Hi
Don't fully understand the following message. Why would a 63" or 66" tripod
be "kind of short"? My stand-up eye level is just about at 62", and I don't
intend to carry around a step stool, so why would I want something larger
(and potentially heavier) to carry around with me, to use with my light
weight ZX-M SLR? Am I missing something here?
Seems to me that a medium sized, 63" tripod, rated to carry 10-11 lbs, would
be just about ideal for what I have now, and also for the forseeable future
too...??
Skip
> 63" is quite short for a fully extended tripod - are you including the
head
> in this measurement? (For the imperially challenged 63" = ~155cm). On the
> Gitzo page you'll see that the G1228 extends to 158cm, but weighs
> 1.5kg, which for the metrically challenged is about 3.25lbs. It has 4
> leg sections, which means it is not likely to be very stable fully
> extended. A more stable one for you would be the G1227, which weighs
> the same, has only 3 leg sections but is higher at 163cm/66" - also
> rather short for most purposes.
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
