Time for a new tripod head:need suggestions

[MHampton]

I currently have the manfrotto 488rc0 which has served me well the past few years, but as I am getting more into wildlife/bird photogrphay, I find that it isn't the smoothest thing when trying to follow moving critters.

So I was wondering if there are any suggestions here in this forum? For right now my mail wildlife lens is the canon 100-400L and a Canon 7D. For my tripod, I currently have the manfrotto 055CXPRO4 for hiking and a 055XPROB otherwise.

I'm heading to arlington camera on Saturday to pick up some stuff because they are having a Canon sale in memory of David Pearson who was a local Canon rep who died from cancer a few years ago and all profits from canon sales will be going to the american cancer association.

So thanks for any suggestions.

[KenJulio]

What type are you looking for, ballhead, pan and tilt, etc?

And now for the shameless plug, I have a Markins M10 for sale :)

[MHampton]

Originally Posted by KenJulio

What type are you looking for, ballhead, pan and tilt, etc?

And now for the shameless plug, I have a Markins M10 for sale :)

That's part of the problem and part of the advice I'm asking for. What works best for birds and other wildlife?

[scottbuckel]

You did not mention a budget, so I'll give the best, but it will not be cheap.

The ultimate in following wildlife in my opinion is a Wimberley Gimbal head. For your uses the Sidekick may work well with a good ballhead. I would couple with a Really Right Stuff ball head (I own a BH55, and love it). An Arca Ballhead is the classic ballhead for wildlife photography.

For legs I would recommend a Gitzo series 3 tripod. I own the 1325 carbon fiber legs and they have traveled with me for the past 12-13 years. I think they discontinued that model. I would love to get the Really Right Stuff Versa tripod, but it is just to expensive. I know several folks that have started using Benro legs and like them - I do not like the fact that all have a center column.

Scott

[onlybill]

Sorry, I don't have much advice concerning a tripod, but I do have a question. Since you are not using a heavy lens, like 500-600mm, why do you think you need a tripod for bird and wildlife photography?
I recently put together a slideshow of images I posted here 2010-2011 mainly with a 70-400mm lens or 100mm macro, and I hardly ever use a tripod, though I do brace the camera on my knee occasionally.
regards~Bill

[iCe]

Scott pretty much covered it. The BH55 ballhead is about right for your lens. I don't use a sidekick but I do have the full Wimberley and for flight shots or getting on target quickly it's nice. I have a couple of Gitzo carbon fiber tripods. I don't have access to either at the moment so I can't give you model numbers. Both are the larger versions because I need to be able to support the weight of the 600.


I sometimes hand hold a 600 f4 and an 800 f5.6 and I can tell the difference. The images are just not as sharp (one caveat, if I've got a very fast shutter speed then it's a lot harder to tell.

[MHampton]

Thanks guys. I'm pretty happy with my tripod, it's just the head giving me fits.

I'll check out the BH55 and the arca and see what's what. I am confused though. I thorugh a gimbel WAS a head. Are you saying that the gimble goes on the ballhead as an addition?

And Bill, I hand hold some, but as Michael said, I can certainly tell a difference between shots I hand-held and those on the tripod. Side by side, it is usually pretty easy to tell. Maybe someone younger can hold the camera steady enough, but as I get older, that's getting harder.

[onlybill]

Hi Michael, the fact that you can tell the difference between your shots with or without a tripod might mean you are not using proper technique by not using a fast enough shutter-speed.
I said that if the lens was heavy, which the 100-400 is not, I can see using a tripod. Tripods are useful in landscape and night photography, but using one with a relatively light lens in avian photography offers big disadvantages and hardly any advantages. Comparing a 600mm with or without a tripod with a 100-400 with or without a tripod is comparing apples to oranges.
A tripod only compensates for camera shake, which can perfectly adequately be taken care of by using a shutter-speed that is a reciprocal of the focal legnth. or image stabilization with a somewhat slower shutter-speed. Subject movement is the biggest problem, and using a tripod not only does nothing for this, but you will be left in the dust when the truely interesting action commenses.
Birds generally are very active. I'm not saying that some birds will remain motionless sometimes, but they won't be for long if you drag your tripod over to get the shot.
You will miss a great deal of photographic opportunities.
I've been a member of BirdPhotographers.net for over 3 years, and I found this post concerning the subject. Jim Nieger's post sums it up best as to maximum flexibility. There are a number of the best bird photographers in the world on the site.
regards~Bill

[Stargazer77517]

I use one of these. I did modify it to be able to attach a arm for a flash. Nice and smooth operation in both axis. Just screws on to the tripod, no ballhead needed.

Manfrotto 393 Heavy Duty Gimbal Type Telephoto Lens 393 B&H

[DougC]

I use a Wimberley for the big lenses and just got a Kirk BH-3 for the light stuff. I hate ball heads but the Kirk is a great piece of equipment for the money.

[iCe]

Michael,

The Wimberley is a gimble mount. It's a different type of mount than a ballhead.

Here's a good article on the full vs sidekick Wiberley

Thanks Bill,

It might mean that proper technique is to use a tripod. There are a lot of variables to be considered when shooting wildlife.

I've met Jim and a few others at Bosque one or two times (haven't done an IPT, we do pretty well on our own, but as a member of BPN I like to meet some of the people that I've traded posts with). I keep thinking I'm going to meet up with Roman for one of his landscape tours but so far life has intervened. I don't begrudge anyone shooting handheld and I do it myself sometimes. I choose to shoot from a tripod vs raising ISO or using a flash / better beemer when the light is low but only with the big glass. The thing is, I don't shoot birds with anything less than the 600. I like the stability that a tripod gives me. I like to shoot in the morning and that typically equates to low light. FWIW- I've handheld the 600 down to 1/60th of a second and gotten decent shots. I also hand hold tilt-shift lenses much to the chagrin of my landscape shooting friends.

The OP was about replacing his tripod head (not sure how I saw that as tripod and head). The BH55 would be a great choice

[MHampton]

Fred, Doug and Michael,

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll check those out. Hopefully they will have some of these in Arlington that I can "touch and feel".

Bill, yes, I know how to use my camera. I prefer to use a tripod when possible for the sharpest possible image.

Thanks,

[scottbuckel]

Michael - have fun looking at more camera stuff.

I am not sure how I missed the fact you were asking only about a head and I continue to be amazed at how forum thread wander through topics.

Scott

[DougC]

Originally Posted by onlybill

Sorry, I don't have much advice concerning a tripod, but I do have a question. Since you are not using a heavy lens, like 500-600mm, why do you think you need a tripod for bird and wildlife photography?
I recently put together a slideshow of images I posted here 2010-2011 mainly with a 70-400mm lens or 100mm macro, and I hardly ever use a tripod, though I do brace the camera on my knee occasionally.
regards~Bill

What's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. You may be one of the gifted few that can handhold lenses and get acceptable results. There are many of us who aren't and as such, use/need a tripod. I'll have to disagree about missing the action when using a tripod. I have missed my share but I can't blame the tripod. Also, the vast majority of top wildlife photographers use tripods. There seems to be a small group of people out there who love to point out that their images were made "hand held". Well, bravo for you, but if indeed you can do this, more power to you, but stating that fact adds nothing to the impact of the image, IMHO. Frankly, I don't care if it's tripod, monopod, hand held or hanging upside down by your toes.

[MHampton]

Thanks Scott. I've always heard good things about the RRS line so I'll be looking at them for sure. I'd like the Wimberly, that probably can't justify that just yet. Maybe when I save up enough for that 600mm lens. :)