High stability tripod options (1 Viewer)

[wllmspd]

My Manfrotto 190prox3 (with mvh500 head) does a perfectly acceptable job for my 3-4kg spotting/binoculars upto 50-60x. However when I try using it at >100x with my “new” scope it obviously falls into a jiggly mess.
I am looking for a similar sized/weight tripod to replace the manfrotto, though I will probably keep the head unless there is a reasonable alternative that is noticeably better.

I was thinking about the manfrotto 055cxpro3, which seems popular, but I see some Benro and sirui that have greater load specs and thus might be better – I am assuming carbon is the best option for extra stability and lightness. The centre column tripod test page hasn’t added any models in a while and there are few Benro/sirui models listed. Maybe I can look at the “max load” and get some estimate of relative stiffness?
I am not after great height as I use angled scopes in hides and standing. I am sure Gitzo are perfect, but more than I’d like to spend. I also have thought about a berlebach wooden tripod, supposed to be super stable, but with noticeably greater weight.
Thoughts and options please.

Peter

 

[KaterinBortle9]

Hi Peter, looking at "max load" capacities does not relate to relative stiffness of the CF tubes. Actual stability when handling with your scope matters more than a number. Note that the Gitzo Traveller Series 2 tripod is now on discount now at B&H ~US$530. It might be the potential longevity portable tripod upgrade you are looking for without going into the US$1000 range of the mountaineer series.

If possible, bring your scope and manfrotto head down to the store to test them all out, since you go beyond 100x.

 

[Will K]

I’d agree that Gitzos are worth the extra money. It’s not just stability, but overall usability, quality of materials, pride of ownership, etc.

Gitzo Travellers can often be found for sale with good deals, and they’re easily the equal in stability to any bulkier Manfrotto or Three Legged Thing I have tested. One probably doesn’t need to splash out on an expensive Mountaineer or Systematic, depending on needs.

I experiment with empty magnification, too (200x, plus).

 

[Hermann]

My Manfrotto 190prox3 (with mvh500 head) does a perfectly acceptable job for my 3-4kg spotting/binoculars upto 50-60x. However when I try using it at >100x with my “new” scope it obviously falls into a jiggly mess.

100x is quite a lot. I'm not surprised the 190prox3 doesn't really work at such magnifications.

I am looking for a similar sized/weight tripod to replace the manfrotto, though I will probably keep the head unless there is a reasonable alternative that is noticeably better.

The head should work resonably well. Not perfect, but it should work OK.

I was thinking about the manfrotto 055cxpro3, which seems popular, but I see some Benro and sirui that have greater load specs and thus might be better – I am assuming carbon is the best option for extra stability and lightness. The centre column tripod test page hasn’t added any models in a while and there are few Benro/sirui models listed. Maybe I can look at the “max load” and get some estimate of relative stiffness?

No. "Max load" is basically the manufacturers guess as to what weight should work, and some manufacturers are more "optimistic" than others. The Chinese manufacturers in particular. I also think carbon tripods are not inherently better than well-made aluminium tripods. They are lighter, sure, that's what makes them so attractive. But a well-made aluminium tripod will beat a not so well made carbon tripod. The "ancient" Gitzo GT1220 Mk 2 (Gitzo G1220 MK2 Review) for instance beats quite a few carbon tripods of similar weight.

I am not after great height as I use angled scopes in hides and standing. I am sure Gitzo are perfect, but more than I’d like to spend. I also have thought about a berlebach wooden tripod, supposed to be super stable, but with noticeably greater weight.

At >100x I'd go for a solid and heavy wooden tripod. Not the sort of tripod you'll want to carry long distances, but definitely more stable than a lighter carbon or aluminium tripod. A (heavy) Berlebach with only one exension is pretty unwieldy, but a heck of a lot more stable than any lightweight tripod.

BTW, my heavy tripod weighs well over 3.5 kg (without the head). But it works even in difficult conditions quite well.

Hermann

 

[Tringa45]

I'm astounded that a 3-4 kg BT was even usable at 50x on a Manfrotto 190! How the hell did you focus it?
While there are several generously dimensioned tripods that fall short of expectations, there are no lightweight tripods with thin leg sections suitable for birding scopes or BTs at high magnifcations. You can't beat the laws of physics.
I have a Berlebach 302, which cost me €254 (Berlebach Report Wooden Tripod).
If you look at the "Center Column" rankings there is nothing stiffer at less than three times the price.
A small comfort for the additional weight is that it lowers the centre of gravity of the whole setup, making it less likely to get knocked over.

John

 

[Mike Crawley]

The end of your centre column should have some where for you to hang a bag.
Take a cheap cotton bag and put a couple of kilos of ricks or sand or soil in it - voila much more stable and almost free
What do others think ?

 

[Will K]

The end of your centre column should have some where for you to hang a bag.
Take a cheap cotton bag and put a couple of kilos of ricks or sand or soil in it - voila much more stable and almost free
What do others think ?

I've heard of this method before, but I don't think I would try it myself. If you move your scope around a lot from location to location (e.g., hide to hide), then this does not seem like a very convenient solution. In practical terms, its just extra stuff to carry, either that or you spend time looking for usable ballast at each location rather than looking for birds. Not all scopes have a hook or usable protuberance, either.

 

[wllmspd]

I’m using a 127mm mak, so it can take higher powers before hitting the “empty” magnification regime. The extra aperture allows higher magnifications with normally used exit pupils.
If you don’t knock the 190 it’s ok at low power, when moving the head at elevations I use the locking knobs as friction controls, locking when I’ve reached what I am looking at. The mvh500 doesn’t have adjustable/enough fluid/spring to just let things go.

What max height will the berlebach you note provide? The berlebach catalogue and options is hugely confusing. What parts would I need to for tripod, head mounting plate (I trust it has 3/8” AND a secondary securing screw to prevent unwinding) and any ancillary bits like spreader bars?? Then I can look to order and work out the overall weight and folded length and maybe order one. Means I would have to swap the mvh500 between tripods (or just dispose of the 190, or give it its own new head)

My 190 and the lighter weight travel one have carabiners (one screwed into the “accessory port” on the tripod top the other hooked into a loop already there) so I can hang my bag on it.. keeps the bag off the dirt and adds a bit more stability, win-win.

Peter

 

[BoldenEagle]

The end of your centre column should have some where for you to hang a bag.
Take a cheap cotton bag and put a couple of kilos of ricks or sand or soil in it - voila much more stable and almost free
What do others think ?

I think another solution would be to hang the weight from the tripod legs rather than the center column because: a) it will make the whole tripod less prone to vibrations b) you can still use the center column.

I use this method with my Berlebach UNI tripod (which alone weighs about 8kg) and sometimes use more than 10kg additional weight, usually rocks in a fabric bag.

Of course it takes more time and effort than just using the center column hook but I have found this to be worth it.

Regards, Juhani

 

[Tringa45]

@wllmspd
The options with Berlebach tripods are just too numerous to go into. You can however click on English on their website.
Berlebach have a number of options for astronomers going up to th 23 kg Graviton with 220 kg load capacity and costing €3000!
If you are going to use a 127 mm Mak at high magnifications then you might exceed the capabilities of the Report tripods and need something like a UNI.
Not only BoldenEagle, but also paperweight and WRL use them.

John

 

[etudiant]

If you can tolerate the bulk, the Audubon tripod with two part legs offers excellent stability, at a modest cost.

The Birder Tripod Legs Only

The Birder Tripod Legs Only, lightweight and sturdy, ready for any head with a standard 3/8" opening.

www.theaudubonshop.com

The fat aluminum tubes absorb vibration well and are very robust.

 

[Boogieshrew]

If you can tolerate the bulk, the Audubon tripod with two part legs offers excellent stability, at a modest cost.

The Birder Tripod Legs Only

The Birder Tripod Legs Only, lightweight and sturdy, ready for any head with a standard 3/8" opening.

www.theaudubonshop.com

The fat aluminum tubes absorb vibration well and are very robust.

I have an old Davis and Sanford magnum tripod which seems to be the same as the Audubon one and it is very strudy and steady.
As etudiant says, the wide tubes are great at reducing vibration. I have to use the centre column raised (I am 5'9" tall) but that too is very wide tube so it's not a problem.
If you don't need it to pack down small, this is a great tripod. And I don't consider it heavy for what it does.

 

[Hermann]

The end of your centre column should have some where for you to hang a bag.
Take a cheap cotton bag and put a couple of kilos of ricks or sand or soil in it - voila much more stable and almost free
What do others think ?

Well, I tried that, several times. Not with an extra bag with sand, rocks or soil - you can't always easily find suitable material to fill your bag, and I wouldn't like to carry a shovel in addition to my gear - but with my regular backpack. It works, sort of. However, as soon as it gets windy the bag begins to swing in the wind. That's no good. In addition moving your tripod around becomes sort of difficult, and in many places I find I need to shift my tripod a few meters left or right to get a better view.

Nowadays I usually only hang my pack from the tripod if I'm staying in one place for a longer period of time and the ground is too wet or dirty to put my pack on the ground.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

While there are several generously dimensioned tripods that fall short of expectations, there are no lightweight tripods with thin leg sections suitable for birding scopes or BTs at high magnifcations. You can't beat the laws of physics.

I agree. However, there are situations where you have to keep the weight down. We'll be off to Norway again in the summer, and on long hikes in the Norwegian fjells you simply can't carry a big and heavy tripod. You have to use a lightweight tripod. Mine is a Gitzo GT1545, and I use it with a lightweight head, and of course a lightweight scope.

Birding is about making compromises from time to time ...

Hermann

 

[Tringa45]

We'll be off to Norway again in the summer, and on long hikes in the Norwegian fjells you simply can't carry a big and heavy tripod.

Dotterels?

 

[Hermann]

Dotterels?

Basically just a holiday ... We'll be too late again, my partner can't get away before early July. Still, some nice birds in that area, like breeding Purple Sandpipers and so on. And of course some mammals as well.

Never saw Dotterels in that part of Norway. But then we get them in my neck of the woods every year in autumn.

Hermann

 

[scheuerer]

I can only agree with the previous speakers. Not that carbon tripods would not be good, classic wooden tripods made of ash are simply still the best. Ash has the best vibration absorption behavior. I always rely on my different Berlebach tripods for 70x and larger images. A little heavier than carbon but simply ingenious. In addition, the backpack comes in the middle as a weight, if absolutely necessary. As a gimbal I rely on the Gitzo Gimbal Fluid Head - GHFG1 . I am very satisfied with everything...
Einfügen

 

[kabsetz]

The best tip for using a backpack or a shoulder bag as a weight to stabilise a tripod is not to hang it from a centre column but to have a strap encircle all three legs, lengthening one shoulder strap if necessary. This way, the bag won't swing, and the bit of tensioning the weight puts on the legs is an additional stabilising and vibration-dampening factor also.