Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 1/9/00 10:29 PM, D Khong at dkhong@pacific.net.sg wrote: > There are the older version table tripods with shorter "column" and the > current one with the longer stem. Are there any practical differences > between using one compared to the other? I carried one of the old ones with a small ball head in my bag for years. I cursed the weight most of the time, and really appreciated it when it was needed. Now I tend to leave it at home except on trips and curse myself for not having it... Column length is important, but there's a weight and cost trade-off. On my version, column length is controlled by the ball head. With the small ball head (less expensive, lighter weight, short column) the camera sits very close to the support (table or wall). That can make it hard to get a level field of view without also getting a piece of the support in the frame. It also forces you to really hug the wall and isn't quite long enough to use the "Chest support technique" comfortably. The large ball head is more secure, has a longer column, works better with long lenses on a SLR, and seems better in all ways except that it weighs and costs more (and I don't have one)... I'm not sure about a longer column on the tripod rather than on the head. Sounds like a good idea, and should make the small ball head more useful. Mike Quinn