Thanks for all the comments on the tripods!
I can see a CF 444 somewhere in my future soon!
Cheers,
Alex
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 04:30:37PM +0200, Alex Le Heux wrote:
>
>
> Soon I will travel to Japan and, amongst other things, pay my respects to
> Mt Fuji. Fuji-san is more than 3700 metres high. For someone living in The
> Netherlands the number 3700 meters is quite meaningless, I think the
> highest point in NL is some 325 m above sealevel... Climbing this Giant of
> a Mountain while carrying my MPP, some lenses, film and a nice and sturdy
> Manfrotto seems somewhat silly. At least, that's what people tell me. Not
> that I believe them, but shedding some weight seems to be a Good Idea.
>
> The obvious place to shed some weight is the tripod (I myself am already on
> a diet of dry rice and air). And if I'm going to buy a small and light
> tripod anyway, why not get the smallest and lightest thing I can get away
> with...
>
> Now for the question:
>
> Would a Manfrotto 444 be enough for an MPP Mk VII and say a Super Angulon
> 90 f/8? Or should I get something bigger like the 440?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex Le Heux
>
> --
> "Although the force from the engine is a lot for a motorcycle, the Earth is
> not impressed. The Motorcycle and I loose the 'F' and 'm' battle and have to
> consume all the 'a' in the form of sheer unadulterated acceleration."
> - Ian Orr
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
--
Technology, of course, has been part of human existence since our
Cro-Magnon ancestors picked up a stone and realized it could be more than
part of the landscape.
- Declan McCullagh