New Tripod for Landscapes

[munna1]

I am after a new Tripod for my current landscape photography use. I currently have a Vanguard Alta Pro 263AT that is just over 12 months old. The cast alloy that locks the legs in place have all broken off. But I am pretty sure it was my fault when trying to bury the legs in the sand as the sea was coming in to stabilize the tripod. Plus I always had trouble with movement between bracketed shoots with my tamron 70-200 lens (which I use rarely).
The Tripod is used in all sorts of conditions including a lot of seascapes in salt water. I am hard on the equipment but at least washed it down afterwards. I should also note I use a d800 with a tamron 15-30 with 150mm filter holder and filters. I bracket and exposure blend a lot using liveveiw to minimize vibration between shots. I can't even use the tripod in portrait mode with this setup as the ballhead just can't hold the weight without droping slightly between shots.
I should also note that I am 6"3 and would like a Tripod that was a bit higher. The Alta Pro was useless when extending the center pole. Budget is around 600 for tripod and ballhead
I am looking at this current setup which comes with a k20x ballhead as part of the package.
Sirui w2204 with k20x
This is about the max I would like to spend but I am worried it may be a little light for my setup? I really like that it has the water sealing too. Portability is also important but I don't want to buy something thats not up to the job either.
Here is another that is much heavier and probably out of my budget but would most certainly be more stable.
or this
R4213x with k40x
Any other suggestions greatly appreciated thanks.

[jim]

Why would you want a tripod that is higher than you are? Do you carry a stepladder? Never mind. You should get the best tripod you can afford, and in your price range you might be limited to budget brands. You could check out Benro, their products have a good reputation and aren't too expensive. Try to get something that reaches your maximum height without having to extend the centre column.

The head is also important and you could spend a good chunk of your entire budget on a good one. You may be stuck buying a head with your legs, which would at least give you the option to upgrade later if it turns out not to be up to scratch.

Oh, and please stick to the default text colour. Some of us are still using the old site default colour scheme with a light grey background. That makes white text very hard to read. Ta.

[ricktas]

Oh, and please stick to the default text colour. Some of us are still using the old site default colour scheme with a light grey background. That makes white text very hard to read. Ta.

The text colour issue occurs when people cut-n-paste their comments in from either a word processor or another website, rather than just typing to comments into the post box here on AP.

[Tannin]

A tripod taller than you are is essential for high-angle work Jim. (Examples? Well, birds. I can't think of any others. Certainly I can't imagine using such for landscapes. Maybe architecture a bit.)

Munna, first, g'day and welcome to AP.

Next, it strikes me that what you really need is a quality head, especially if you are going to be using a 70-200 without the on-lens foot. That's a huge ask for any head. Like Jim, I think it might be wise to consider replacing the head and making do with your old legs for a while.

One thing you might consider is a three-way (also called "pan-tilt") head. Some people think these are a bit tedious to use. On the other hand, they are very precise and easy to lock down, and from an engineering point of view non-challenging as compared to a ball head - meaning that for any given level of stability, a three-way head will cost much less than a ball head or, putting the same point the other way around, you get a more stable head for less money. (I have owned four heads: as it happens, one of each major kind: fluid, three-way, ball, and gimbal. The fluid and gimbal are not suitable for landscaping, of course. I used to have a three-way head for landscaping but the fiddly process of getting it just so used to drive me nuts, so I got a ball head instead. I'm not entirely convinced that it's much better. Possibly I'd be happier with a really large, very high-quality ball head - but where do you stop spending?)

If you do replace the tripod, your best bet might be one with four rather than three sections (they go taller and are stronger too, but expensive and a bit heavier). Good quality ones will be almost as good with the centre column extended as with it lowered - but all this comes at a price.

[munna1]

Sorry, I mean slightly higher then the tripod I currently have. I re-read the post and notice it was poorly writen. I completed a search on here before and noticed Benro came up a lot. Sounds like they might be a good alternative.

Perhaps a c3580T (450) with a Sirui K-40X ballhead (250). Would come in a little above budget but not by a lot (700).

Max height seems to be about 160cm. I am 190 so about 180 eye height, plus ball head and camera would be very close to the correct height. Weight seems manageable too.

The c3570T seems like it could be worth consitoring too 3 section but only 100mm longer when packed up.

I would certainly like a shorter center pole though I like how the Sirui ones have the center piece you can unscrew to get lower if needed.

- - - Updated - - -


A tripod taller than you are is essential for high-angle work Jim. (Examples? Well, birds. I can't think of any others. Certainly I can't imagine using such for landscapes. Maybe architecture a bit.)

Munna, first, g'day and welcome to AP.

Next, it strikes me that what you really need is a quality head, especially if you are going to be using a 70-200 without the on-lens foot. That's a huge ask for any head. Like Jim, I think it might be wise to consider replacing the head and making do with your old legs for a while.

One thing you might consider is a three-way (also called "pan-tilt") head. Some people think these are a bit tedious to use. On the other hand, they are very precise and easy to lock down, and from an engineering point of view non-challenging as compared to a ball head - meaning that for any given level of stability, a three-way head will cost much less than a ball head or, putting the same point the other way around, you get a more stable head for less money. (I have owned four heads: as it happens, one of each major kind: fluid, three-way, ball, and gimbal. The fluid and gimbal are not suitable for landscaping, of course. I used to have a three-way head for landscaping but the fiddly process of getting it just so used to drive me nuts, so I got a ball head instead. I'm not entirely convinced that it's much better. Possibly I'd be happier with a really large, very high-quality ball head - but where do you stop spending?)

If you do replace the tripod, your best bet might be one with four rather than three sections (they go taller and are stronger too, but expensive and a bit heavier). Good quality ones will be almost as good with the centre column extended as with it lowered - but all this comes at a price.

Thanks Tannin, I do use the foot on the 70-200 on the occasions I have tried to use it but with my current setup it was unusable. First shot in the bracket is okish but the rest just blur due to vibration. I use the 15-30 75 percent of the time, 24-70 24% and the other lens 1%. lol So hardly ever. Most my shots are at sunrise/sunset shooting into the sun so 3 to 7 brackets are often required.

The pan tilt is something I may get in the future I can see the advantages you speak of.