Bernard Frangoulis wrote:
> Quoting Moose (24/02/08):
>
>> On balance, I think the Ultrapod may be the better product. Less flexible on
>> an uneven surface and quirkier to aim and lock, but not subject to
>> collapsing under weight. On the other hand, it's base is smaller, so it
>> would be easier to knock over with a large camera and lens on it. It's
>> closer in size to the medium gorilla. Maybe a larger, #3 size Ultrapod will
>> show up one day.
>>
>
> I was thinking that the Gorillapod was noticeably larger and stronger than
> the Ultrapod. Is it not the case? I have used an Ultrapod with my OM-4 plus
> 35-105 zoom, and it was OK, although the head was flimsy. I have never even
> seen a Gorillapod (except on pictures). How would you compare them ?
>
I thought I just did. :-)
The large gorillapod is generally larger, heavier and apparently
sturdier than the Ultrapod II. In my case, with only 60% of the stated
capacity, a leg joint which seemed stable when I set it down started to
creep under the load. The leg was bent, but I thought that was the whole
point of the gorillapod.
The Ultrapod is smaller, lighter, cheaper and safely holds the same load
without complaint. The ball head is fussier than the separate one I
mounted on the Gorillapod, but does the job, allowing relatively easy
two hand positioning and locking and holding firm.
Resistance to tipping is a mixed bag. With the lens lined up over the
big leg, the Ultra is low enough to be quite stable. With ball head, the
Gorilla is not stable unless the legs are spread pretty far apart.
That's fine on a rug. On a table top, with less friction, one of the
legs gently bent/slid down so the lens almost hit the table. Unimpressive.
When tweaked, they (Gorilla with head) have similar vibratory movements
and settle down about equally quickly. Either one should be steady with
a shutter delay or remote.
Having now played with both side by side for a bit, which I had never
done before, I have to say that I prefer the Ultrapod II overall.
> These days, my small tripod of choice (with the E-1 or the D200) is an old
> Leica table tripod (which I got for cheap on *Bay), with a small RRS BH-25
> tripod head. Not much bigger than the ultrapod, and inspires more
> confidence... Very stable.
>
I have never managed to pick up one of those. They look very nice. The
Ultrapod has the weight and strap advantage.
I'm thinking more and more that a slightly larger Ultrapod III with head
attachment platform on top of the legs in place of the little "eye"
might be better than them all.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|