I use a gadget similar to the Novoflex forked joint on a tripod. See here http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/products.htm i mount it a rotating plate. The nice thing about this approach is that you do'nt need a tripod collar on the lens and you simply lift the lens off to shoot handheld.
Mine is actually home-brew my dad machined it for me and covert it in rubber tubing so that the metal does not scratch the lens barrel and at the same time absorbs small vibrations. The fork is on a rotating base similar to panaorama plate. Mine is similar to this http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/products.htm but without the spirit level. I had found it at a car boot sale attached to a sorry looking tripod. I got both for approximately 10 USD. The tripod i dumped it was useless but the plate came back to life after a little bit of TLC. Its a simple setup that works well and its better than a monopod because the camera is not attached to it. I guess a gimbal mount would be the ideal thing but I can't afford one. Rgds Patrick On 1/31/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There must be a whole lot more people shooting birds and cats at a > distance than I do, or who have incredibly stable hands. I find even > using 135-200mm takes a lot of concentration and effort to hold still > enough, even with SR, to satisfy my desire for sharpness, and I'm > usually backing away even with the 70mm lens. > > 135-400 and 120-300 seem absurdly long unless you're shooting > motorsports on closed circuits, an air show or wildlife on the > African veldt. The DA*60-250/4 seems the longest lens I could > possibly be interested in. > > Godfrey > > > On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Patrick Genovese wrote: > > > Yes it would be like carting a howitzer around but damn useful i used > > the sigma 120-300 on a n...n D200 and its a nice combo and very nice > > zoom range for shooting sports with 1.5x focal length crop. > > > > I'm willing to pay the weight penalty for the functionality. I like > > compact gear but i;m not one to sacrifice all on the altar of > > compactness. > > > > Regards > > > > Patrick > > > > > > On 1/31/07, Leon Altoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Do you know how heavy a DFA 120-300 f2.8 would be? I'd end up never > >> taking it with me. > >> > >> I'd be really happy with a sharp 250mm f4 on a K10D. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Leon > >> > >> http://www.bluering.org.au > >> http://www.bluering.org.au/leon > >> > >> > >> Patrick Genovese wrote: > >>> You know what would be really really really nice a pentax 135-400 > >>> f/4.5 it would make a great pair with the upcoming 50-135 f/2.8... > >>> the 60-250 is a bit of a compromise ...had it been a 120-300 or > >>> maybe > >>> 350 it would be a much better fit in Pentax' lens line. a 120-300 > >>> f/2.8 would be lovely especially if it were a DFA* ie you could > >>> use it > >>> on film as welll...... Ahem!! Wake up patrick.. stop dreaming! > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Patrick > >>> > >>> On 1/31/07, Leon Altoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Hi Patrick, > >>>> > >>>> I've been watching this thread with interest as I'm looking for > >>>> a good > >>>> 200mm+ zoom. I've always thought the 70-200 f2.8 was too heavy > >>>> and not > >>>> quite long enough. I've seen some really nice pictures from the > >>>> Sigma > >>>> 100-300, but I've seen some with very annoying bokeh too that > >>>> have put > >>>> me off a little (I've noticed this with a few Sigma lenses). > >>>> > >>>> Then I heard of the DA*60-250 and I thought it sounded "just > >>>> right". > >>>> Now I have to sit and wait for it to be available - and then for > >>>> it to > >>>> be available in Australia. I'm hoping for some good 10MP > >>>> examples with > >>>> it before I can get my hands on it to prove that it's good. A > >>>> DA* lens > >>>> should be very good shouldn't it? Has Pentax made any duds in > >>>> their > >>>> high end lenses? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Leon > >>>> > >>>> http://www.bluering.org.au > >>>> http://www.bluering.org.au/leon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Patrick Genovese wrote: > >>>>> Thanks for the info... I was hoping that someone would trash at > >>>>> least > >>>>> one of the combos making my decision easier :-) The problem with > >>>>> Malta is that you have to buy almost on faith... There is no > >>>>> way i'm > >>>>> going to be able to try out a 70-200 f/2.8 or a 100-300.. > >>>>> unless I go > >>>>> abroad. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Regards Patrick Genovese -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
