-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Tripod/head combo for Swaro ATS 65 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Scarletmacawdad
- Start date
forent
Well-known member
The heads shown in your images should provide the Manfrotto / Bogen 200PL click QR standard. The GHF2W is equipped with an Arca-style screw knob clamp (non-click). Does your ATX 65 fit? First of all only if it has the later AS foot - the letters "AS" must be stamped on the bottom side of the foot. But even then it still depends: please read https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3834730#post3834730.
I have just measured the rail width on my Arca-Swiss plates:
Berlebach & Novoflex:- 38,9 mm
Sirui:- 39,1 mm
No-name Chinese:- 39,6 mm
The safety retention is not always compatible between heads and plates from different manufacturers.
The Chinese plate has projecting Allen screws on the underside of the plate, probably like RRS, Kirk etc.
A loosened clamp would allow a Berlebach plate to slide out of a non-Berlebach clamp.
A-S Sirui and the shorter Novoflex plates (with a deep underside cutout) can be safely retained on Berlebach or Sirui heads (L-10 tilt head and presumably VA-5) but it may be necessary to push the release button to get the plate on the head.
Novoflex clamps, such as the Q-Mount, have a small projecting pin similar to the Gitzo GHF2W fluid head.
John
Berlebach & Novoflex:- 38,9 mm
Sirui:- 39,1 mm
No-name Chinese:- 39,6 mm
The safety retention is not always compatible between heads and plates from different manufacturers.
The Chinese plate has projecting Allen screws on the underside of the plate, probably like RRS, Kirk etc.
A loosened clamp would allow a Berlebach plate to slide out of a non-Berlebach clamp.
A-S Sirui and the shorter Novoflex plates (with a deep underside cutout) can be safely retained on Berlebach or Sirui heads (L-10 tilt head and presumably VA-5) but it may be necessary to push the release button to get the plate on the head.
Novoflex clamps, such as the Q-Mount, have a small projecting pin similar to the Gitzo GHF2W fluid head.
John
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Your finding don't match other accounts, where Novoflex are sometimes too narrow for RRS. Did they change their standard? The RRS plates are 38.1 mm wide.
https://www.reallyrightstuff.com/patents
--AP
Most of these are a few years old, but that's what I measured on three Novoflex plates, two Berlebachs and one Sirui. Novoflex quote 39 mm on their website.
John
PS:- If RRS say you can't use Novoflex plates, perhaps they and others are too wide for their lever clamps instead of too narrow. That would be another argument in favour of screw clamps.
Last edited:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
No, the problem is definitely one of being too narrow, even for some screw clamps, as forent described above.
--AP
Well, let's see some other measurements, or are you suggesting that 39 mm is narrower than 38,1 mm?
John
Well then you have to define what measurement wer'e talking about. Simply alleging that one make is narrower than another is an over-simplification. I assume the 45° dovetail is universal. Greater height thereof would result in a narrower groove.
John
forent
Well-known member
That's right and relevant if the height of the plate's dovetail is lower than that of the claws of the clamp.
These dovetail systems are no rocket science but the small differences between height, width, angle (not always exactly 45°) can lead to misfitting plate/clamp combinations that just don't work. As is the case with the Swarovski AS foot and nearly all U.S./Chinese Arca-style screw knob clamps that I know. No big deal if you accept to use an additional and fitting Arca-style plate but annoying for pedants like me.
By the way, the problem would be practically non-existent if the U.S./Chinese clamps would close a little bit tighter, ceteris paribus.
These dovetail systems are no rocket science but the small differences between height, width, angle (not always exactly 45°) can lead to misfitting plate/clamp combinations that just don't work. As is the case with the Swarovski AS foot and nearly all U.S./Chinese Arca-style screw knob clamps that I know. No big deal if you accept to use an additional and fitting Arca-style plate but annoying for pedants like me.
By the way, the problem would be practically non-existent if the U.S./Chinese clamps would close a little bit tighter, ceteris paribus.
I bump this thread in order to get more opinions and recommendation for a tripod/head combo for the ATS 65 in order to navigate the sea of infinite number of options of tripods and heads.
I'm trying to narrow it down to actual specs, like the following.
Weight: the scope weights 1370 g. My previous scope (a MM3 ED 60) was a hair under 1 kg and my current tripod at 1,2 was ok, but it is clearly not enough for the heavier, longer and more capable ATS. So I'm thingking of something in the region of 1,5 - 1,6 kg. That should provide a more stable stand to begin with, right?
Material: Given the example above (a 1,6 kg tripod). Then should I guess that a 1,6 kg of carbon fiber tripod is bigger/more-stable than a 1,6 kg tripod of aluminium? I'm just speculating, since I've never used a carbon fiber tripod. Any reason to have or not to have one above the other?
Number of sections: my current tripod is a small travel one, which is really convenient because it takes no space, but it has 5 sections (4 locks per leg) which I think not only makes it more flimsy but also a bit of a pain to set up. I guess the lesser number of sections, the stronger the body, but also longer when folded. I've seen that many 3 section (2 locks) tripods measure a respectable 60+ cm, which is more than my backpack can hold (so maybe I should get used to carry it outside the backpack; I kind of like the fact that, when not in use, no one knows that in my little backpack there is a really capable scope).
Head: when it comes to the head again several considerations come to mind. First is the weight and bulk. One of the reasons to choose a 65 mm scope is the fact that it's compact and relatively light, so I guess that has to also be reflected in the head. I was very interested in the Manfrotto 128 RC, given the fact that you don't need a plate for the Swaro scope, because it fits directly (I find that really attractive: less pieces, less problems, less weight), and also it seems quite inexpensive and easy to get (even second hand), but I've just discovered that it weights around 1 kg (wow, that's the weight of my Opticron MM3). So I'm kind of confused now. So the scope and tripod try to shave some really appreciated grams... to end up with a head that weights almost like the scope itself? The MVH500 comes a little lighter at 900, and the Sirui VA 5 is even lighter at 600 g.
So, any other brands, models, previous experiences, regrets, comments are more than welcome. Thanks!
I'm trying to narrow it down to actual specs, like the following.
Weight: the scope weights 1370 g. My previous scope (a MM3 ED 60) was a hair under 1 kg and my current tripod at 1,2 was ok, but it is clearly not enough for the heavier, longer and more capable ATS. So I'm thingking of something in the region of 1,5 - 1,6 kg. That should provide a more stable stand to begin with, right?
Material: Given the example above (a 1,6 kg tripod). Then should I guess that a 1,6 kg of carbon fiber tripod is bigger/more-stable than a 1,6 kg tripod of aluminium? I'm just speculating, since I've never used a carbon fiber tripod. Any reason to have or not to have one above the other?
Number of sections: my current tripod is a small travel one, which is really convenient because it takes no space, but it has 5 sections (4 locks per leg) which I think not only makes it more flimsy but also a bit of a pain to set up. I guess the lesser number of sections, the stronger the body, but also longer when folded. I've seen that many 3 section (2 locks) tripods measure a respectable 60+ cm, which is more than my backpack can hold (so maybe I should get used to carry it outside the backpack; I kind of like the fact that, when not in use, no one knows that in my little backpack there is a really capable scope).
Head: when it comes to the head again several considerations come to mind. First is the weight and bulk. One of the reasons to choose a 65 mm scope is the fact that it's compact and relatively light, so I guess that has to also be reflected in the head. I was very interested in the Manfrotto 128 RC, given the fact that you don't need a plate for the Swaro scope, because it fits directly (I find that really attractive: less pieces, less problems, less weight), and also it seems quite inexpensive and easy to get (even second hand), but I've just discovered that it weights around 1 kg (wow, that's the weight of my Opticron MM3). So I'm kind of confused now. So the scope and tripod try to shave some really appreciated grams... to end up with a head that weights almost like the scope itself? The MVH500 comes a little lighter at 900, and the Sirui VA 5 is even lighter at 600 g.
So, any other brands, models, previous experiences, regrets, comments are more than welcome. Thanks!
Hi Yarrellii,
I still really like my Gitzo GH1720QR head. With the only exception being for digiscoping with anything more than a (not too big) smartphone. (as explained in post #28), but I haven't tried a longer plate yet. I obtained it second hand together with my scope, but I have seen it once or twice again in second hand offers, separately, for relatively little money compared to some other heads mentioned here and compared to its price 'new'. I don't think I could find a lighter, as great a head as that one. I think I would have to shift to a GHF2W if looking for one with counterbalancing spring without too big of a jump in weight, loosing the single-knob control.
Regarding the number of sections: my tripod legs are Manfrotto's 055 CXPRO4, thus carbon, 4 sections. It is approx; 2kg, I think. That was part of the second hand deal with the head and scope on it, thus not a really deliberate choice
. However, I am quite happy with it, even though I sometimes wonder if I wouldn't prefer it having 3 sections per leg. Not that much for reasons of an improved stability (I should compare to know if I would notice a real difference), but rather for a quicker setup: I seem to regularly need just a bit of the 4th, smallest section of the legs now, which sometimes annoys me because it is obviously a bit slower and more combersome. But I would obviously loose compactness (not weight). The only 'upgrade' I could imagine myself doing maybe some day and might do if some good second hand offer pops up, is switching to a carbon Gitzo 3-section carbon set of legs. The Gitzo's are a bit lighter than the Manfrotto, but not enough to make me spend that much money just for that weight difference (they are expensive :-( ). However, if deciding to switch to a 3-leg sections set of legs, I would probably go that route, adding up benefits. If you want to go even lighter, Manfrotto, Gitzo etc. of course have different ranges being almost identical but just a lighter by reducing the legs' diameters.Still, the most important asset for making the tripod+scope portable for me, is the little Scopac (that also came with the scope, I was lucky :-D). It is a bit too small to carry everything I would take on a longer hike (picknick, additional clothing...), but such kind of carrying solutions is more important to me than a few hundred grams off a tripod or scope.
Yarelli,
A minor irritation of the ATS65 is that the centre of gravity is so far behind the foot that you need a lot of friction to hold the scope in the horizontal.
The MVH500 with its long plate would solve this and if you decide to go Arca-Swiss, a plate like this https://www.kirkphoto.com/lens-moun.../universal-multi-purpose-lens-plate-4-50.html would serve well.
The front lip prevents rotation and stopper screws are inserted front and rear on the underside to prevent the scope sliding out if you inadvertantly loosen the clamp.
John
Yes, I've seen it quoted in Gitzo website at 460 g, which looks really very light compared to the two Manfrotto heads discussed above.
This thing intrigues me: say you have decided your tripod/head combo is going to weight around 2,6 kg (for the sake of the argument). Then I guess I'd prefer a 2200 g tripod (that sounds pretty sturdy) with a 400 g head instead of a 1,6 tripod with a 1000 g head. But then, I guess the 1000 g will work way better. What do you reckon?
This is something that also annoys me. I have an ultracompact travel tripod... with no less than 5 sections (this is 4 x 3 = 12 locks to do and undo every time). But then I guess this clashes with the portability aims regarding the tripod.
Interesting. I agree that the ATS65 is back heavy, but I have not found it to be of major concern. I usually attach one of those smartphone adapters (together with my pretty light smartphone, 145 g plus the adapter) and then I can feel I need to really tighten the lock mechanism in oder for the scope to remain balanced. Otherwise, I don't find it to be that bad. Actually, I've never felt the need of a longer plate (but then, I've never used one, so probably don't know what I'm missing until the day I make the mistake of using one, as it happens!). On the other hand, the MVH500 seems pretty reasonable at 115 €. Thanks for the hint.
I am really no expert and this is only my second tripod ever (the previous one being a heavy but sturdy aluminium one used solely for photography). Considering weight distribution only (as if this would be related to other parameters like strength and stifness), you would indeed prefer to have the weight being distributed more at the bottom (the legs) than at the top (head), purely for reason of stability. For the rest, I guess it will be a matter of “which legs and which head is good enough” and “the weakest link” (potentially loosing the benefit of very good legs if combined with a bad, flimsy head or vice versa). But what the thresholds are, I don‘t know.
From looking up some specs in the past, I think my next tripod legs will be somewhere between 1,6 and 2 kg indeed, but paying more attention to the diameter of the different sections and the number of sections (3 or still 4, certainly not 5). Except if I were to look for a more compact ‘travel’tripod for a very compact scope (50mm) and/or photography ‘on the go’ with small and no telephoto lens.
If the ATS65 (with or without the smartphone attached) is much too tailed heavy, that might be an argument against the GH1720QR, or just an argument to combine it with some longer plate to put the center of gravity correctly. I have to say I don’t understand why Swarovski (or any scope designer) doesn’t put the foot plate well aligned enough with the scope’s center of gravity. On the other hand, due to the height of the scope’s foot and the tripod’s head, the scope will be out of balance from the moment you tilt it to the front or to the back... (except if the head has a counter spring, which I still have to test).
Thank you very much for those insights. It pretty much goes in the same direction I've been thinking about.
My current setup (that I bought for the MM3ED 60) is a Vanguard Veo235 with a Velbon FHD-43M head that I bought to replace the really lousy one that originally came with the Vanguard; while better, it's still quite underwhelming and I'd say clearly not enough for the ATS65HD. Tripod+head weight a combined 1575 g. But the attachment plate is so small that the scope really struggles: there's the lack of stability of the compact travel tripod with flimsy and über slim legs, then there's the wobbling effect of the plate not being strongly held in place by the quick-release mechanism... In short: a pain.
So, a 1500-1700 g tripod (ideally CF) matched with a decent 500-800 g head should make for a total of 2000 - 2500 g combo (exactly what the MM3ED60+tripod weighted originally, and one of the reasons I bought them). So, combined, the ATS and tripod will be somewhere in the 3500-4000 g territory, which sounds a bit (just a bit) menacing.
The biggest problem I'm finding is sorting the endless ranges, names, present and past (I'm especially looking for a secondhand set)... which is simply overwhelming.
Manfrotto seems to be the most readily available, the 055 range is just kind of too heavy, while the 190 seems alright (although the go! version is probably a bit to short).
I forgot to mention, I'm nearly 1,80. I'm measured my ideal viewing position and the I guess the tripod should offer 1,35-1,40 m of height (without central column, which is what I get from the little Vanguard with the central column nearly fully extended, 113 cm otherwise).
My 128RC weighs 1.7lbs (771g). Manfrotto is horrible at posting accurate specs.
Thanks, Bill. Now this is interesting (and puzzling), since Manfrotto states in its website that the 128RC is 1kg and the MVH500AH is 1 kg.
So many questions.
Maybe over time there have been several series bearing the same name "128RC", and hence the weight disparity?
Should we assume the MVH500AH is either way 100 lighter than the 128RC? (so, sub 700 g?). Anyone around with a MVH500AH to weight it?
I assume you weighted the 128RC without the plate (since, as you pointed out earlier on, a great advantage of the 128RC is that the ATS65 attaches directly without a plate. But then, it's clearly impossible that a plate makes for the difference between 771 g and 1000 g.
I've been going through the specs sheets of some Manfrotto tripods I'm interested in and I've also found puzzling bits.
Take the 190XC (carbon). It list 7 kg of capacity and a leg section diameter of: 24.8, 20.4, 16
No take the cheaper 290Xtra (carbon), it's 60 g lighter than the 190. It lists 5 kg of capacity, but the section diameter is wider: 25.3, 21.7, 18.2 mm
So, nearly same weight, wider legs but a noticeable lower capacity. Maybe this is because in spite of its thinner legs, the actual walls of the 190 are made of thicker/sturdier/stronger material?
I'm finding the whole tripod thing to be a daunting mystery, to say the least
Was gonna dig them out and weigh them again when I remembered I had made a spreadsheet.
The 128RC is only a few months old, using it for a Meopta S2. Love not needing to use that damn plate.
| MH500AH | 2.17 | lb | w/ plate & handle |
| 128RC | 1.7 | lb | w/ plate & handle |
| 128RC | 1.61 | lb | w/o plate |
The 128RC is only a few months old, using it for a Meopta S2. Love not needing to use that damn plate.
