Tripod/head combo for Swaro ATS 65 (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

Bill, this is brilliant, thank you very much.
It is amazing that the 128RC is usually quoted at 1 kg and the MH500 at 0,9 kg, while it seems to be the other way round.

I've narrowed it down to tripods I can find reasonably easy (or get good second hand deals).
A.- 190CXPRO CF 3 sections. 1,6 kg. Height 135 cm. Folded 61 cm. Legs diameter 24,8 to 16 mm
B.-055CXPRO CF 3 sections. 1,9 kg Height 140 cm. Folded 65 cm. Legs diameter 29,2 to 20,4 mm
C.- Sirui M-3204X. CF 4 sections. 1,8 kg. Height 148 cm (not verified). Folded 58 cm. Legs diameter 32 to 20 mm

Taking into account this will be supporting an ATS65HD (at a hair under 1400 g).
A.-190. PROS: lightest, slimmest, less feeling of bulk. Modern. CONS: less robust, thinner legs.
B.- 055. PROS: very tall and robust. CONS: heaviest, and I'm not sure if it will we a bit overkill for the ATS.
C.- 3204X. PROS: seems to be the strongest, with thicker legs. CONS: a bit todo heavy the only with 4 sections and the unit I can get hold of has some years (2014), although seems in good condition. I have this feeling that buying 2nd hand is less risky with aluminium tripods than with CF.

Then there's the issue with the head. I feel for a compact scope like the ATS65 a light head should be a nice match, like the VA5 (a) , at 600 g.
But then both the 128RC (b) and MH500 (c) are easily obtainable and inexpensive (2nd hand).
To have some ideas about the final weight of the combo, oprions Aa, Ab, Ac, Ba, BB and do on
A.- 190. Aa, with VA5: 2,2 kg/3,6 kg with ATS. Ab, with 128RC, 2,4 kg/3,8 kg with ATS, and Ac, with MH500, 2,5 kg/3,9 kg with ATS.
B.- 055. Ba, VA5: 2,5 kg/3,9 kg. ATS. Bb, with 128 RC, 2,7 kg/4,1 kg with ATS, and Bc with MH500 2,8 kg/4,2 kg with ATS.
C.- 3204X. Ca, with VA5: 2,4 kg/3,8 kg with ATS. Cb, with 128RC, 2,6 kg/4 kg with ATS, and Ccwith MH500, 2,6 kg/4,1 kg with ATS.

My current combo tripod/head/ATS has 5 sections and legs thin as straws, it weights in at 2975 (let's say 3 kg, to keep it simple).
I would think that the 190 with 3 sections and the VA5 head should be enough for the ATS65, and weight is always a great concern. At 3,6 kg this will be 600 g heavier than my current rig (which I think it's reasonable) but then there's always the doubt if it will hold it steady enough. Then there's the idea that maybe a 800 - 900 g head could be too much, like make it top-heavy.

I've inspected the foot of my ATS65HD and found no inscriptions. S/N starts with 74, so I assume it's a 2004 unit. The base of the foot measures 45x43 mm. So I'm not sure whether it will fit the 128RC without a plate, and thus I don't know if I could take advantage of that feature.

What's your experience, do you know the total weight of the tripod/head combo you use with the ATS65?

I'm not sure if the the 2,2 kg of the 190+VA5 will be enough for the 1400 g of the ATS65 (and its up to x60 zoom). But then, I feel a 2,7 kg rig (like the 055+128RC could be too much).

(As a side note, I do some food-related photography, and I've bought a 3,5 kg old-but-trusty 055 for home/studio use, that could be used in very bad weather if I know I'm simply driving to the place with no walking involved).

 

[Bill Atwood]

Yarelli, my usual rig is a G1227/128RC supporting an angled Meopta S2. The leg/head combo is 2.31kg. It is sufficient for my needs. Typically the lower leg sections are only 1/2 extended and center column may be minimally extended. The view will shake some in a stiff breeze.

The S2 foot is 43mm x 43mm and fits directly into the 128RC. I used to have an ATS80 (pre-ATM) that fit into my retired Bogen 3130 (yesterday's 128RC). I'm pretty sure the ATS65 will work w/o a plate. Over the years I've shown at least 4 birders (including a couple well regarded tour leaders) that the 128RC plate was not needed for their ATS65. All were pretty happy about it.

One thing I like about my 128RC is that the pan and tilt dampening is quite stiff. There seems to be little pan dampening on the VH-10 and MH500 and the slightest accidental touch would shift the scope.

 

[yarrellii]

Yarelli, my usual rig is a G1227/128RC supporting an angled Meopta S2. The leg/head combo is 2.31kg. It is sufficient for my needs.

Wow, now this is really enlightening. If the 128RC is around 770 g, then the tripod must be around the 1,5 kg. I know Gitzo are considered some of the best, but if you use the Meopta S2 (which is +1,7 kg) with a 1,5 kg scope, then I guess maybe a 1,6 - 1,7 kg is a bit overkill for the sub 1,4 kg ATS65. I was considering the lightest setup (190 CF with VA5 head, around 2,1-2,2 kg) and I was afraid it would not be enough, hence my interest in a tougher (yet heavier) Sirui. I know the 1,5 kg of a Gitzo and the 1,5 kg a cheaper Manfrotto can't compare in terms of stiffness, but then the ATS is quite lighter and smaller than the S2. Really interesting. Thanks again.

 

[yarrellii]

I've finally decided to go for the Sirui M-3204X. It is on the heavy side, but I got a very good deal. Besides, I come from an utterly flimsy setup, so it will be nice to experience some stiffness and steady view for a change. I tried to get a nice price on the N2204, but to no avail (the W2204 is almost as heavy as the M3204 but with thinner legs). If I find the 3204 is too much, I can always sell it and get something smaller.
To complement the legs, I'll go for the Sirui VA5, which by all accounts seems to be enough for the ATS65. I've got myself an MVH500 to use it at home and I think it's a bit of a monster and dwarfs the ATS65. Since the 3204 is pretty tall, I think I won't be using the central column at all, so that can scratch a few grams as well. Looking at my previous calculation, the Sirui 3204/VA5 combo weights like a Manfrotto190CXPRO3 with either the 128 or the MVH500, which was one of my first options, and although it's a 3 section tripod, the legs of the Manfrotto are really much thinner than the Sirui: 28,4-16 mm compared to 32-20 mm.
I'll share my impressions when I got the tripod and have spent some time on the field with it.
Thanks again for all your thoughts and tips.

 

[yarrellii]

I finally got the tripod/head combo.
The VA-5 head is really very nice, really well made, it oozes quality. It weights 530 g (actually 528 g on my scale) including plate, which is quite a bit lighter than the "0,6 kg"* usually quoted online. Compared to the MH500 is tiny, and I personally think fits the ATS65 better, the MH500 is a bit overkill, not only by its sheer size, but also because of the weight, I weighted it today at 987 g including plate (that's 459 g heavier than the Sirui VA-5. It's actually almost double its weight. Yes, the MH500 works better, seems to be constructed to an even higher standard than the VA-5, it feels sturdier (well, it should, given the weight difference), and the movement is a softer, the head has more power to hold and move the ATS65, but I think the VA-5 is enough for the job (although only long-term use will tell).

As for the Sirui M-3204X tripod, its also very well made. It weights a hefty 1840 g, but it is so tall, that I hardly use half of the length of the last section, let alone the center column. So I've removed the center column, and installed the short column (for ground-level photography) and, voilà, the weight comes down to 1680 g, which is nearly Manfrotto 190CF territory, but with much thicker legs, 32-20 mm compared with the 25-16 mm of the 190CX, so I assume it must be stronger, although I'm not sure about the effect of the 4 sections, against the 3 sections of the 190CX). Coupled with the VA-5, I get a total weight for the combo of 2205 g, which is actually the weight that I originally considered my main option (the 190CXPRO with the VA-5) and it's pretty much in the same weight territory as the rig Bill Atwood mentioned the other day.

So far, so good. I'll let you know how it all works in the field (it's pretty windy around here these days, so I guess it's a great opportunity to put the new rig through its paces).

*I always find puzzling the fact that companies putting a lot of R+D and $ into their products don't get the specs right, especially talking about the weight of a tripod or head, devices where the weight can be a deal breaker for some.

 

[eucman]

Yarelli, my usual rig is a G1227/128RC supporting an angled Meopta S2. The leg/head combo is 2.31kg. It is sufficient for my needs. Typically the lower leg sections are only 1/2 extended and center column may be minimally extended. The view will shake some in a stiff breeze.

The S2 foot is 43mm x 43mm and fits directly into the 128RC. I used to have an ATS80 (pre-ATM) that fit into my retired Bogen 3130 (yesterday's 128RC). I'm pretty sure the ATS65 will work w/o a plate. Over the years I've shown at least 4 birders (including a couple well regarded tour leaders) that the 128RC plate was not needed for their ATS65. All were pretty happy about it.

One thing I like about my 128RC is that the pan and tilt dampening is quite stiff. There seems to be little pan dampening on the VH-10 and MH500 and the slightest accidental touch would shift the scope.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses to those questions. I have been lurking on this site a while and have been slowly ratcheting up my gear to resemble something that is economic, efficient and reasonably light.
I have recently purchased a Manfrotto 128RC head and will soon have one of their aluminum tripods for it.
Beats the daylights out of the very inexpensive Vanguard tripod I bought after I bought my scope.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Apologies for dragging this thread back up from the depths, I wondered if anyone would be able to comment on the use of a Manfrotto 700RC2 with the 65mm scope (I've just acquired a nice ATM)? I'm using with a Benro S2 pro, but the scope seems to tip backward unless I increase the tension. Does the 700RC2 head require the QRP with the scope? Is the best budget option the 128RC?

 

[Tringa45]

Apologies for dragging this thread back up from the depths, I wondered if anyone would be able to comment on the use of a Manfrotto 700RC2 with the 65mm scope (I've just acquired a nice ATM)? I'm using with a Benro S2 pro, but the scope seems to tip backward unless I increase the tension. Does the 700RC2 head require the QRP with the scope? Is the best budget option the 128RC?

I too have an ATM 65HD and use it on Berlebach 510 and 552 heads. Berlebach modified a 117 mm plate (Arca-Swiss compatible) so that it faces rearwards and good balance can be achieved without applying much friction.
I doubt whether the 700RC2 or 128RC would allow this, but the the MVH500AH has a long QR plate which should allow you to shift the scope forward so that the centre of gravity is above the tilt axis. The MVH500AH also has a counterbalance, which is a useful feature.

John

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Thanks John, those Berlebach heads are very nice, but way outside of my budget. I suppose the cheapest option would be to try a longer qrp on my current Benro head before looking at alternatives, though I have concerns that the loading capacity is at its max with a 65mm scope.
I do also have an old but super smooth 501HDV, but it weighs an absolute tonne - not an issue on short walks, but a bit much for all day in the field.
The ATM is a nice bit of kit isn't it!

 

[Tringa45]

Thanks John, those Berlebach heads are very nice, but way outside of my budget. I suppose the cheapest option would be to try a longer qrp on my current Benro head before looking at alternatives, though I have concerns that the loading capacity is at its max with a 65mm scope.
I do also have an old but super smooth 501HDV, but it weighs an absolute tonne - not an issue on short walks, but a bit much for all day in the field.
The ATM is a nice bit of kit isn't it!

With all my recent praise of the ATM/ATS 65 I had forgotten the main quibble, its balance. At Photokina years ago I explained the problems to Berlebach and they modified a 117 mm QR plate, fitting a 5 mm anti-rotation pin at the other end and shortening the 3/8"x16 screw so that it didn't bottom out in the ridiculously short blind thread in the Swaro foot.
I wouldn't worry about the load capacity of the Benro head. It should be more than adequate. However, I couldn't fid any alternative plates on their website and don't know if there are any compatible plates from other manufacturers. If you have access to a machine shop it should not be difficult to have a long aluminium plate fabricated.

John

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Thanks for the tip John, appreciated. I'll take some measurements and see what I can come up with

 

[Jj2]

I am going to give this tripod a try with my ATC for extended bike packing trips through the US/Canada Northern Rockies

https://kramerdesignscorp.com/V2Tripod.html

 

[Peregrine Took]

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 know it's an older thread, but we obviously still read them... otherwise I wouldn't be here.

I just bought the ATS 65 HD and have the Gitzo GH1720QR head*. With the scope set on the horizontal, if I slacken off the knob on the head completely, the scope stays where it is and only tilts backwards if I give it a nudge. So I think any concerns about balance and the ATS being back-weighted are, in practical terms, somewhat over-stated... my example is an extreme one - why would anyone completely slacken off the head anyway?

* EDIT: since posting this I've picked up a used Gitzo GH2720QR head.

As for tripods. I recently bought a used Manfrotto 055 carbon, which is super-rigid, but probably overkill for a 65mm scope, so I just ordered a Manfrotto 290 xtra carbon to see if I can get away with a lighter set-up. The 290 xtra has beefed-up lower leg sections, compared to the 190. Both of these are 3-leg versions.

My third tripod 'itch' is a Kite Ardea, and while this is made in China, the company was established and is run by a Belgian family.
.