs without any points of contact. The assembly then fits inside the Feisol bag without any issues. There is still some contact if the legs are folded all the way back, enough to scratch the surface of the legs, but this should be an avoidable situation. This may also work for the Markins Q3, give it a try.
Are there better options? The repositioning of the insulation does not at all detract from either the aesthetics or functionality of the Feisol.
On a related note, I also have the Markins M10, and there is no way to fit it inside the legs, which is why I got the BH-3. The first time I got a BH-3 from eBay was several years ago, I was very disappointed with the finish and the locking of the panning base and promptly returned it. Not sure if I am imagining or my standards have lowered over the years, but I am much happier with the BH-3 I just got, and may end up selling my M10 and swapping the BH-3 between the Gitzo for daily use and the Feisol for travel.
).