Roger Lambert
New member
Nill Toulme said:
Hadn't thought about that aspect! Thanks for the explanation.
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Some musings on monopods
- Thread starter Nill Toulme
- Start date
Hadn't thought about that aspect! Thanks for the explanation.
Nill Toulme
New member
Update: Gitzo has revamped and updated its lineup. Two immediate things to be aware of:1. The 1588's successor, which is the 5540, is almost two inches shorter than the 1588, which was already a little on the short side IMO. I've had a 3" extension machined for my 5540, which makes it just right for me. (I'm 6'2" and use the shorter Wimberley replacement foot on my 400.)
2. Don't believe the new load ratings. The new 3550, which is "rated" at 39.6 lb., felt like spaghetti under my 400 f/2.8 in comparison to my old 1588, which was "only" rated at 26.5 lb. It'd probably be fine for smaller lenses, but I consider it inadequate for the 400 and sent it back in exchange for the 5540.
I like the 5540 a lot of course, but its only real advantage over the 1588 is the non-rotating sections. And it needs to be at least 3" longer; Nicolas, are all Frenchmen really that short?
The new non-rotating sections are a treat, but otherwise I don't see a whole lot of real improvement in the new models. Perhaps just a bit of reduced weight, but not really significant in the monopods, probably more so in the tripods.
I still think the best overall bang for the buck in a very robust carbon monopod is the Feisol 1471. The best overall monopod would be the Gitzo 5540, but it's too darn short! If it's tall enough for you, great. If not, then you have to be really compulsive to use one. I do. :-(
Here's the extension I had made for it:
Nill
~~
www.toulmephoto.com
[Note: The Gitzo GM5540 6x Carbon Fiber Monopod has been replaced by the Gitzo GM5541. Enhancements include a belt clip on the strap and "the new aluminum Power Disc for a more secure locking of the head thanks to the additional locking screw. Removable rubber feet are now self-locking to avoid accidental loss."]
Last edited:
Edward Bussa
Member
I did a search on "Feisol 1471" and Google turned up nothing! ??? Is there nowhere to get it?
Lucio Gomes
New member
Feisol Monopods
Hi, Ed
Try this link:
http://www.feisol.com/english/feisolen.htm
I bought two monopods directly from them a while back.
They ship from Taiwan and get here in about a week.
Lucio
Hi, Ed
Try this link:
http://www.feisol.com/english/feisolen.htm
I bought two monopods directly from them a while back.
They ship from Taiwan and get here in about a week.
Lucio
Edward Bussa
Member
Thanks much!
Trevor Dennis
New member
Hi Nill
Both the monopod and sports threads have been helpful to me. The latter being the reason I subscribed to OPF.
Some questions:
You've mentioned either here or on DPReview about using two monopods with two cameras. How does that work? Short of laying one on the ground when not in use, I'm have problems visualising such a set up.
I 'think' you've said that you prefer to mount directly to the monopod without a swivel head? I can see how that would be good with a large prime or 10-400 f4.5-5.6, but otherwise wouldn't a swivel head be useful?
When low to the ground, for instance, I angle the monopod well back between my knees and pull the rigg towards me. This feels more stable and stops me falling forward. Even standing up it is difficult to pan with the monopod foot in front of you, unless you are happy to let the horizon tilt as you pan, and crop later.
The other aspect with using a swivel head is its QR plate. There are lots of times when I unclip and let the monopod drop to the ground. I appreciate that a QR plate might give cause to some aprehension while carrying a heavy (and very expensive) rig over your shoulder.
I am thoroughly sold on monopods. They are so easy to carry and as good as a tripod right down to a quarter second or so. And as you mentioned in your article they sure take the load off during a lengthy session.
Thanks for taking the time to share your experience. It is much appreciated by folk like me trying to do better work.
Both the monopod and sports threads have been helpful to me. The latter being the reason I subscribed to OPF.
Some questions:
You've mentioned either here or on DPReview about using two monopods with two cameras. How does that work? Short of laying one on the ground when not in use, I'm have problems visualising such a set up.
I 'think' you've said that you prefer to mount directly to the monopod without a swivel head? I can see how that would be good with a large prime or 10-400 f4.5-5.6, but otherwise wouldn't a swivel head be useful?
When low to the ground, for instance, I angle the monopod well back between my knees and pull the rigg towards me. This feels more stable and stops me falling forward. Even standing up it is difficult to pan with the monopod foot in front of you, unless you are happy to let the horizon tilt as you pan, and crop later.
The other aspect with using a swivel head is its QR plate. There are lots of times when I unclip and let the monopod drop to the ground. I appreciate that a QR plate might give cause to some aprehension while carrying a heavy (and very expensive) rig over your shoulder.
I am thoroughly sold on monopods. They are so easy to carry and as good as a tripod right down to a quarter second or so. And as you mentioned in your article they sure take the load off during a lengthy session.
Thanks for taking the time to share your experience. It is much appreciated by folk like me trying to do better work.
Nill Toulme
New member
Trevor, sorry I'm so badly in default in responding to this. Between traveling and "honey-do's" (do you have those in NZ?) I'm in default on more than a few things.
Two monopods: When I'm not using flash, I just tuck one or the other into the crook of my arm and use the other one. When I'm using flash (which is more often than not when using two pods, as I most often do this shooting American high school football, which involves helmet shadows under terrible lights), that's too unwieldy though because I use an approx 2' extension on my flash so it's hard enough to handle all by itself. In that case I just lay one down and use the other.
Swivel head: Only useful in my experience in situations that I virtually never encounter, i.e., shooting at extreme angles up or down, such as birds/flowers and such. For field sports, the angles are such that I've found any sort of head at all to do nothing other than get in the way.
Horizon: If you leave your lens collar a bit loose, you can adjust your horizon even as you move the rig relative to the pod's point on the ground, keeping it level. That's rarely necessary though as it's easy enough when standing to move around the pod's ground point, or when sitting or standing, to simply pick it up and move it as necessary. And obviously you can use a QR clamp/plate without resorting to a swivel head; that's what I do.
QR plate: More secure than without IMO, as I mentioned (I think) somewhere above. We're talking about top-quality Arca-compatible gear here, of course.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Two monopods: When I'm not using flash, I just tuck one or the other into the crook of my arm and use the other one. When I'm using flash (which is more often than not when using two pods, as I most often do this shooting American high school football, which involves helmet shadows under terrible lights), that's too unwieldy though because I use an approx 2' extension on my flash so it's hard enough to handle all by itself. In that case I just lay one down and use the other.
Swivel head: Only useful in my experience in situations that I virtually never encounter, i.e., shooting at extreme angles up or down, such as birds/flowers and such. For field sports, the angles are such that I've found any sort of head at all to do nothing other than get in the way.
Horizon: If you leave your lens collar a bit loose, you can adjust your horizon even as you move the rig relative to the pod's point on the ground, keeping it level. That's rarely necessary though as it's easy enough when standing to move around the pod's ground point, or when sitting or standing, to simply pick it up and move it as necessary. And obviously you can use a QR clamp/plate without resorting to a swivel head; that's what I do.
QR plate: More secure than without IMO, as I mentioned (I think) somewhere above. We're talking about top-quality Arca-compatible gear here, of course.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Nill,
My only problem using a monopod with no head is in cases (such as being up against a fence) when I can't really rock the stick back and forth to aim the camera on the pitch axis, even over a modest range.
I use a Manfrotto 484RC2 head, and it works well for me.
When I'm not operating at an extremely large focal length, I will sometimes not even lock the head, and find that the 'pod still greatly improves my image stability.
Of course I get a lot of benefit from IS (Canon) on my important lenses.
We have standardized on the Manfrotto RC2 type quick release system here. We have plates on the bottom of everything, including the ring for the Canon EF 70-300 mm F2.8 L IS.
Thanks for your insights.
My only problem using a monopod with no head is in cases (such as being up against a fence) when I can't really rock the stick back and forth to aim the camera on the pitch axis, even over a modest range.
I use a Manfrotto 484RC2 head, and it works well for me.
When I'm not operating at an extremely large focal length, I will sometimes not even lock the head, and find that the 'pod still greatly improves my image stability.
Of course I get a lot of benefit from IS (Canon) on my important lenses.
We have standardized on the Manfrotto RC2 type quick release system here. We have plates on the bottom of everything, including the ring for the Canon EF 70-300 mm F2.8 L IS.
Thanks for your insights.
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
The 5540, with its 1.62 metre / 63.8 inch maximum height, is indeed quite short. I'm 6'4" myself, so I'd need an even longer extension.
While the GM3550 may feel less rigid to you than your prior 1588, I'd have to disagree with the spaghetti qualification. When extended fully (nominal 1.92 metre / 75.6 in height), the 5 section G3550 flexes only a little when considerable lateral force is applied. Besides, a more important characteristic (than lower weight) of graphite versus alumin(i)um is the better vibration absorption of graphite, not whatever little flexing could be achieved (the 3550 by the way flexes less than my Manfrotto 434B at its joints). Besides, when the 5th (lowest) segment isn't fully extended, the flexing over its full length is even further reduced.
Despite having read your post a while ago, so I was on my guard, I still decided to purchase the GM3550 because of its height (without the need for modifications) and stability (should be more than enough for even the heaviest common lenses of the Canon line-up, the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4).
The G-locks work great and allow very fast operation going from shortest to fully extended position, because with a single twist one can unlock multiple segments at the same time. With the lowest segment already locked in half extended (for my height) position, I can unlock, fully extend, and secure the three remaining locks in 5 seconds. Much faster than on my previous monopod, and the GM3550 is 12cm shorter and significantly lighter as well (and not as cold in wet/freezing weather conditions).
Bart
Nill Toulme
New member
I did say "in comparison to the 1588," and I have to stand by that. I rest my left hand on the hood of the 400 f/2.8 when I shoot, and I could see the finder image deflect very noticeably downward every time I did that with the 3550. I consider that unacceptable.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Fair enough, so it basically boils down to personal preferences (rigidity/height). I'm confident that both solutions will allow good images from a reduced vibration support.
Bart
Nill Toulme
New member
Update to compare the Gitzo 1588 with its successor, the 5540, and their primary competition in my opinion, the Feisol 1471:
Brand Model ........... Max" .. Min" .. Wt-lb Load-lb Sections .. Approx Shipped Price
Gitzo G-1588 .......... 65.0 .. 22.0 ... 2.0 .... 26.5 ..... 4 ......... Discontinued
Gitzo GM-5540 ....... 63.8 .. 21.7 ... 1.9 .... 55 ........ 4 .......... US$315
Feisol CM-1471 ...... 66.9 .. 21.6 ... 1.5 .... 24.2 ..... 4 .......... US$125
Revised pros & cons as between the Feisol and the new Gitzo:
Pros:
1. Less than half the price of the Gitzo
2. Still noticeably lighter than the Gitzo.
3. Same compacted length almost exactly.
4. At least 3 1/2" extra extension length (as I measured it — more than the specs indicate). For some shooters in the 6'+ height category, this can be a very significant factor. As I mentioned upthread, I ended up having a 3" extension machined for my 5540, while my 1471 fits me just right.
5. Very nice fit and finish. Quality gear.
6. Quick release hand strap.
7. Includes a nice padded bag. (Gitzo now includes a bag, but it's not padded.)
8. Slightly cushier padding on the top section.
Cons (all relative to the Gitzo, not absolute):
1. To my thinking, the new G-locks on the Gitzo have lost some of the the "Mercedes-like quality feel" that I remarked on in the earlier model. But they have done so in trade for the new model's most notable advantage — non-twisting leg sections that make extending and retracting the pod somewhat more convenient, quick and sure than the twisty sections on the 1588 and Feisol.
2. The extra lightness trades off just a bit of solidity and rigidity. Not noticeable with a 1-series and 70-200 f/2.8 on board, but with the 400 f/2.8 loaded I noticed a bit of "twang." Again, only as compared to the ultra-solid Gitzo, and nothing that's not controlled by reasonably good technique anyway. (And not nearly the amount of deflection under the 400 that I noted with the Gitzo 3550. Again, for my own use with the 400 I consider the 3550 unacceptable; the Feisol 1471 is fine.)
3. I mentioned in the OP that the circular platform doesn't come off the Feisol, making for a slightly less elegant QR-clamp installation. This now seems to be equally true of the new Gitzo, so it's now a non-factor (not that it was ever a particularly significant one).
4. The cushier padding of the Feisol still looks like it won't wear as well, but that still remains to be seen. It's holding up fine under fairly light use so far.
5. While I don't entirely credit the new Gitzo load ratings (see my remarks on that upthread), it's true that you must tighten the Feisol sections a little tighter than you might otherwise in the ordinary course of things, or else they will slip under the load of a 400 f/2.8 and 1-series body and arm rested thereupon. Once adequately tightened, however, they hold the load just fine, so I consider this a matter essentially of convenience, not actual capacity.
Bottom line — unless you just want the very best and can live with the height issue, or simply must have the new non-twisting leg sections, the Feisol 1471 is easily the better buy.
Which one do I reach for first? The Gitzo of course. ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Brand Model ........... Max" .. Min" .. Wt-lb Load-lb Sections .. Approx Shipped Price
Gitzo G-1588 .......... 65.0 .. 22.0 ... 2.0 .... 26.5 ..... 4 ......... Discontinued
Gitzo GM-5540 ....... 63.8 .. 21.7 ... 1.9 .... 55 ........ 4 .......... US$315
Feisol CM-1471 ...... 66.9 .. 21.6 ... 1.5 .... 24.2 ..... 4 .......... US$125
Revised pros & cons as between the Feisol and the new Gitzo:
Pros:
1. Less than half the price of the Gitzo
2. Still noticeably lighter than the Gitzo.
3. Same compacted length almost exactly.
4. At least 3 1/2" extra extension length (as I measured it — more than the specs indicate). For some shooters in the 6'+ height category, this can be a very significant factor. As I mentioned upthread, I ended up having a 3" extension machined for my 5540, while my 1471 fits me just right.
5. Very nice fit and finish. Quality gear.
6. Quick release hand strap.
7. Includes a nice padded bag. (Gitzo now includes a bag, but it's not padded.)
8. Slightly cushier padding on the top section.
Cons (all relative to the Gitzo, not absolute):
1. To my thinking, the new G-locks on the Gitzo have lost some of the the "Mercedes-like quality feel" that I remarked on in the earlier model. But they have done so in trade for the new model's most notable advantage — non-twisting leg sections that make extending and retracting the pod somewhat more convenient, quick and sure than the twisty sections on the 1588 and Feisol.
2. The extra lightness trades off just a bit of solidity and rigidity. Not noticeable with a 1-series and 70-200 f/2.8 on board, but with the 400 f/2.8 loaded I noticed a bit of "twang." Again, only as compared to the ultra-solid Gitzo, and nothing that's not controlled by reasonably good technique anyway. (And not nearly the amount of deflection under the 400 that I noted with the Gitzo 3550. Again, for my own use with the 400 I consider the 3550 unacceptable; the Feisol 1471 is fine.)
3. I mentioned in the OP that the circular platform doesn't come off the Feisol, making for a slightly less elegant QR-clamp installation. This now seems to be equally true of the new Gitzo, so it's now a non-factor (not that it was ever a particularly significant one).
4. The cushier padding of the Feisol still looks like it won't wear as well, but that still remains to be seen. It's holding up fine under fairly light use so far.
5. While I don't entirely credit the new Gitzo load ratings (see my remarks on that upthread), it's true that you must tighten the Feisol sections a little tighter than you might otherwise in the ordinary course of things, or else they will slip under the load of a 400 f/2.8 and 1-series body and arm rested thereupon. Once adequately tightened, however, they hold the load just fine, so I consider this a matter essentially of convenience, not actual capacity.
Bottom line — unless you just want the very best and can live with the height issue, or simply must have the new non-twisting leg sections, the Feisol 1471 is easily the better buy.
Which one do I reach for first? The Gitzo of course. ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nikolai Sklobovsky
New member
Many thanks for the update, Nill, very useful!
Paul Bestwick
pro member
Thanks Nill,
based on your recommendation I have purchased the Feisol. It has become clear after a day of walking around with the 300 f2.8 on the MK3 that hand holding is not an option.
Thanks for the lowdown.
Cheers,
Paul
based on your recommendation I have purchased the Feisol. It has become clear after a day of walking around with the 300 f2.8 on the MK3 that hand holding is not an option.
Thanks for the lowdown.
Cheers,
Paul
Paul Bestwick
pro member
Nill,
I am now considering an RRS ball head for the feisol to be used with my 300. What are your thoughts.
I am now considering an RRS ball head for the feisol to be used with my 300. What are your thoughts.
Nill Toulme
New member
My recommendation would be to try it for a while first with no head at all. Personally I find a head on a monopod awkward, especially with a heavy camera/lens. But then when I'm using the monopod I'm always shooting sports on level ground, so I have no need to shoot very high or very low angles.
Other alternatives to a full ballhead include the Bogen 3232 swivel head (see the RRS writeup here), and the Bogen 3421 gimbal head. The 3232 is pretty strong, strong enough IMO to handle a 300 f/2.8 but not something larger. Note that I would not recommend using the 3232 head without making the easy modification suggested in the RRS paper.
Of course, there are also the other, more expensive gimbal heads up to and including the full Wimberley II Head.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Other alternatives to a full ballhead include the Bogen 3232 swivel head (see the RRS writeup here), and the Bogen 3421 gimbal head. The 3232 is pretty strong, strong enough IMO to handle a 300 f/2.8 but not something larger. Note that I would not recommend using the 3232 head without making the easy modification suggested in the RRS paper.
Of course, there are also the other, more expensive gimbal heads up to and including the full Wimberley II Head.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nikolai Sklobovsky
New member
Nill,
would be a dear and post your thoughts on tripods? ;-)
I'm thinking of selling my Manfrotto and interested in good ideas and real life experiences..
would be a dear and post your thoughts on tripods? ;-)
I'm thinking of selling my Manfrotto and interested in good ideas and real life experiences..
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Paul
after having tried a lot of cheaper solutions for my 500mm IS L and carbon monopod, I just got today a Bogen ballhead which friction strength can be adjusted very precisely.
It can hold 16 kgs (about 35 pounds)
More:
@ B&H
@ Manfrotto
It seems to be Ok but I'll have to come back after real life tests for some comments...
If I were shooting mostly horizontal (which is not the case!) I would follow Nill's advice…
Paul Bestwick
pro member
Thanks guys... great help !!
Nicolas I am awaiting a full report of your experience with the Bogen.
Also, I am wondering about the RRS BH55. Can I attach the B61 lens plate directly to the LR bracket.
Would that setup work out OK on a monopod ?
Nicolas I am awaiting a full report of your experience with the Bogen.
Also, I am wondering about the RRS BH55. Can I attach the B61 lens plate directly to the LR bracket.
Would that setup work out OK on a monopod ?
Last edited:
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Unless I misinterpret what you want to do, the B61 lens plate attaches to the lens collar and the BH55 ballhead.
Bart
Paul Bestwick
pro member
Bart I am just making sure I am deciphering the procedure correctly. I am guessing that the B61 which is attached to the lens collar will the couple with the release plate which is attached to the ballhead.
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Correct. And since being used on a ball head, it is no issue that the B61 runs for/backwards while the camera's bracket runs left/right.
Bart
Nill Toulme
New member
Paul, just to keep terminology straight so we don't get confused — the QR piece that is attached semi-permanently to the support device and has clamping jaws is called, aptly enough, the QR clamp. The piece that is screwed to the camera or lens is called a QR plate.
QR clamps come in various flavors such as screw and lever action. Many ballheads (most good ones, in fact) come with QR clamps already in place as integral to their designs.
QR plates also come in various types. Most lens plates are designed to be screwed onto the lens's tripod collar foot, but some very useful ones are designed to replace the foot entirely. Camera plates are variously generic, designed for specific camera models, and L-shaped (called L-plates). The last allow you to attach the camera to your QR clamp in either the portrait or the landscape positions.
In the specific case of monopods, many users (including myself) put a QR clamp directly onto the monopod, without any sort of head, to facilitate quick and easy and secure attachment to the camera and/or lens. A camera with an L-plate can be readily swapped between portrait and landscape positions. Similarly, a lens with a tripod collar can be easily switched between portrait and landscape — or anything in between — simply by rotating the lens in its collar. Leaving the lens collar just slightly loose also allows you to keep your horizon level even when, for whatever reason, you need to tilt the monopod to one side or the other.
Note that some, but not all, of the above applies specifically to the Arca-compatible QR system. Nicolas, your Bogen/Manfrotto head uses its own proprietary system. It's competent but IMO no match for the Arca system, particularly in the quantity of compatible parts available. As you start down the QR path, I would prefer you to take the Arca fork rather than the Manfrotto one.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
QR clamps come in various flavors such as screw and lever action. Many ballheads (most good ones, in fact) come with QR clamps already in place as integral to their designs.
QR plates also come in various types. Most lens plates are designed to be screwed onto the lens's tripod collar foot, but some very useful ones are designed to replace the foot entirely. Camera plates are variously generic, designed for specific camera models, and L-shaped (called L-plates). The last allow you to attach the camera to your QR clamp in either the portrait or the landscape positions.
In the specific case of monopods, many users (including myself) put a QR clamp directly onto the monopod, without any sort of head, to facilitate quick and easy and secure attachment to the camera and/or lens. A camera with an L-plate can be readily swapped between portrait and landscape positions. Similarly, a lens with a tripod collar can be easily switched between portrait and landscape — or anything in between — simply by rotating the lens in its collar. Leaving the lens collar just slightly loose also allows you to keep your horizon level even when, for whatever reason, you need to tilt the monopod to one side or the other.
Note that some, but not all, of the above applies specifically to the Arca-compatible QR system. Nicolas, your Bogen/Manfrotto head uses its own proprietary system. It's competent but IMO no match for the Arca system, particularly in the quantity of compatible parts available. As you start down the QR path, I would prefer you to take the Arca fork rather than the Manfrotto one.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nill Toulme
New member
Note that Bart's comment also applies to a monopod used without a head, as the monopod can obviously be rotated so that the clamp is oriented left/right (for a camera plate) or fore/aft (for a lens plate).
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nill Toulme
New member
Nikolai I am not widely enough experienced with tripods to offer more than a few very prejudiced opinions (not that my monopod opinions are not equally prejudiced...). Here I am a Gitzo bigot also. The "standard" Gitzo tripod for serious medium-to-heavy work, and not requiring particular lightness such as for hiking, has long been the 1325. In Gitzo's new line, its equivalent is the 3530LSV.
But tripod needs tend to be highly individual and specific, based on use, location, transport, equipment, budget, and impressing the opposite sex. This would be a good topic for a new thread in the gear forum.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Paul Bestwick
pro member
Nill, very helpful so far.
Given that I am just making an image in my mind of all this it is becoming a bit clearer.
I am beginning to think that a ball head may be more of a hinderance than a help on a monopod.
I am now considering mounting a WImberley C10 on the monopod & a P30 on the 300 F2.8.
Any thoughts ?
Given that I am just making an image in my mind of all this it is becoming a bit clearer.
I am beginning to think that a ball head may be more of a hinderance than a help on a monopod.
I am now considering mounting a WImberley C10 on the monopod & a P30 on the 300 F2.8.
Any thoughts ?
Nill Toulme
New member
Paul that's exactly what I would do. Use it that way for a while, and then if (and only if) you decide you need more range of motion up and down, first try a Bogen 3232 swivel head modified and with the C10 mounted on it as per the RRS article linked in the very first post.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nikolai Sklobovsky
New member
It arrived!
The Feisol arrived today, beautifully packed. Looks very nice and solid. I can see what you were saying about tightening, but I guess it's OK.
Funny, it arrived today, while B&H, to whom I made another order the same night as Feisol only notified me that my order has been shipped today. Feisol guys shipped within a few hours and it had to cross the border. Nice shipping department!
The Feisol arrived today, beautifully packed. Looks very nice and solid. I can see what you were saying about tightening, but I guess it's OK.
Funny, it arrived today, while B&H, to whom I made another order the same night as Feisol only notified me that my order has been shipped today. Feisol guys shipped within a few hours and it had to cross the border. Nice shipping department!
Paul Bestwick
pro member
Yea my Feisol arrived a few days ago. Concur with Nikolai regarding quality & prompt delivery. It really is a high end product & about half the price of the competition.
I am now leaning toward stickin a Markin M20 ball head on it.
I am now leaning toward stickin a Markin M20 ball head on it.
Nikolai Sklobovsky
New member
You know the mounting screw is reversible, right?