Tripod/head for Swarovski ATS 65 (1 Viewer)

[zonotrichia]

I purchased a Swarovski ATS 65 and am very excited to experience fall migration with this new gear. The shop had a Manfrotto 290X with 128RC fluid head kit and a number of Vanguard tripods, and I opted for the Manfrotto because of how rock-solid it—and the resultant image—seemed. The Vanguards were lighter, but made me realize how important a sturdy tripod is! I really like the Manfrotto, but now I am wondering if it may be more scope than than the Swaro 65 may really need. I got the 65 partly because I wanted something more portable, and the low weight was one of the deciding factors. But the Manfrotto 290 + head are almost 6 lbs, which seems like a lot! Is this overkill for a scope that weighs only 3 lbs—and if so, what should I look at instead?

Would appreciate any insights, recommendations for specific models, opinions on my current setup, etc.

A couple of points: I am short (5'5"/165 cm) and am hoping for a tripod/head combo around or under $300 USD (equivalent to the 290/128RC, give or take). I know there are amazing carbon fiber tripods out there that cost as much as a scope, but that's far far out of my budget

 

[Tringa45]

Hi,

I don't think you're far off the mark. The minimum requirement is to be able to focus your scope at maximum magnification without setting off vibrations, but almost any portable tripod will at some stage show its limitations.
I have experienced intolerable vibrations in an old Gitzo Studex weighing about 5 kg in strong winds. Then the only solution was to collapse the legs and sit on or near the ground.
Today there are better and lighter alternatives to the Manfrotto 128. One I once had was incapable of holding a 2 kg scope at 45° inclination (stargazing) without creep. The Sirui VA-5X is light and well liked and would allow for some forward movement of the QR plate in the head to help balance the tail-heavy ATS65.

John

 

[zonotrichia]

Thank you, this is helpful! The 290 seemed sturdy when I was testing it, and the salesperson showed me how to make some adjustments re: some of the known pain points associated with the 128 head. I guess the main unknown for me is whether the lighter/smaller Manfrotto 190X3 might be stable enough, while also being a tad lighter. (Regardless, the tripod and head came as a set, so if I return one, I return them both...which would require a 3-hour round trip drive back to the shop. One I'd rather not make!)

I am thinking that in this case, the best solution is to go birding and try it out If it turns out that it's a pain in the shoulder to carry, I can explore lighter combinations. (Figuring out a lighter tripod setup sounds a little less overwhelming—and less expensive in most cases—than realizing that you need a lighter scope!)

 

[John Fleet]

Have a look at this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BVZ9XQPK?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title

I’m using it on my ATS 65. Astonishingly well made for hardly any money and very light.

 

[K-day]

Small Rig's CH10 fluid head is exceptionally smooth operating, lightweight (1.43lbs less than the 128RC), and relatively inexpensive.

I don't have experience with Small Rig tripods, only the CH10 head. Looking at the Small Rig catalogue I see a kit that weighs almost 1lb less than the Manfrotto 290X tripod alone.

 

[Hermann]

Small Rig's CH10 fluid head is exceptionally smooth operating, lightweight (1.43lbs less than the 128RC), and relatively inexpensive.

I've got one of those. I find it too flimsy for a 60mm or 65mm scope. Tried it with a Nikon EDIIIA, and decided it won't work qith a scope of that size/weight. Works well for the very light 50mm Nikon ED50 though.

BTW, the 128RC is getting a bit long in the tooth. There are other heads that weigh less than the good old 128RC, for instance some of the Gitzos, that work with bigger scopes.

Hermann