I've read a bunch of replies, but have my usual further blather.......
Wayne Culberson wrote:
>I know this has been discussed a lot in the past, but I've just let most of
>it go by without paying attention. What I need is advice on a good tripod
>that lowers closer to the ground, and possibly one that has an arm that can
>be extended to the side, and one that is really sturdy. Weight isn't really
>a concern, so it can be heavy, just not too pricy.
>
I'm really sold on my Hakuba HG 6240G. I would prefer flip leg locks,
but it is otherwise a dream. It came with both long and short center
columns and tripod threads on both ends of both columns and it does 'the
splits' pretty low, so you can get 'down and dirty'. No top cross piece,
but those are available separately. I'm also a bit concerned with
stability with them, but haven't really investigated.
Anyway, the point is that CF isn't just about weight. This tripod is
just 'dead'. I didn't really realize how much boinging and other
vibration is in most modest weight metal tripods. CF with rubber in the
leg lock ferrules just stops vibration and I believe that helps
sharpness. This isn't true of all CF tripods. The Bogen designs, at
least of a couple of years ago, sacrifice leg cross section for flip
locks and maybe weight and are not really solid fully extended.
I strongly recommend some non-rushed time spent on a non busy day at a
retailer with lots of tripods. It's really easy to be mislead about
tripods and heads just reading about them. Hands on is the only way to
really appreciate the differences and what they mean to you. I did this
and ended up buying both a tripod and a head that I'd never heard of
before. And I'm quite happy with what I got. I just HATED a head I'd
been all excited about from reading research. I've since added the 410
head for macro, but prefer the ball head I got when doing general
photography.
>Also, someone a while back was advertising a ballhead for sale, which I should
>have bought. Contact off-list if it is still for sale.
>
From what you say, you do a lot of the same kind of macro that I do. I
can use a ball head for it, but find a geared head far superior. The
Bogen/Manfrotto 410 is just perfect for the setup you have. I gather
it's different with the big, expensive ball heads, but the modest ball
heads I have don't make and hold fine positioning changes easily. What I
find great for general photography is not well suited to macro. With the
405 (or its big bro 410), precise framing is a joy. It adjusts easily
and precisely.
>Yesterday I spent a good part of the day with my OM2s and Vivitar 90/2.5
>macro and Kodak slide film and so-so tripod. The 90mm macro is by far the
>best macro set-up I've tried to use.
>
Yup, longer is much better for natural subjects outdoors. The 50/3.5s
that are so wonderful for copy work drive me crazy outside. The 135/4.5
is also great, but doesn't go quite close enough on the 65-116, so a
bellows is needed for me.
>Looking through the lens is just amazing..............
>
>Another thought that has been making its way into my head lately is that
>perhaps I'm missing something in not having an OM4ti. Is there an
>improvement with the 4ti over the 2s, similar to the 90mm macro over the
>other macro stuff? Someone talk me out of it please.
>
Others have pointed out the differences very well. What no-one has
mentioned is that the differences aren't nearly as striking as going to
a fast, longer fl macro lens.
Moose
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|