Manfrotto 190GOA4 + 128RC compatibility with Kowa 883, plus backpack/transport question (1 Viewer)

[CorvusCoreAxe]

Hi all,

I recently took the plunge on a Kowa TSN 883 scope after I got it at a great closeout deal. After a lot of searching the hardest part is now done which is great, but before I can hit the ground running with it I need to sort out some details with the tripod/transporting the scope.

I was looking for a tripod with a fluid head and the Manfrotto 190GOA4 (legs) + 128RC (head) seemed like the best/most reasonably priced one available at the shop I went to, but I don't have that much knowledge on tripods so I wanted to post here to see if anyone was familiar with it and if there were any possible concerns in pairing it with the Kowa 883. It seems like a decent quality tripod, but it does seem to be on the cheaper side (something like $360 to $410 for the tripod and head combined, depending on the retailer/kit deal) and with a larger scope that has an 88 mm objective lens like the 883 (and also one that's as expensive/fragile as the 883) I wasn't sure if I needed to go for something a bit higher up in the price range. The head is fluid, the tripod is made of aluminum, and there are four sections with twist locks. My primary concern is keeping the scope from getting damaged, and so I'd want to make sure the tripod is stable enough to not blow over in too much wind with the weight of the scope on it, or that the head can handle the weight of the scope where it can be left alone and not easily tilt down/get off balance, etc. And then for the viewing experience, I'd want to make sure the maneuverability of the head is good, it doesn't move too easily with the scope on it, etc. I tried the tripod with the scope at the shop and it seemed fine, but I'm not sure if I knew the right things to look for and if it would feel different once I'm actually using it in the field/for a long time.

One other concern I have is that I often like to bike where I go birding, but now am worried the scope + tripod might add a lot of weight to make that difficult. I was wondering if I should look into some of the carbon tripods instead if those would be lighter, but when I check the weight specifications there only seems to be like a half pound difference which I wouldn't think would be that noticeable. It probably comes down to whatever I'm comfortable with, but if anyone thinks a carbon tripod would be worth it then feel free to comment on that.

And then on the topic of biking, aside from the concern with weight, does anyone ever bike with their scope and if so have you had any issues with the scope moving around too much or possibly getting damaged? Are there any backpacks that work well with preventing too much movement/protecting the scope well (not just for biking, also for general use)? I've been using a drawstring bag so far which obviously will not work since that swings around easily, so I'll take recommendations on a backpack to replace it.

If you read this far then thank you! Would appreciate any input on any of the above questions even if you can't answer all of them.

 

[WRL]

Hi all,

[...] And then on the topic of biking, aside from the concern with weight, does anyone ever bike with their scope and if so have you had any issues with the scope moving around too much or possibly getting damaged? Are there any backpacks that work well with preventing too much movement/protecting the scope well (not just for biking, also for general use)? I've been using a drawstring bag so far which obviously will not work since that swings around easily, so I'll take recommendations on a backpack to replace it. [...]

I am regularily biking with my Kowa 883 and a Gitzo series 3 tripod (the head is currently a Berlebach 553, the attached photo shows a different one with camera and scope mounted in parallel). For safe transport I am using special panniers made by the (German) firm Koenig (Ornithologen - König Photobags), one for the scope (padded) and the other for the tripod. This setup works quite fine for me for years.
Werner

 

[Hermann]

I don't have any Manfrotto tripod (I'm a Gitzo guy). I do have several Manfrotto heads though, including several 128RC heads I collected over the years. I also have a lot of packs, bags and so on. Too many really ... But then you can't really have too many packs and bags.

Let me start with the tripod: How tall are you? Looking at the datasheet I'd be concerned about the height of the Manfrotto: It's pretty short (127cm with the center column down), and you don't really want to extend the center column too much. I normally don't extend it more than 10-15cm. And in what kind of environment do you expect to use the scope/tripod? If you regularly use it in windy or even stormy conditions, you obviously need a tripod that can cope with such conditions. The Manfrotto you linked has pretty thin legs (lowest section). They won't break - but they may well vibrate in windy conditions (or when you touch the tripod or scope). In other words: I'd go for a bigger, more stable tripod. Check the Center Column website, they have some excellent information about tripods: The Center Column. Do take their information with a grain of salt, the guy who runs it is a nerd ...

As to the question of aluminium vs. carbon: I use both (I collected quite a few tripods over the past 40 years ...). I also use a heavy wooden tripod in really bad conditions like seawatching in a howling gale. Carbon is obviously lighter and stiffer. And much more expensive. Whether you need that is up to you. You also have to be aware that there are a lot of cheapish carbon tripods about that are not very good, to put it mildly. Check the information on the Center Column: Carbon Fiber vs. Aluminum Tripods I use my (light) carbon tripods (1.1kg and 1.55kg) for my light scopes. For the Nikon ED82 I almost always use one of my old Gitzo aluminium tripods (2.6 kg). And if the conditions are really bad and if I don't have to walk too far from the car I take the wooden monster.

Heads: The 128RC isn't bad at all but it's a bit long in the tooth. You'd need to check whether the Kowa balances well on the head. If it doesn't I wouldn't get it. I normally use Gitzo video heads for my light scopes (2180, out of production) and, in a pinch, also for the ED82 (which is roughly the same weight as your Kowa). A head that works better for the ED82 is the Manfrotto 500AH. Not too heavy, and you can balance any gear you use it with very well. That head is well regarded here. I also like it a lot.

Transport: Werner knows more about this than I do. I don't use my bike all that much for birding, but when I do it's normally shorter distances. I often put the tripod on the bike and carry the scope in my pack, usually with some padding.

Hermann

 

[CorvusCoreAxe]

I don't have any Manfrotto tripod (I'm a Gitzo guy). I do have several Manfrotto heads though, including several 128RC heads I collected over the years. I also have a lot of packs, bags and so on. Too many really ... But then you can't really have too many packs and bags.

Let me start with the tripod: How tall are you? Looking at the datasheet I'd be concerned about the height of the Manfrotto: It's pretty short (127cm with the center column down), and you don't really want to extend the center column too much. I normally don't extend it more than 10-15cm. And in what kind of environment do you expect to use the scope/tripod? If you regularly use it in windy or even stormy conditions, you obviously need a tripod that can cope with such conditions. The Manfrotto you linked has pretty thin legs (lowest section). They won't break - but they may well vibrate in windy conditions (or when you touch the tripod or scope). In other words: I'd go for a bigger, more stable tripod. Check the Center Column website, they have some excellent information about tripods: The Center Column. Do take their information with a grain of salt, the guy who runs it is a nerd ...

As to the question of aluminium vs. carbon: I use both (I collected quite a few tripods over the past 40 years ...). I also use a heavy wooden tripod in really bad conditions like seawatching in a howling gale. Carbon is obviously lighter and stiffer. And much more expensive. Whether you need that is up to you. You also have to be aware that there are a lot of cheapish carbon tripods about that are not very good, to put it mildly. Check the information on the Center Column: Carbon Fiber vs. Aluminum Tripods I use my (light) carbon tripods (1.1kg and 1.55kg) for my light scopes. For the Nikon ED82 I almost always use one of my old Gitzo aluminium tripods (2.6 kg). And if the conditions are really bad and if I don't have to walk too far from the car I take the wooden monster.

Heads: The 128RC isn't bad at all but it's a bit long in the tooth. You'd need to check whether the Kowa balances well on the head. If it doesn't I wouldn't get it. I normally use Gitzo video heads for my light scopes (2180, out of production) and, in a pinch, also for the ED82 (which is roughly the same weight as your Kowa). A head that works better for the ED82 is the Manfrotto 500AH. Not too heavy, and you can balance any gear you use it with very well. That head is well regarded here. I also like it a lot.

Transport: Werner knows more about this than I do. I don't use my bike all that much for birding, but when I do it's normally shorter distances. I often put the tripod on the bike and carry the scope in my pack, usually with some padding.

Hermann

Thank you, that's very helpful! A few comments/responses:

• Of your many packs/bags, are any able to fit your tripod inside of them, or do you usually have to carry the tripod yourself or have it attached somewhere on the outside of your bag? Aside from biking I'm thinking I might like to go to some places where I'll be scoping for some parts and then doing woodland birding without a scope for other parts, so just thinking about what would work best when I need to be carrying my scope/tripod but not actively using it.
• I'm around 6 feet tall (around 1.82 meters), so it sounds like 1.27 m with the center column down would be too short? And in terms of conditions, I'm not expecting to take it out on some kind of stormy pelagic trip or anything like that, but I do expect a lot of the time using it to be on water (both lakes and salt water, mainly the Puget Sound) where it often can have light rain or be windy.
• Sorry if I'm missing some terminology, but when you say the 128RC is a bit long in the tooth, what do you mean by the tooth?

 

[CorvusCoreAxe]

I am regularily biking with my Kowa 883 and a Gitzo series 3 tripod (the head is currently a Berlebach 553, the attached photo shows a different one with camera and scope mounted in parallel). For safe transport I am using special panniers made by the (German) firm Koenig (Ornithologen - König Photobags), one for the scope (padded) and the other for the tripod. This setup works quite fine for me for years.
Werner

Good to know, thank you! I'll see if I can find something like that.

 

[jring]

Hi,

first of all, welcome to BF!

As for the Manfrotto 190, it is a bit short for your height and aluminum is less preferable than CF or wood due to its tendency to resonate, as has been pointed out already by Hermann. Also 4 leg sections are non-optimal as each joint will introduce instability and also the more sections, the thinner are the lowest sections (and thus quite a bit less stable - stiffness of a tube goes by the 4th power of the radius). 3 or 2 sections are better, unless you have to fit the legs into a carry-on.

I would look for a used pair of CF legs, preferably 3 sections, from some reputable supplier which are high enough and are rated for at least double your intended total load of scope, EP, head, SoC and maybe digiscoping gear... not necessarily Gitzo or 3 legged thing - Benro, Sirui, Velbon or Manfrotto/Seben are ok too, as are Berlebach ($$$ heavy duty wood tripods) or even Sachtler ($$$$ super heavy duty pro video tripods in CF and aluminum) if you want to err on the side of more stability and don't plan long hikes...

The RC128 might be a fairly old design (long in the tooth is BE for that), but so is the 500AH, which is my choice for a full size scope. The RC128 is only a bit lighter than the 500AH but quite a bit less stable, has no counterbalance and is missing the option to balance the scope with a long rail. I have an RC128 too, but use it for a very light Kowa 601 (1kg with EP and SoC) - works fine there, but the 500AH is smoother. If you are willing to spend a bit more, Gitzo and Berlebach have nice and light fluid heads too, but a bit pricey.

As for cycling, Werners mode of transportation looks nifty. I have also dared to cycle at times with my whole setup with legs collapsed on my back with a mulepack (which is very warmly recommended for carrying the scope while on foot), but, as always, one should make very sure that the screws between legs and head and head and scope are very secure (at least well tightened plus Loctite non-permanent or a second screw if the hardware allows it) and also if you happen to have an accident, the scope is probably toast despite the padded stay-on-case... chances inside a padded pannier are probably better due to less height.

Joachim

 

[CorvusCoreAxe]

Hi,

first of all, welcome to BF!

As for the Manfrotto 190, it is a bit short for your height and aluminum is less preferable than CF or wood due to its tendency to resonate, as has been pointed out already by Hermann. Also 4 leg sections are non-optimal as each joint will introduce instability and also the more sections, the thinner are the lowest sections (and thus quite a bit less stable - stiffness of a tube goes by the 4th power of the radius). 3 or 2 sections are better, unless you have to fit the legs into a carry-on.

I would look for a used pair of CF legs, preferably 3 sections, from some reputable supplier which are high enough and are rated for at least double your intended total load of scope, EP, head, SoC and maybe digiscoping gear... not necessarily Gitzo or 3 legged thing - Benro, Sirui, Velbon or Manfrotto/Seben are ok too, as are Berlebach ($$$ heavy duty wood tripods) or even Sachtler ($$$$ super heavy duty pro video tripods in CF and aluminum) if you want to err on the side of more stability and don't plan long hikes...

The RC128 might be a fairly old design (long in the tooth is BE for that), but so is the 500AH, which is my choice for a full size scope. The RC128 is only a bit lighter than the 500AH but quite a bit less stable, has no counterbalance and is missing the option to balance the scope with a long rail. I have an RC128 too, but use it for a very light Kowa 601 (1kg with EP and SoC) - works fine there, but the 500AH is smoother. If you are willing to spend a bit more, Gitzo and Berlebach have nice and light fluid heads too, but a bit pricey.

As for cycling, Werners mode of transportation looks nifty. I have also dared to cycle at times with my whole setup with legs collapsed on my back with a mulepack (which is very warmly recommended for carrying the scope while on foot), but, as always, one should make very sure that the screws between legs and head and head and scope are very secure (at least well tightened plus Loctite non-permanent or a second screw if the hardware allows it) and also if you happen to have an accident, the scope is probably toast despite the padded stay-on-case... chances inside a padded pannier are probably better due to less height.

Joachim

Got it, that's all very good to know - thank you! I'll search around and see if I can find a pair of carbon legs at a decent price. As for the number of sections, I've been looking at three section legs however I do think I'll want to fit the legs into some kind of backpack on some occasions. I've been looking at the folded dimensions for them and it seems like I might be able to do that with some three section legs, but it definitely would be easier with four section legs as you said. So I'll probably just have to keep doing some research on that and see if I can find a backpack that works with three section legs, and if not then might just try to find as sturdy of four section legs as I can.

Regarding the Mulepack, it doesn't look like that can fit the scope inside of it, right? So it's mainly for carrying the tripod/the full setup on the outside of the bag?

 

[jring]

Regarding the Mulepack, it doesn't look like that can fit the scope inside of it, right? So it's mainly for carrying the tripod/the full setup on the outside of the bag?

Hi,

yes, you can fit a guide, a snack and a bottle of water (I have at times crammed a smallish 8x30 pair inside too), but a full size scope won't fit. Maybe a travelscope of 50 or 60mm aperture if you leave out the other stuff...

Joachim

 

[Tringa45]

Sorry if I'm missing some terminology, but when you say the 128RC is a bit long in the tooth, what do you mean by the tooth?

I had a Manfrotto 128 and take an occasional look at the night sky. At 45° inclination it could not hold my Kowa 883 without creep.
That is no problem for my little Berlebach 510, which weighs little more than half the 128.

John

 

[4John]

........and also if you happen to have an accident, the scope is probably toast despite the padded stay-on-case... chances inside a padded pannier are probably better due to less height.

Joachim

Can I suggest that it's not just the scope and tripod that are going to be badly damaged if you come off your bike with them on your back. You also risk some serious internal injuries if the tripod and/or scope get between your body and the ground as you fall. My kidneys hurt just thinking about it . Panniers are definitely the way to go.

In my experience you need two types of protection for your scope - impact absorption for which padding is ideal and punching/crushing resistance. I keep my ED50 in a short length of plastic ventilation ducting for this reason. For larger scopes some thin sheets of plywood in the outside of the panniers might help. They don't take much volume and are easily cut-to-fit with a jigsaw.

 

[CMB]

You have received some very good responses from forum members who really know what they are talking about.

But let me offer a slightly different take based upon our experience (and much appreciated input from the folks above). If one selects the right tripod for a scope, a four leg section tripod can be both very stable and portable. And can also be a setup that you don’t want to replace later. Saving you money in the long run.

With our TSN-883, we moved from using a very stable three leg section aluminum tripod, the Slik Pro 700 DX (a beast of a tripod that is very afforadable), to using a four leg section Really Right Stuff Ultralight TFC-34 Series 3 CF tripod. We needed to move to a tripod that collapsed smaller than a three section model would, and we wanted a reduction in weight. Sometimes one has to make certain choices to make something work. We were nervous that moving to four leg sections would add shake and instability. That has not been our experience with this particular tripod. Due to the type of carbon fiber used, the larger diameter legs in each section, and the leg locks used; it is more than stable enough to use the TSN-883 (even using the 1.6x extender). You might have to pay more to get that level of build quality, but it is possible.

The four section RRS tripod is our main tripod and is used regularly in all sorts of conditions. We have never been sorry we went with this four section model.

Based upon the success of that four section tripod, for our 60mm scope we moved to a four section Gitzo Traveler GT2545 CF tripod. This replaced a light weight three section aluminum tripod. For this scope this four section tripod is very stable, light, and collapses to a smaller size than what we had before.


Tripod brands:
Since you are in the US, for your TSN-883 consider Really Right Stuff’s Ultralight series systematic tripods. Because they are made in the US their prices are very competitive with Gitzo CF models. RRS’s customer service is great.


Tripod Head:
We have both the RC-128, and the 500AH. We find the RC-128 more difficult to to move (especially following birds in flight), and more difficult to lock. The 500AH’s counter balance spring help make the 500AH more comfortable to use for long periods. The 500AH adjustable plate makes it easy to find the balance point of the scope, which also makes it more comfortable to use for long periods. The differences were enough that we replaced our RC-128 with a second 500AH. The majority of folks we see still using RC-128 heads have Swarovski scopes with a foot that fits/locks into the RC-128 without having to use a plate.


Scope Protection:
We use Kowa's padded full coverage zippered carry case (the CNW-11) for our TSN-883. We keep it on the scope all the time. We don't use the more fitted scope cases. This is personal preference, but we feel the CNW-11 carry case provides more protection while being very easy to use and carry.

 

[Hermann]

Thank you, that's very helpful! A few comments/responses:

• Of your many packs/bags, are any able to fit your tripod inside of them, or do you usually have to carry the tripod yourself or have it attached somewhere on the outside of your bag? Aside from biking I'm thinking I might like to go to some places where I'll be scoping for some parts and then doing woodland birding without a scope for other parts, so just thinking about what would work best when I need to be carrying my scope/tripod but not actively using it.

My light tripod (Gitzo GT1545T, probably too light for the Kowa 883) fits into some of my larger daypacks. The bigger ones don't. I normally carry them on a strap over the shoulder. The scope is sometimes in the pack, sometimes it's attached to the tripod all the time.

• I'm around 6 feet tall (around 1.82 meters), so it sounds like 1.27 m with the center column down would be too short? And in terms of conditions, I'm not expecting to take it out on some kind of stormy pelagic trip or anything like that, but I do expect a lot of the time using it to be on water (both lakes and salt water, mainly the Puget Sound) where it often can have light rain or be windy.

Yes, 1.27m is too short IMO. I'm a bit taller than you (1.91m), and the tripods I normally use are between 1.55 and 1.60m. At that height I still have to use some column extension from time to time, but not that much.

If you'll use the tripod regularly at the Puget Sound, you'll definitely need a stable tripod, and that means a fairly heavy tripod. Actually, I think it may well be a good idea to get two tripods: One (fairly) light tripod for long walks in the woods or the mountains, and a heavy tripod for windy conditions. I've been using different tripods for different situations for many, many years now, and that system works quite nicely. I might even take two tripods on our next trip to Norway in summer ... Not sure my partner will like the idea though.

Hermann

 

[CorvusCoreAxe]

Can I suggest that it's not just the scope and tripod that are going to be badly damaged if you come off your bike with them on your back. You also risk some serious internal injuries if the tripod and/or scope get between your body and the ground as you fall. My kidneys hurt just thinking about it . Panniers are definitely the way to go.

In my experience you need two types of protection for your scope - impact absorption for which padding is ideal and punching/crushing resistance. I keep my ED50 in a short length of plastic ventilation ducting for this reason. For larger scopes some thin sheets of plywood in the outside of the panniers might help. They don't take much volume and are easily cut-to-fit with a jigsaw.

Makes sense, definitely something to consider. Also might be a naive question but when you (and mentions from others in this thread) refer to the padding for impact absorption, is that just the carrying or stay-on case or additional padding on top of that (e.g. a towel, etc)?

 

[CorvusCoreAxe]

My light tripod (Gitzo GT1545T, probably too light for the Kowa 883) fits into some of my larger daypacks. The bigger ones don't. I normally carry them on a strap over the shoulder. The scope is sometimes in the pack, sometimes it's attached to the tripod all the time.

Yes, 1.27m is too short IMO. I'm a bit taller than you (1.91m), and the tripods I normally use are between 1.55 and 1.60m. At that height I still have to use some column extension from time to time, but not that much.

If you'll use the tripod regularly at the Puget Sound, you'll definitely need a stable tripod, and that means a fairly heavy tripod. Actually, I think it may well be a good idea to get two tripods: One (fairly) light tripod for long walks in the woods or the mountains, and a heavy tripod for windy conditions. I've been using different tripods for different situations for many, many years now, and that system works quite nicely. I might even take two tripods on our next trip to Norway in summer ... Not sure my partner will like the idea though.

Hermann

All great to know, thank you again for your responses! Will definitely consider getting multiple tripods, if not right away then keeping it in mind going forward as I see where I use them more.

 

[4John]

Makes sense, definitely something to consider. Also might be a naive question but when you (and mentions from others in this thread) refer to the padding for impact absorption, is that just the carrying or stay-on case or additional padding on top of that (e.g. a towel, etc)?

Most of the stay-on cases I have seen and used have very little padding or impact protection. In my experience that’s fine when you are using the scope on a tripod or carrying it around ready for use. Some extra padding is therefore often required for the scope to and from birding. However, the padded full coverage carry case CNW-11 CMB uses in post #11 looks like it doubles as a stay-on case and some protection to and from where you are birding. How much extra padding you need in addition to that depends on how you get to and from where you are birding. If it’s going in the boot/trunk of a car I don't think you don’t need any more protection. However, if you are putting your scope in a bike pannier I would wrap it in extra layers of foam and add some kind of hard shell for crush / puncture resistance, but this really depends on where you are biking.
The other thing to bear in mind is that optimising your gear is a process with some trial and error and one size doesn't fit all. Herman's comment "I also have a lot of packs, bags and so on. Too many really ... But then you can't really have too many packs and bags" and the story/process CMB related could be as important if not more important to you than the gear choices we are suggesting

 

[CorvusCoreAxe]

Most of the stay-on cases I have seen and used have very little padding or impact protection. In my experience that’s fine when you are using the scope on a tripod or carrying it around ready for use. Some extra padding is therefore often required for the scope to and from birding. However, the padded full coverage carry case CNW-11 CMB uses in post #11 looks like it doubles as a stay-on case and some protection to and from where you are birding. How much extra padding you need in addition to that depends on how you get to and from where you are birding. If it’s going in the boot/trunk of a car I don't think you don’t need any more protection. However, if you are putting your scope in a bike pannier I would wrap it in extra layers of foam and add some kind of hard shell for crush / puncture resistance, but this really depends on where you are biking.
The other thing to bear in mind is that optimising your gear is a process with some trial and error and one size doesn't fit all. Herman's comment "I also have a lot of packs, bags and so on. Too many really ... But then you can't really have too many packs and bags" and the story/process CMB related could be as important if not more important to you than the gear choices we are suggesting

Thanks for that explanation, that makes sense and helps clarify. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious when people were referring to padding. And yeah, very true on the last point and that's a good reminder; it's definitely a continuous process. I feel much more equipped to get started than I did before making this post though, so thank you again to you and others for the guidance

 

[Hermann]

Will definitely consider getting multiple tripods, if not right away then keeping it in mind going forward as I see where I use them more.

Get a medium-sized tripod first. Use it. And then decide if you need something heavier or something lighter for special situations. I assembled my tripod collection over a period of some 40 years ...

Hermann

 

[CMB]

Get a medium-sized tripod first. Use it. And then decide if you need something heavier or something lighter for special situations. I assembled my tripod collection over a period of some 40 years ...

Hermann

A very good suggestion, but a question...

Using the tripod models listed below, what would you consider a medium-sized tripod? (I'm listing four leg section tripods because the OP mentioned that at the start for use on a bike.)

Gitzo Mountaineer GT0542 (Series 0, four leg sections)
Gitzo Mountaineer GT1542 (Series 1, four leg sections)
Gitzo Mountaineer GT2542 (Series 2, four leg sections)
Gitzo Mountaineer GT3542 (Series 3, four leg sections)
Gitzo Traveler GT0545 (Series 0, four leg sections)
Gitzo Traveler GT1545 (Series 1, four leg sections)
Gtizo Traveler GT2545 (Series 2, four leg sections)

 

[CMB]

I'm thinking the Gitzo Traveler GT2545 and Sirui VA-5 head might be a really good starting point. It would be a good quality setup, pack small, and be on the lighter side. It would also be a setup that would still work well for smaller/lighter scopes.

My thoughts are below, what do you all think?

The GT2545 will definitely support the TSN-883's weight. It might shake in stronger winds, but shortening the legs can compensate for that.

The Sirui VA-5 head is a good match size wise to the GT2545, and it will also hold the scope. I've been testing it with an 80mm Pentax scope that is 0.3 lbs lighter than the TSN-883. The VA-5 might not support the TSN-883 as well as the MV500AH, but VA-5 is smooth and will follow birds in flight. The counter balance spring will be over powered and one would have to watch that the scope doesn't flop forward or back. Putting some drag on the tilt lock can help there. Tthe Manfrotto 128RC doesn't have a counter balance spring and it's recommended a lot.

The Sirui VA-5 locks... The tilt will hold the scope well enough. I find the pan is the weaker of the two mostly due to the size and shape of the locking lever, but it can be tighented enough.

 

[Hermann]

Using the tripod models listed below, what would you consider a medium-sized tripod? (I'm listing four leg section tripods because the OP mentioned that at the start for use on a bike.)

Gitzo Mountaineer GT0542 (Series 0, four leg sections)
Gitzo Mountaineer GT1542 (Series 1, four leg sections)
Gitzo Mountaineer GT2542 (Series 2, four leg sections)
Gitzo Mountaineer GT3542 (Series 3, four leg sections)
Gitzo Traveler GT0545 (Series 0, four leg sections)
Gitzo Traveler GT1545 (Series 1, four leg sections)
Gtizo Traveler GT2545 (Series 2, four leg sections)

Definitely a Mountaineer, not a Traveler. My go-to tripod is a GT2541, the predecessor of the GT2542, for both my 60mm and my 82mm scope. I personally prefer tripods with three leg sections though. But for general use a shorter tripod with four leg sections is more convenient. That said, I think both the Series 2 and Series 3 Mountaineers fit into the category "medium-sized tripod" ...🙃

The GT2542 is what I'd get. Or an equivalent tripod from another manufacturer if the price of the Gitzos seems too high. (And they really are expensive!)

Edit: The head question ... Either a Manfrotto 500AH or a Gitzo head. I personally don't like the Sirui heads. My standard head on the 2541 is a Gitzo 2180 (out of production), the Manfrotto 500AH is on one of my old aluminium Gitzos (three sections, about a kilo heavier than the GT2541, large leg spread, very stable).

Hermann