[Andrew]

There are some places where you can learn. My brother just referred me to the Seattle Mountaineering Club (they also have an Everett and Tacoma sector, I believe). $20 a year and they send you a newspaper filled with different activities. The club even has lodges in the popular passes and the rates are really cheap (less then $40 a night for one person). Also, there are some advanced/professional photographers whom you actually go out to the field with and you chat with them. I've yet to become a member, but I'm seriously considering it because I am obsessed with photography. Also, don't be intimidated by their title, "Seattle Mountaineering". From what I know, you don't have to rock climb or anything unless you want to.

[MCaver]

BPJ, I don't know what your photography knowledge level is, but if you're willing to do some reading, I highly recommend the books by John Shaw, particularly the Nature Photography Field Guide. That gave me the basics to get started with, then I built from experience from there. Enigma, I can't find any listings for the Seattle Mountaineering Club. Do you mean The Mountaineers? If so, I've heard very good things about their basic and advanced photography courses put on by their Photography Committee. I also recommend going to the Photography Committee's monthly potluck dinner. The people there are very knowledgable and friendly and it's a great night of everyone showing photos. They can even do digital now, so I've been able to take photos myself. I have no idea why they call themselves a "committee", though. They're a photo club.

[jenjen]

Thought I'd let you all know what Chubbyhubby ended up with! He got the Gitzo 1227 tripod, the Acratech ball head (on order still), and the Arca Swiss QR clamp (also on order). He's very happy. Thanks all of you for the help!

[chubbyhubby]

Yes, I am __very__ happy!!! I had the Manfrotto aluminum tripod before - a trade-off between lightness and rigidity and the new Gitzo thing is amazing... One third the weight and the same strength. We are a bit short on cash right now (recently purchased the house near Mt. Baker and getting into the hard cider business) so the ball head is on a bit of a back-order but I already had a cheap plastic ball-head that works OK and fits the tripod so I'm ready to rock and roll... Pictures forthcoming

[Kerry]

chubbyhubby, Glad you're pleased with your new 1227. I know I was thrilled and amazed when I got mine. It's the one single piece of equipment that makes it significantly easier to lug around a large format outfit in the backcountry. I've had mine for about six years now, and about 4 1/2 were spent as a full time professional photographer. The Gitzos are expensive, but they are a good investment that pay for themselves over time. Here's hoping yours brings you many years of dependable service and supports your camera for many memorable pictures. Kerry

[Bob K]

That is a sweet setup -- probably the best lightweight tripod/head setup ever. Did you guys evaluate the Gitzo 1127/1128? If so, how did it compare to the 1227/1228? I am just starting to take my camera out hiking again, but I need to figure out how to cut some weight. I am not happy with my Velbon magnesium head and Cullman compact tripod. As a starting point, my entire summer pack is less than 10 pounds, *including* food and water, less camera equipment. I'm not sure I'm willing to give up the freedom and comfort (and joy) of ultralightweight hiking for the ability to take good pictures. I might have to settle for snapshots from a lightweight prosumer digital without a tripod. -

[jenjen]

When I got the tripod, I set up the 1127 and the 1227 side by side. The 1127 feels about a pound lighter, just picking both of them up, and just isn't as sturdy. Chubbyhubby uses a Nikon D1X with several different lenses, his normal camera weigh is 8.5 lbs. So he really did need the heavier/sturdier tripod. If your camera weight is 6 lbs or less you'll probably be happy with the 1127. Glazer's camera shop in Seattle has both of the tripods in stock and the sales staff seemed to really know their stuff.

[Alan Bauer]

If you primarily are going to be using a more wide angle or wide zoom lens like a 20mm or a 24-120mm zoom type of landscape lens, then I'd say the 1127 is fine. However if you are using a heavy camera (i.e. Nikon F5 or D1x/h series) and/or using a larger lens then I wouldn't get it and would seriously look at the 1227 Gitzo....and yes, that is the one I have.

[Bob K]

Thanks for the good advice. I'm wondering how stable a 9.9 lbs the 1127 handles? How does it do on uneven ground or on a steep hill when the tripod is tilted and the legs are unsymmetrical? I'll have to go to Glazers with my camera and ballhead and try it. I don't think they have it available for rental. My camera weighs about 13.5 ounces and the Velbon Magnesium ballhead is about 5.5 ounces. So without the lens, the total is 19 ounces. I think I can get away with only a 20mm lens, which weighs 9 ounces, and still get most of the shots, which would make a total of 1.75 pounds without the tripod. So far, lots of room weight-wise to work with for the 1127. Even with a slightly heftier ballhead, I could still meet the 1127 specs with a heavy lens like a 80-200 f/2.8, which is under 3 lbs, or a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 at about 2+ lbs each. The 1127 is 2.7 lbs. With the camera, ballhead and 20mm lens, that would make 4.45 lbs total pack weight. The 1227 is 3.4 lbs, for a total of 5.15 lbs, which percentage-wise is not that much different. So it's going to be about 5 to 7 lbs, but these systems would be capable of taking clean, high-quality shots under most conditions. Very heavy, but doable. Then there is the money question for Gitzos. Whew! Photography is a heavy and expensive hobby! -

[Alan Bauer]

I forgot to mention one other thing I do. I don't carry my 1227 all the time. If I'm hiking a forest under cloudy sky, if I know I'm hiking along water or waterfalls, if I'm going to be in the early morning light, then yes I do. But if I'm out in conditions that knowing how I can hand hold and use other object to help me be stable 95% of the time, I take only a little guy with me for a pinch to use for wide angle landscape use (or a waterfall). The Gitzo G0012 is VERY light and while not full size, the 20-30" height is enough to really do it's job should I need to have a slow shutter speed while perching it on the ground or a rock. Or if I wanna jump in the darn photo myself! It was about $49 or $69 and packed down is only about 12" long. About 1 lb too I think.... When I met Galen Rowell once this is the little thing he used when he would jog/run in to a spot 5 miles in for a sunrise---only carrying this in his hand, a manual Nikon camera body on his chest, and a fanny pack. The man was in amazing physical shape to run 10 miles round trip for getting some photos.....

[Bob K]

Depends on how fast you run. I'm not in tip-top physical shape and I'm relatively old, but this summer, I usually trail-jogged about a third of my mileage (15-30 miles a day) with a full 2-3 day pack on. There are a lot of people more fit than I who are easily capable of doing it, if they get their pack weights down (20 pounds doesn't cut it!), wear running shoes and run at a pace they can sustain. They just have to get past some mental barriers. Thanks for the tip on the tabletop tripod. I might end up going in that direction. I think I can handhold well enough, but even with a 20mm, I can tell the difference without a tripod. Quick note: The old manual cameras are made of metal, so even without the batteries, they are much heavier than the cheap plastic 35mm SLR cameras, which are good enough (because it's the lens that really matters.) -

[Tom]

To me, jogging on a trail is as abhorrent as carrying a full size tripod. Neither are necessary or worth it IMO.

[Bob K]

Depends on your definition of 'necessary' and 'worth-it.' If you're saying it is unnecessary physical exertion, it's easier than most people think. Jogging with a 10-lb pack and sensible shoes is easier than walking with a 30-lb pack and boots. It's the 30-lb packs and 5-lb boots that are unnecessary (in most cases). If you want to get to some destinations in a certain amount of time -- to get a sunrise picture like Galen Rowell, or to see more and better out-of-the-way places -- then it's necessary. Depends on how much you want to do or see...many people are happy car camping and walking the nature trails, many people are happy staying home and watching TV, some people want to do more. Once you get over the mental barriers and try it and see how easy it is, it does in a way become necessary to see and do more. You are no longer satisfied with nature trails or doing 10-mile hikes. Worth it? That's in the eye of the beholder. Don't knock it until you've tried it. It certainly is worth it for me, and would make for a better experience for a lot of people, imo, if they tried it. It definitely helps when you're hiking the boring valleys or roads. Hey, you're willing to drive through roads to get to the trailheads, why not run through their equivalents on the trails so you can get to and spend more time at the good parts? -

[Tom]

It's all relative. I want to be able to walk when I'm 65ish. Then again, maybe they'll have made trails wheelchair accessible for the rest of you by then.