It sounds like the Benbo MK 1 at 3.4Kg - the MK 2 extends to 8'5" and weighs
3.75Kg
I think you would remember that.
I happen to know that Gary's recent test results with the 180mm f2 and 300mm
f4.5,
with and without 1.4xTC, were obtained with a Benbo MK 1. Some of the grades
were
A's, not too bad for a rubbery, boingy tripod.
You can configure a Benbo so that it is pretty rigid. You can also configure
it so
that it isn't - such as with legs in less than optimum positions and with the
central arm/column stuck out horizontaly at the limits of its travel. This is
all
part and parcel of the exceptional flexibility inherent in the Benbo/Unilock
designs. The less rigid configurations are likely to be required in tricky
situations where you couldn't even begin to contemplate using a conventional
tripod
so you either take the compromised rigidity you get in such configurations or
shoot
hand-held.
I think far too much is made of the idea that a tripod is only any good if it
emulates a concrete pillar in both weight, rigidity and plan.
Olympus' recommended method for using their long telephotos and a tripod is to
treat
the tripod as a device that just supports the lens rather than being a rigid
mount.
They suggest you hold the lens barrel with one hand, hold the camera body with
the
other and press the shutter release with your finger. Note the lack of cable
release in such a setup.
In the fairly recent 200mm f4 / laser pointer /MLU Aperture pre-fire/
discussions it
was hypothesised that The Idea of holding the Camera and lens, rather than not
touching them and using a cable release, was because the soft water tissue of
the
human body acts as a damper and actually absorbs more undesired vibrations than
it
imparts.
In short, I think if you shoot any macro shots in the field or ever need a bit
more
flexibility than is offered by the usual - camera on top of three legs -
tripod, you
should consider a Benbo or Unilock.
Giles
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I am not sure, Giles. It was a little heavier than my Tiltall. I would
> guess about 7 or 8 lbs. or 4Kg.
> like it.) However with the discovery of the large variations in sharpness
> on Gary's lens test page which are dependent on how well the camera and
> lens are supported, it does seem to me that if conditions dictate that you
> use a support, it should probably be a rigid one. I would guess that the
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|