Light tripod as good a cheap heavy one?

[Skyscraperfan]

Almost twenty years ago I bought a Manfrotto 055 PROB tripod. I was just about 150 Euros with a head and it was very tall. 150cm without the center column extended. I took it on all vacations and it was very sturdy even at long exposures at 200mm. It gave me so many great photos. I love that is only has three sections, it has quick release plates and you unlike most tripods you can attach a strap to it. So I do not need a bag, which is very comfortable.

There is one downside though that I feel more and more the older I get: The weight. It weighs 3.665 kilos with the head and the strap. That also gets me into trouble when travelling in economy class.

So I wondered if I should buy a lighter tripod. After having watched dozens of tripos reviews, I found that the Benro Rhino 24C with the VX25 head seems to be the best compromise for me. It weighs just 1.74 kilos. That is less than half the weight of the Manfrotto. That is a HUGE difference when carrying it around.

I wonder though if it will still be as sturdy as the heavy Manfrotto. On paper the Benro can support 18 kilos, while the Manfrotto is rated for half as much or less, but I wonder if that light Benro tripod really is as sturdy as that Manfrotto tank. I only watched single reviews of those tripods and never a comparison between those two. The Manfrotto also has three screws to attach the head even tighter, while the head of the Benro only seems to be attached by the single screw in the center. Also having four sections should be less sturdy than three sections. Would I regret losing some hieght? Can I be sure that buying the Benro would not be a step back?

The Benro is on the left, while the twenty year old Manfrotto is on the right:

Another problem with the Benro is that it is not as tall as the Manfrotto. So to get it on my eye level I might have to extend the center column a bit. There is a taller version of the Benro, but that one only is 5 or 6 centimetres taller, but 300 grams heavier.

The Benro also has some advantages. You could convert one leg into a monopod and the head allows panoramas even when the tripod does not stand straight. That is a huge advantage compared to the Manfrotto.

For me that is a very difficult decision. Would I regret retiring my beloved old heavy tripod or would the weight difference make my life so much better? Would I regret no longer having quick release plates? Would it annoy me to extend four sections instead of three? Would I regret having a ball head instead of that three way head that gave me so much more control?

Next month I will go on a journey to six countries. Then I should better have taken the right decision. What would you do?

 

[DrD]

I recently purchased a cheap Carbon Fiber tripod - Artcise AS95C (brand also known as Innorel), plus it will support up to 40 kg (88 lbs). I use it with a Manfrotto 504X fluid head. I used to have a 055 aluminum tripod, but this new one is insanely solid. Tested today indoors for IBIS High-Res images using the TC-80N3 timer remote cable and it worked flawlessly. This particular model is quite heavy, probably too heavy for travel, but they do have slightly thinner and lighter models that will still support 20 Kg (44 lbs) and cost a lot less.

For travel, I would prefer to use a cheaper brand like this one, for obvious reasons (anything goes wrong/missing, easy to replace). I have seen their AS35C model on Amazon (Germany for 109 euros) that includes a 36 mm ball head. It extends to 77-inches, has the 2-in-1 monopod feature also, and weighs a little more than 2 kilos including head (1.6 kg without).

These lesser known Chinese brands do use decent components (like Japanese Toray carbon etc), and they can extend both to eye and flat to ground level. The other nice feature is the short-twist lock mechanism (quarter twist or less even, will suffice), so you can extend all sections very rapidly - I usually do all together, then for packing up; stand the tripod all legs closed vertically, quick twist, then allow it to collapse down.

 

[HeavyPiper]

I'm very happy with my Benro tripod but wasn't happy with my GX model ball head so replaced it. Just my two cents.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Some thoughts...

There is no perfect tripod.

Light, stable, inexpensive...tripods can be no more than two of the three. Unfortunately, the Benro would not be considered 'expensive' as far as that axiom goes (tripods from Gitzo, Really Right Stuff, Sachtler are in that category, where you'll pay well over $1000 for tripod plus head and in many cases just the legs are >$1K).

I have not used the Benro you mention (any Benro, actually), but I would guess that it will be slightly less stable than the Manfrotto, but also note that carbon fiber damps vibration better than aluminum, so that may even things out. But...if you raise the Benro's center column, you'll take a significant stability penalty.

Regarding, “…the head allows panoramas even when the tripod does not stand straight,” that’s a nice feature not possible with typical ball heads. Kudos to Benro. I think Acratech was the first to offer something along those lines, a ballhead that could be inverted on the platform for a level pano.

What makes you think you’d have to give up quick release plates? The Benro head is Arca-Swiss compatible, that’s the same system used by a wide array of manufacturers. I used to use Manfrotto, they had multiple types of clamp/plate combos that weren’t even compatible with each other. They generally had some play in the clamp, especially the RC2 (the hexagonal one didn’t, but it was inconveniently large). The AS system means one can use plates and more importantly L-brackets from RRS, Kirk, Actatech, SmallRig, even ‘knockoff’ inexpensive brands like Sunwayphoto, in head clamps from RRS, Kirk, Benro, and many others.

Four sections vs. three, more sections is arguably less stable, that matters more the cheaper the tripod because the joints introduce instability. A good quality 4-section tripod will be plenty stable.

You don’t mention it, but the Manfrotto has flip locks and the Benro has twist locks. It’s sort of like do you prefer apples or oranges, but I’ve used both and I find twist locks to be easier and more efficient (and easier to disassemble and clean if needed). I grab all the locks on a leg with one hand and a short twist unlocks all the sections. They’re also easier to adjust slightly if needed, because they can be loosened just a bit so the leg slides slowly down.

Ballheads offer much more flexibility than pan/tilt. Geared heads are the ultimate in control. I find ballheads much more convenient because they can be adjusted and leveled more quickly (especially aided by the electronic level on the LCD).

Personally I have two tripods, both from RRS. The TVC-33 is big and robust, and not light even though it’s carbon fiber. I got it mainly to use with my 600/4 II on a gimbal head, though I got the beefy BH-55 ballhead as well (they swap with a quick release clamp). Three leg sections, no center column, leveling base (makes using a gimbal easier). It’s too big for air travel…ok, technically not because if I remove the head (easy with the lever clamp), the legs do fit in my max-size checked luggage. But I’ve never traveled with it.

I also have the RRS TQC-14 with BH-30 LR head. That’s a small/light travel tripod. IIRC, it’s rated for 25 lbs…but ratings don’t tell the whole story. This is the TQC-14 supporting a medium format rig…and the owner of RRS:



I’ve done that with my own tripod and my 90 kg self (but without the medium format rig ), so I can personally attest it’s possible. Good thing, too, as I wonder what RRS would have said if I claimed I broke the $1K set of legs trying Joe’s stunt.

The tripod + head weighs 1.5 kg, so a bit lighter than the Benro setup you suggest. The leg tube diameters are similar. I’ve found the setup to be excellent for travel, and I do a lot of long exposure shooting (daytime with a 10-stop ND and blue hour).

Here are a few long exposures taken on the TQC-14, all between 20-30 s except the last one that is a pano of 13 exposures at 10 s each. Lenses used are TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 24-70/2.8L and 11-24/4L.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

For travel, I would prefer to use a cheaper brand like this one, for obvious reasons (anything goes wrong/missing, easy to replace). I have seen their AS35C model on Amazon (Germany for 109 euros) that includes a 36 mm ball head. It extends to 77-inches, has the 2-in-1 monopod feature also, and weighs a little more than 2 kilos including head (1.6 kg without).

Are the tripods in that price range really good? It sounds too good to be true. For wide angle shots that might not be a problem, but will it support my 70-200 at 200mm?

I'm very happy with my Benro tripod but wasn't happy with my GX model ball head so replaced it. Just my two cents.

I wonder if the VX head is better or worse than the GX head. Is it only a problem, if you tilt the head for portrait orientation?

What makes you think you’d have to give up quick release plates? The Benro head is Arca-Swiss compatible, that’s the same system used by a wide array of manufacturers. I used to use Manfrotto, they had multiple types of clamp/plate combos that weren’t even compatible with each other. They generally had some play in the clamp, especially the RC2 (the hexagonal one didn’t, but it was inconveniently large). The AS system means one can use plates and more importantly L-brackets from RRS, Kirk, Actatech, SmallRig, even ‘knockoff’ inexpensive brands like Sunwayphoto, in head clamps from RRS, Kirk, Benro, and many others.

Those Arca-Swiss plates are also called quick release plates, but you still have to tighten a screw, while the Manfrotto quick release plates only need a click. That is incredibly fast and it also has the advantage that you do not have to make sure that you screwed it tight enough. Of course I could put my Manfrotto head on the Benro tripod and then I could use my old quick release system. The Manfrotto head is very heavy though.

Light, stable, inexpensive...tripods can be no more than two of the three. Unfortunately, the Benro would not be considered 'expensive' as far as that axiom goes (tripods from Gitzo, Really Right Stuff, Sachtler are in that category, where you'll pay well over $1000 for tripod plus head and in many cases just the legs are >$1K).

I wonder what "cheap" is for a travel tripod. There are many carbon travel tripods below $200. The Rollei C6i is a very popular carbon travel tripod and that one costs about $150. The Benro has an official price of 319€, which is a medium price for a travel tripod. Of course Gitzo and RRS tripods have their own price league. The problem is that sometimes manufacturers make an existing model cheaper without changing the name. That happened with the Rollei for example. So you can't rely on old reviews.

Regarding, “…the head allows panoramas even when the tripod does not stand straight,” that’s a nice feature not possible with typical ball heads. Kudos to Benro. I think Acratech was the first to offer something along those lines, a ballhead that could be inverted on the platform for a level pano.

Benro works differently. You do not have to invert the head. There is a screw at the top that allows you to just rotate the top plate.

Here are a few long exposures taken on the TQC-14, all between 20-30 s except the last one that is a pano of 13 exposures at 10 s each. Lenses used are TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 24-70/2.8L and 11-24/4L.

Nice photos. Long exposures are the only use of my tripod. I focus on the blue hour, because blue hour photos even look great on a cloudy day. I also usually use 20 to 30 seconds of exposure. My problem though is that the blue hour often is less than 30 minutes and in that time frame I have to take all the photos. That's why I am looking for an alternative to long exposures. For example higher ISO plus denoising software. I am still not satisfied with the quality though. It might take another decade until that really works.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For wide angle shots that might not be a problem, but will it support my 70-200 at 200mm?

That’s probably more down to the head than the legs. Most ballheads will ‘drop’ a bit with a heavy lens used without a tripod ring (which is why lenses like the 70-200/2.8L and 100-400/500L come with a tripod ring, so you can balance the load). My RRS BH-30 exhibits some drop like that, meaning you need to compose the shot with the lens pointed a little high before you tighten the ballhead, to allow for that. OTOH, my RRS BH-55 head doesn’t drop at all, even with a fully-extended 100-500 mounted via the body plate. Once locked down, both are stable with no drift.

Here’s a 30 s shot with the R3 and 100-500L on the travel tripod (RRS TQC-14 with BH-30), I didn’t bring the tripod ring on that trip (subject is Ajax Peak just outside Telluride, CO). Star trails from the long exposure, but no vibration.

Those Arca-Swiss plates are also called quick release plates, but you still have to tighten a screw, while the Manfrotto quick release plates only need a click. That is incredibly fast and it also has the advantage that you do not have to make sure that you screwed it tight enough.

That’s true for the Benro setup you’re interested in, but not a general feature of Arca-Swiss clamps. My RRS ballheads have lever clamps, not screw clamps (I opted for a screw clamp on my monopod head because I carry my 600/4 on that over my shoulder, and don’t want a lever handle to catch on a backpack strap and open).



Flipping the lever open and closed is very quick, and closed is closed, there’s no need to worry about how tight is is (nor is there any resistance when closing the lever, it just takes a fingertip).

The big advantage to AS plates/clamps is that when the clamp is closed, whether a lever or a screw clamp, there is absolutely no play between head and clamp. The Manfrotto plates, especially the RC2, can wiggle around in the clamp meaning potential vibration.

IBenro works differently. You do not have to invert the head. There is a screw at the top that allows you to just rotate the top plate.

Yes, my point was that the intent was similar, i.e., you can take a level pano series without needing to have the platform of the tripod (where the head attaches) level. Benro’s approach to achieve that looks nice.

Nice photos.

Thanks!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wonder if the VX head is better or worse than the GX head. Is it only a problem, if you tilt the head for portrait orientation?

One more point here, although not directly addressing VX vs. GX, is to reiterate what I stated above – another advantage of the AS system is the availability of dedicated L-brackets for most camera bodies. The L-bracket solves the issue of dropping the ballhead into the notch for portrait orientation, and the concomitant reduction in freedom of movement and decreased stability from an off-center load. Instead you mount the camera in the clamp via the upright portion of the L-bracket.

That last shot in the series above was a pano of portrait-oriented images, which is how I usually shoot panos because it results in less cropping needed (at the expense of requiring more images). Doing that without an L-bracket would introduce parallax between shots (which may or may not be a big deal, depending on focal length), but an L-bracket places the axis of panning right over the center of rotation. There's still some residual parallax possible, but if desired that can be corrected with a nodal slide.

Manfrotto does offer a generic L-bracket, but unlike dedicated L-brackets in many cases generic ones block battery/card doors and/or port access, and do not have an anti-twist feature (which is another advantage of dedicated AS camera plates that the Manfrotto plates lack). Several of the L-brackets I use are modular and the upright part can be removed leaving only the camera base plate, so when I'm not bringing the tripod I remove the upright part and the base plate serves as a great way to attach my BlackRapid strap to carry the camera.

 

[HeavyPiper]

I replaced my GX ball head with the RRS BH-30.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

One more point here, although not directly addressing VX vs. GX, is to reiterate what I stated above – another advantage of the AS system is the availability of dedicated L-brackets for most camera bodies. The L-bracket solves the issue of dropping the ballhead into the notch for portrait orientation, and the concomitant reduction in freedom of movement and decreased stability from an off-center load. Instead you mount the camera in the clamp via the upright portion of the L-bracket.

What scares me a little is the added weight of an L-bracket. I would only need it for wider angle lenses anyway, as the 70-200 and the 100-400 both have tripod collar rings that allow me to rotate the camera to portrait orientation. My camera (the 1D X) is quite big and would probably need an L-bracket that weighs several hundred grams. I saw some that even weigh a kilo. That would negate a lot of the weight savings from a new tripod. I would probably let the L-bracket attached to the camera all the time like I do with the quick release plate.

If I do panoramas, it is usually from quite a distance, as my main focus are skyscrapers, So a slight movement of the nodal point is not visible. However when I do handheld panoramas, I try to rotate my camera around the nodal point. I often do those handheld panoramas, as my camera has only 18 megapixels and sometimes I want a higher resolution.

As a new tripod would be used for many years, I also think about future cameras that will be much lighter. There probably will not be another full frame camera as heavy as the 1D series cameras. The R3 already is much lighter and the R1 will probably have the same weight. I might opt for an even lighter camera to make my life easier. The Lumix S5 II looks very promising and it is quite cheap and very light, while beating my 1D X in probably all aspects except battery life and sturdiness. Mirrorless lenses generally are also much lighter. Although I always loved big and heavy cameras, my age will not allow me to carry them forever.

I even think about replacing my 24-70 with a 50mm primes lens. The wide and the long end of the 24-70 are already covered with other lenses which unlike my 24-70 both have IS. So I just need something in the center between 30mm and 70mm. My back would thank me for that.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I replaced my GX ball head with the RRS BH-30.

That seems a little outside my budget though. I probably would invest that money into lenses or my next camera. I do not make any money any more from photography since I moved away from stock photography last year because of unfair commissions. I hope the VX ball is not as bad as some reviews suggest. Could it really be worse that the 3-way-head of the cheap Manfrotto tripod?

 

[ericbowles]

It's worth spending a bit more than your budget for good gear. If I were to allocate priorities, put money toward the ballhead first, then the tripod legs. If your budget it tight and you are making compromises, look at used gear.

I have a RRS BH-55 ballhead I bought in 2005. I've used it for more than 500,000 photos under all kinds of conditions. It's probably worth $325-350 today - 90% of what I paid. It's a little heavy, but is not even close to being a candidate for replacement. It has a lever release. If I needed a kit that had medium to lighter lenses - like a 70-200 or less - I would consider the BH-40 or BH-30. My cost per year for my ballhead is around $25 per year, and if you consider the current value, it works out to about $3 of depreciation per year. That's basically a loaner I can use indefinitely at no cost.

When it comes to tripod legs, leg diameter makes a big difference. With a 4 section tripod, the bottom leg section gets very small. By having a taller tripod, you have more flexibility for uneven ground and can increase stability by not fully extending the bottom leg section. If you don't extend the leg sections fully it can help, but starting with a little larger top leg section like a 3 series Gitzo or 2 series RRS allows a reasonable size for the bottom leg section. Carbon fiber makes a difference not only with weight, but with vibration dampening. It's worth paying more for carbon fiber. Finally, you don't really save much weight by going with a light tripod unless it is very light, and I have yet to see a very light tripod that does not compromise stability.

Among light weight tripods, here is my ranking. I used vibration data and basic information from the Center Column (https://thecentercolumn.com/rankings/) but modified the weights to reflect my preferences for a taller tripod, a limit on any benefits from lighter weight, and an emphasis on minimizing vibration. A short tripod almost always has less vibration, but it's a lousy way to get the height needed, so I made deductions for a short tripod offsetting the vibration benefit. Likewise you can make a tripod that is unreasonably light, so I eliminated any benefit of reducing weight below average for the category. This ranking is just for light weight tripods. They only ranked two Benro tripods and those were not in my top 10. Feisol ranked quite well in their Elite and Classic lines.

RRS TFC-14
FLM CP30-S4 II
Gitzo GT1545T Traveler
Feisol Classic CT-3301
Leofoto LS-324C
Feisol CT-3342
RRS TQC-14
Gitzo GT1532 Mountaineer
Feisol CT-3442 Tournament
LeoFoto LS-284C
Leofoto LS-254C

Here is my ranking for full size tripods:
FLM CP38-L4 II
RRS TVC-34L
RRS TVC-24L
Feisol Elite CT-3472 M2
Gitzo GT3533LS Sytematic
RRS TVC-33
Gitzo GT4533LS Systematic
RRS TVC-33S
ProMediaGear TR343L
RRS TVC-23

 

[neuroanatomist]

I replaced my GX ball head with the RRS BH-30.

The BH-30 is a very nice head. It also costs only 15% less than the Benro series 2 tripod legs with the VX ballhead..and leaves you with a ballhead you don't use.

Reminds me of an old article by Thom Hogan, where he suggested you could spend $1000 on a good tripod and head...or $2000 on a good tripod and head. The article was from 20 years ago, in today's dollars those values would be $1500 / $3000. The premise was that you would buy a cheap tripod (e.g. aluminum legs and a pan/tilt head), then upgrade the tripod and head to a mid-level kit, then upgrade the head, then upgrade the legs again, etc., until eventually you end up with Gitzo/RRS legs and a ballhead from RRS/Kirk/Markins/Arca Swiss, a combo costing $1000 back then and $1500 today, after spending at least that much on lower end gear that was insufficient for your long-term needs. Or you could just start with the high end gear and spend much less in the long run.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What scares me a little is the added weight of an L-bracket. I would only need it for wider angle lenses anyway, as the 70-200 and the 100-400 both have tripod collar rings that allow me to rotate the camera to portrait orientation. My camera (the 1D X) is quite big and would probably need an L-bracket that weighs several hundred grams. I saw some that even weigh a kilo. That would negate a lot of the weight savings from a new tripod. I would probably let the L-bracket attached to the camera all the time like I do with the quick release plate.

The RRS L-bracket set weighs 260 g, is modular, and the hex key to remove the upright part stores in the bracket itself and is the same 5/32" key used for most camera/lens plates.

As a new tripod would be used for many years, I also think about future cameras that will be much lighter. There probably will not be another full frame camera as heavy as the 1D series cameras. The R3 already is much lighter and the R1 will probably have the same weight. I might opt for an even lighter camera to make my life easier.

That's the best argument for splurging on a good tripod/head, instead of a succession of upgrades. Something like an RRS Series 2 with BH-40 head is a good choice, but if you know you'll using lighter gear the Series 1 (Ascend) would be fine (but do note that RRS series 1 legs are similar to most other brands series 2 legs). My RRS TQC-14 (also a Series 1) is ideal for just about everything except my 600/4 II.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

That's the best argument for splurging on a good tripod/head, instead of a succession of upgrades.

When you buy a kit, it is usually priced in a way that gives you the head almost for free. That's why I would probably start with the included head and see how it works. If it is not sturdy enough, I can still buy another head later. It would not be good to "overpay" now for a head that is better than needed. The focal range I use in my tripod usually is 200mm or below. So I might not need a tripod that is good enough for a 600mm lens with a high resolution camera.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Reminds me of an old article by Thom Hogan, where he suggested you could spend $1000 on a good tripod and head...or $2000 on a good tripod and head. The article was from 20 years ago, in today's dollars those values would be $1500 / $3000. The premise was that you would buy a cheap tripod (e.g. aluminum legs and a pan/tilt head), then upgrade the tripod and head to a mid-level kit, then upgrade the head, then upgrade the legs again, etc., until eventually you end up with Gitzo/RRS legs and a ballhead from RRS/Kirk/Markins/Arca Swiss, a combo costing $1000 back then and $1500 today, after spending at least that much on lower end gear that was insufficient for your long-term needs. Or you could just start with the high end gear and spend much less in the long run.

Usually I also prefer buying good things that last a long time. That's why I bought the 1D X for example, which may be outdated, but I could easily still use it in 2030. However after the experience with the super cheap Manfrotto that got me sharp images, I wonder how much more I have to spend to get the same sturdiness with a lighter tripod.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Now I found a photo that confirms the biggest fear I had about the Rhino: There are no extra screws to fix the tripod head:

That is especially a problem with a head with a panorama function at the very bottom of the head. You might accidentally unscrew the head from the legs instead of loosening the panorama screw. That can get very expensive. That is a major flaw that will make me shift to another tripod or not buy a new one at all. Even my cheap Manfrotto allows me to fix the head very tight with those three screws that will not accidentally losen. It seems a very bad idea to get rid of those screws.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Now I found a photo that confirms the biggest fear I had about the Rhino: There are no extra screws to fix the tripod head:
View attachment 208423
That is especially a problem with a head with a panorama function at the very bottom of the head. You might accidentally unscrew the head from the legs instead of loosening the panorama screw. That can get very expensive. That is a major flaw that will make me shift to another tripod or not buy a new one at all. Even my cheap Manfrotto allows me to fix the head very tight with those three screws that will not accidentally losen. It seems a very bad idea to get rid of those screws.

Do you plan to remove the head for travel or at other times? If not, put a drop of Loctite Blue 243 on the threads then screw on the head. That formulation is 'semi-permanent', meaning you can use a tool like channel locks (with some padding to prevent scratches) to remove the head if you need to, but it's not going to unscrew in normal use. FWIW, RRS recommends it and even sells a version of it. The RRS tripod platforms have just the single 3/8"-16 stud to attach the head, and no counterscrews.

I used Loctite 242 (older version of 243) on my BH-30 head mounted on the TQC-14, on the lever release clamp on my TVC-33 leveling base platform (the clamp allows easy switching between the PG-02 gimbal for the 600/4 II and the BH-55 for regular lenses), and also to attach the BlackRapid strap lugs to the Kirk 1" AS-type clamps that I use to carry the camera/lens in use, before RRS adopted the QD system and started putting QD sockets on their plates and BlackRapid came out with a QD strap, a setup that's far less bulky than the 1" clamp. I do still use the clamp with my 600/4 II, because I carry that one on a BlackRapid left-handed strap (supertele lenses hang best on the left side, where you can lift and support them with the left hand and shoot with the right hand).

None of the Loctite-treated joins have ever come loose, and I've been using the setups for about a decade now.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If not, put a drop of Loctite Blue 243 on the threads then screw on the head

Actually glue was the first thing that came to my head. I might never switch to another head anyway unless that head turns out to be very unstable. I was surprised that even some Gitzo mounting plates do not have those screws. I thing the problem might be that putting those screws might interfere with a smooth movement of panorama heads. My cheap Manfrotto really needs those screws. Without the screws there is some movement in the head. I have to tried it with Loctite though yet.

I still have some time to decide if I buy a new tripod for my trip or keep the old one. At the moment I am leaning towards keeping the old one, as I am generally not a big fan of changes, but of course I could still sell the new tripod after the trip if I really do not like it.

Thanks for all your advice! Maybe sometimes I think too much what could go wrong before I buy something. Maybe I should not have spent the money on my Insta360 camera that will arrive tomorrow and instead invested it into a really good tripod.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The tripod arrived today. I love how light it is. I still have to practice a lot to get used to the ball head. A 3-way-head is so much better, but also heavier. So if I want a light one, I have to choose a ball head. Twist locks are also quite annoying and I now have to lock nine locks instead of six. The handling of the Manfrotto was so much more convenient. It was just too heavy,

 

[HeavyPiper]

They say practice makes perfect. I'm sure that the Twist Locks will become second nature after awhile. I'm able to unlock all three on each leg at one time (when legs are fully retracted)