I need some advise.
For the Gitzo 3551 monopod with a D7000 and my biggest / heaviest lens (currently) would be a 70-200 f2.8. Eventually I will have a 300mm f4.
I have not purchased a travel tripod yet but want to use the same ball head with both.
I would like either the Q3 or the Q10. I was set to get the Q10 but I think the Q3 may be the best for the monopod. I just need some input from those who have used either or both.
#1. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 0MEMcD Nikonian since 24th Dec 2007Fri 28-Dec-12 03:39 AM
Welcome to Nikonians!
The Q3 is more than up to the task for use on a monopod.
I use a Q3 on Gitzo GM5541 with a D3s and telephotos including a 400mm f/2.8. It will also work very well on a travel (light duty) tripod.
I use M20/Q20 heads on my tripods because the larger "sweet spot" makes them much more user friendly when using front heavy lenses (without a tripod foot) like the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 28-70mm, 70-300mm, etc....
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
#3. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 2Fri 28-Dec-12 06:44 PM
I agree with Marty. While the M20 is better at the job of a tripod head, the differences are somewhat subtle for many lenses, especially small well balanced telephoto lenses like the 70-200 and 300/4.
The Q3 is a good single head compromise and I like the performance on a tripod, including the light weight.
I think there are some very attractive alternatives for strictly monopod use, such as the RRS MH-01. But I think the Q3 really shines as a dual use head. Good decision
I own a Q3, M10 and M20, plus the 70-200, 300/4 and also larger lenses like the 300/2.8 and 500/4.
my Nikonians gallery.
#4. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 3Fri 28-Dec-12 08:25 PM
Thank you Neil.
I run around and shoot handheld most of the time so this is a new venture for me. Monopods I use but tripods, not so much. (Primarily because mine is 15 years old and weighs 12lbs.)
I'm in the do it once / pay for it once group which is why it's taking forever to get my tripod. Knowing that the Markins will work with the Gitzo travel tripod I'm looking at / saving for will save me some angst!
I appreciate the feedback.
#5. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 4Fri 28-Dec-12 09:25 PM
The Q3 is a very good mate for a Traveler. Why spend a lot of money attempting to reduce tripod weight as much as possible and then bulk it up and weigh it down with a heavier head than necessary? .
You will likely find that if there is a reason to upgrade the M3 it will be due to nose heavy collarless lenses like the 24-70/2.8 (which I own and know well) or something like a 14-24/2.8 or to a lesser extent the macro primes, etc. that have a heavy front element(s).
Although our standard advice in that case is to upgrade to an M10 or preferably an M20, an even better solution is a "macro rail" that offsets the camera behind the clamp, thus balancing it.
I can say with experience that even an M20 will not make a 24-70/2.8 handle like a 70-200. As time goes on I am starting to think the problem is best solved with the rail, assuming it doesn't add unacceptable bulk or complexity. I'm thinking about something like the Kirk LRP-1 or the RRS equivalent if you prefer that brand. A long rail + clamp oriented in the proper direction.
I mention this just for long term planning. Many people use the Q3 stock on a tripod and are quite happy with it. The performance/weight ratio is very imnpressive and that's an understatement.
my Nikonians gallery.
#6. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 5Fri 28-Dec-12 11:03 PM
With the D7000 my most used lenses are the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 / Nikon 35mm 1.8G / 70-200 2.8 VR1 and my walk around 16-85.
I can hand hold everything, even though I shouldn't, but the 70-200. (After a few hours it starts to wear on me) which is why I use the monopod so much. I use an L bracket, drop it into the slot, fit in the side of the camera or with the 70-200 the lens foot and use it like a poor mans gimbal.
I have a very hard time with the whole shebang mounted directly on top. I feel like I have a little more control by keeping the center of gravity off the top of the monopod.
I do love the idea of the rail for the tripod! It would let me keep the Q3 on the traveler without giving up stability for my (someday) heavier glass.
By the way I have lens envy...24-70/2.8 .. 14-24/2.8... oh to have those weight problems! lol
#7. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 6Sat 29-Dec-12 02:59 PM
You have the most expensive of the Three Kings, the 70-200. It's all downhill from there
I don't recall anyone discussing the "poor man's gimbal" setup on a monopod but if it works for...
You may find the Q3 easier to deal with when in an upright mode. You did not mention which head you had problems with.
my Nikonians gallery.
#8. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 7Sat 29-Dec-12 04:15 PM
I am using the Manfrotto 496 RC2 ball head. When upright it tends to flop / move and is really hard to fine control. Prior to that Manfrotto 234 RC tilt head which was really not good for me.
To be fair they were also on a short (and thin) Manfrotto Monopod (776yb) which I got prior to going to Europe thinking it would help me in the museums etc. It did to a point but I am much happier with the length and strength of the Gitzo even though it's heavier to carry. (I now put it on my belt through a police d cell flashlight holder which is perfect (and I already had it so it was cheap)! Galls caries them for around $10. Nylon so it wont scratch up my monopod)
As for the "poor mans gimbal".... sorry just thinking while typing. Actually I saw it on You Tube and gave it a shot (literally) and it helped steady me and my shots (Juan Presents Tips on Using a Monopod). May be in my head but....
The rest of the Holy Trinity. (Angles in the background humming). For now I am concentrating on getting what I have to work. I'm operating on the its not the arrow its the archer philosophy. Once I get good enough to understand what I'm missing and take advantage of what they offer then I'm off to upgrade!
#9. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 8Sun 30-Dec-12 10:45 AM
I use something very similar to that flashlight holder but have a lot of trouble with the monopod getting caught between my legs as I walk. Have you had a problem with that?
The idea of the "Poor Man's Gimbal" is that, flopped over and with the ball loose, it will act like a gimbal (sort of) on a tripod. On a monopod the concept of a "gimbal" does not work well for most people (including me) because the whole system is too "loose" and too difficult to control. For example, I would never even consider using a Wimberly Sidekick on a monopod.
I understand your frustration with the 234- I have one in a box somewhere and I think it is sort of a right of passage for most of us on the road to a better solution.
It will be interesting to see your impressions after you get the Q3. You will understand why the 496 sells for $60 and the Q3 for more like $300.
Although off topic here, think very hard before diving into the 24-70 on DX. I bought one before I went FX, but at a time that I knew I would likely go FX within a year or two. I bought it the day before a very steep and previously announced price increase.
It is an amazing lens, but 24mm is not an amazing wide angle on DX. The problem I had was that I needed to swap in my 12-24DX too frequently, which killed the flexibility of a mid range zoom. a better solution for a lot of people (like me) would be the 17-55.
I spent the next year thinking that the 24-70 was a mistake, except that I really had my sights on the D700. If I had been firmly committed to DX then it would have been a huge mistake for me and the focal range I want on a basic mid-range zoom. This was 4 years ago and DX has come a long way since my D300.
The same is true for different reasons with the 14-24. Even 14mm is not exciting in terms of an ultra-wide on DX. And you have the unnecessary penalty of not being able to easily use relatively inexpensive filters. There are filter systems for the 14-24 but the huge size of the filters can easily result in spending more on the filters and adapter contraptions than the lens, and the combined monstrosity is, well, monstrous .
I ended up comparing the 16-35 AFS/VR, new, at about $1260 to a used 14-24 at around $1500. The ~$250 difference was not a factor. If it was just that, I would have bought the 14-24 in a heartbeat. The world is awash in used 14-24 lenses at around that price, I suspect because of the difficulties of the filter issue and the sheer size and weight of what for many people is not a primary lens.
It was mostly the filter issue that swung me to the 16-35. As it was I was more or less forced into the Lee 4x6 system because of the 16mm (previously using 85mm P filters); that was almost half the cost of the lens.
Just to say that there are many prices paid to acquire and use those angels . You may not have the same concerns and needs but just something to think about.
You are right to take your next lens upgrades slowly. The 70-200 is sort of a no-brainer on DX or FX, but completing the set really requires a firm format commitment and some serious decisions.
my Nikonians gallery.
#10. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 9Mon 31-Dec-12 03:55 AM
Regarding the monopod holder. If you were a cop you might wear a d cell flashlight holder on your right hip well behind your gun (right handed) close to your right rear pocket. It keeps the flashlight behind you when you run etc and is still easy to draw.
If you wore a long stick (not an asp) it would be on your left hip again behind the center of your leg. You have to reach but it's an ok cross draw. The secret is keeping them behind the center of the side of your leg. That keeps them out of the way when you move. (you may also want to invest in a belt keeper or two which will keep the holder in one spot on your belt $2 each).
Same principal applies to the monopod. Push it a little further behind your hip and if it is hard to reach, pull / push it up with the close hand and pull it across your body with your off hand. (like drawing a sword) Worn on either side this should help your mobility by keeping it from tripping you as you move about! (And you'll be ready to defend yourself in hostile photographic environments! lol)
Thank you for your info on the lenses. I'm not ready to make the switch yet to FX but may have some camera body issues if they substantially improve the D7000. It really does everything I need at this point.
As for the 17-55... so so tempting but I am waiting for VR on it before I make that decision. I'll be the first in line for one of the lenses everyone will be selling for the new model .. At that point I would be firmly in the DX camp since all the lenses I own (except the 70-200) would all be DX. Otherwise, I would have to totally rework my lens choices which might just lead to extensive therapy and possibly divorce!
#11. "RE: Markins Q3 or Q10 on monopod" | In response to Reply # 1
>Welcome to Nikonians!
>The Q3 is more than up to the task for use on a monopod.
>I use a Q3 on Gitzo GM5541 with a D3s and telephotos including
>a 400mm f/2.8. It will also work very well on a travel (light
>I use M20/Q20 heads on my tripods because the larger
>"sweet spot" makes them much more user friendly when
>using front heavy lenses (without a tripod foot) like the
>14-24mm, 24-70mm, 28-70mm, 70-300mm, etc....
>Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
Ditto. The same setup and i like it.