DSLRUsers.com

Perhaps I missed a thread on this already, and if so could somebody please point me towards it but I'm looking for a good tripod at a reasonable price. For instance today I saw a Manfrotto 724B Digi Compact Ballhead Tripod for $189and was happy with that sort of price tag.

There's certainly been lots of talk on tripods.

I suspect that this one will be too light for you; what's the rated capacity of it?

My guess is that this one is targetted more towards the PHD market, and while it may work for, say, a 5700 or even a D70 with a 50mm prime, I think it might be found wanting if you start to add some heavier glass onto it.

What is the heaviest glass that you think you might end up acquiring? Add that weight to the weight of the D70 body, and that's the minimum capacity that you're looking for.

There are times where I need to add up to 5kg of ballast. The added mass is handy in breezy conditions. The 3.5kg load rating of this unit would not cut it for me. I used something similar (Manfrotto 714) for my CP5700 and it was barely adequate in perfect conditions. In a breeze it was useless. I am talking about a tripod that only has a 2.5kg rating, but the CP5700 only weighs about 800 grams - I cannot remember the exact weight but it is a heck of a lot lighter than the d70.
Have you read Thom Hogans take on these lightweights at http://www.bythom.com . My suggestion is to keep saving until you can afford something decent. I am following my own advice and saving for a Gitzo 1327 - I am about half way there. I refuse to waste money on something that is not going to do the job. By the time I am finished I will probably have no change from two grand.

Cheers

Matt

Gstark with all the current talk on VR lenses I'd say a 70-200VR or an 80-400VR.

Notice that the 200-400 G VR is like $10k. Why is this so expensive in comparison to an 80-400 G VR?

kipper wrote:Gstark with all the current talk on VR lenses I'd say a 70-200VR or an 80-400VR.

Notice that the 200-400 G VR is like $10k. Why is this so expensive in comparison to an 80-400 G VR?

What's the maximum aperture? Is it constant? (I don't know, but they're the first two things that spring to mind that might have a bearing)

Hmm....it didn't show an aperture range just F4 I think

kipper wrote:Hmm....it didn't show an aperture range just F4 I think

Yep.

Constant f4. Most zooms have a variable aperture; constant is better, but more expensive. This lens is also IF - internal focussing. That, too, is expensive technology.

The range itself - 200- 400 - is expensive in terms of what's required of the glass.

Does that all add up to value? That depends on one's needs.

Gary & Kipper,
The 200-400VR is constant f4 and IF. It's the most expensive lens in Nikon range and it's the first come with all the new tech as VR in it range, the demand is great in the US, whlie in Australia, I sold 3 of them to 3 difference Govt. Dept. and as far as I know only 2 or 3 gone to the private users no other info of anyone else.
The 200-400 is not in mass production as other range of lens, therefore stock is not healthy from Nikon, and back-order list was long, US$5500.00 is not too expensive with this glass in comparison with another long zoom but additional accessories added up to its purchased price make the final purchased prices look to someone.
The 300/2.8 VR will be another gem for sport or wildlife shooter in low and natural light, it's quite fast as it advertised, we have to wait and see, hope that I'm able to show them off in some of the meet next year.