I'm looking to upgrade my tripod setup. Most likely will stick with the aluminum legs, since they are sturdy (although so heavy they don't get out much). So I think this year's birthday request is for a new head.
My head is spinning reading through all the threads, so I figure, why not start a new one?
I have heard quite a lot of praise for the Markins heads, so I'm planning to go that route (I would of course love contrarian views...).
I'm shooting a D800, biggest lens is a 70-200. I could maybe see stepping up to moderately bigger glass, but not much further. It would seem that even the Q3 has more than sufficient overhead (65 lb rating should be good for 20 lbs of gear, which the 800 + lens seems to be far under).
What am I missing? Should I suck it up and go bigger?
#1. "RE: Q3 or Q10 or Q20" | In response to Reply # 0nrothschild Registered since 25th Jul 2004Wed 24-Oct-12 01:57 AM
A 70-200 is an easier load than a 24-70/2.8, for example, because it is well balanced (by virtue of the lens collar and foot). Even your 105/2.8, depending on which model, could be a tough load for a ball head because it is so nose heavy.
An M10 is only about $50 more, and a few ounces.
Each progressively larger head can handle difficult loads progressively better when used in "the sweet spot". It has little to do with the payload rating per se, except to the extent that bigger payload ratings generally mean it will handle these difficult loads better.
my Nikonians gallery.
#3. "RE: Q3 or Q10 or Q20" | In response to Reply # 2ericbowles Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Sat 27-Oct-12 09:38 AM
I agree with Neil - a Q10 or equivalent is a better choice than a Q3 for a full sized camera. A larger ball balances better. The Q3 has plenty of clamping power, but it won't balance as nicely as the Q10.
Workshops - Smokies Oct 2012
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera