I don't know why you should complain about 3.5 kg.
The Manfrotto 75 I use weighs 5.3kg and I carry it
around the forest all the time. Of course I
usually have a backache that last a week
afterwards. But what a difference it makes with
the 400mm Sigma APO. I haven't used this lens on
the *ist D yet; just put it on and looked out the
window a bit. Its far too cold to take the camera
out -- minus 22C right now. The batteries would
pack up in no time. I could use the big 6V acid
gel of course wrapped up in some bubble foam in a
rucksack -- but that would add another 2kg to the
load. I had planned to try the lens and *ist D on
the yellow moon, but I just looked at the
thermometer. No way!
Don
Rick Womer wrote:
A tripod that stays at home or in the trunk of the car
because it's too heavy to carry comfortably is worse
than no tripod at all: The money is spent, but there
is no benefit.
For years I used a very sturdy, 3.5kg Slik tripod, but
usually left it behind! A few years ago I got a
Velbon Maxi 343E, and I carry it often. Not as sturdy
and stable as the Slik, for sure, but with the center
column down and my camera bag hanging from it, steady
enough. See today's PESO for an example.
Rick
--- Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I am not an authority, but I think that lightness is
a drawback for a
tripod: it is just not steady enough.
Kostas
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Dr E D F Williams
_______________________________
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
http://www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/index.htm
See feature: The Cement Company from Hell
Updated: Print Gallery -- 16 11 2005
