Motorsport photography

Can anyone help? I'm looking for a SLR camera to use at motorsport meetings. I've narrowed down my choice of camera (body) to a Canon,can anyone explain the difference between
EOS 3/30/3000 and EOS 5/50?/5000which is the top of the range? Anyone got any recommendations? Thanks for any help.

calcium

i'm the motorsport picture editor/junior snapper for a sports picture agency. i checked with one of my two photographers(they both use canon)who we send to every f1 gp.

advice is...

buy the eos3. the eos5 was a funny sort of camera, never really took off and i think they've stopped making it now.

don't know too much about canon...i rely on nikon f4, and f3 - which you really don't want to drop on your foot!

happy snapping!

Thanks kdr.There are a few different types.There's EOS 3, EOS 30, EOS 300 and EOS 3000,which out of these is the best camera for what I want it for,thanks.:rotate:

Also,the only second hand camera I've found so far is an EOS 500, is this camera not good enough for what I want it for?thanks for help,much appreciated.

calcium

i'm off down to le mans this weekend with one of the guys, i'll ask him. imho the canon eos3 may be a little too much pricewise if you're only shooting as a hobby. are you in the uk, all those different serial numbers sound a little american. i'm not very clued up on canon.

any of the eos bodies are good...obviously the eos1 and 3 will take a little more of a battering. just look to see if it'll go manual settings...you don't want anything where the camera is dictating what you might want to do....ie slow shutter speeds for panning, changing the film speed rating so you can push the film if it gets gloomy. in some ways the more basic the better!

hope this helps.

Yes I'm in the UK.Lol for camera dropping on foot,I hope U broke fall and saved the camera!! I was hoping to get camera for this weekend,I'm up to Oulton Park for the British Superbikes. I'm really looking forward to it.Thankyou for all the advice,I really appreciate it.

Originally posted by calcium
Thanks kdr.There are a few different types.There's EOS 3, EOS 30, EOS 300 and EOS 3000,

I think a good first place for you to visit is Klaus Schroiff's PhotoZone site, he has a really nice matrix-style chart that lets you compare all of the features of the various Canon EOS autofocus SLR's.

http://photozone.de/

If you have specific questions, there is a really good mailing list for Canon EOS cameras:

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm

The cameras with numbers beginning in "3" are tne newer models which have hit the market within the last 3 years. The ones beginning in "5" are older models... the numbering scheme you refer to is the product ID's Canon uses in Europe and Asia, the SMALLER the number is, the MORE features (higher price) the camera has.

Just so you know, the EOS3 is called the EOS3 internationally. There is a battery grip that fits it called the PB-E2, so you don't have to use the expensive lithium batteries that the camera normally uses, and it also duplicates all of the cameras controls in a vertical orientation, at the cost of making the camera heavier and bulkier. You can buy an additional set of Nickel-metal-hydride battery packs that fit in the PB-E2 that will increase its framing rate to seven frames per second. This is a pro-level camera.

The EOS5 is called the A2e in the US, and there is a slightly "crippled" version in the US called the A2 (without eye-controlled focus). The features of the EOS5 are slightly different from the A2, as the firmware is slightly different, and the EOS5 has a date/time imprinting system built in. These went out of production very recently, I believe it was introduced in 1992, so there are a lot of them out there. It is a wonderful camera, I'd consider it to be pro-level, except perhaps for its construction (it is mostly plastic). It will shoot at 5 frames per second if you aren't using autofocus, and 3.5 if you are.

Unfortunately, you can't get an external battery pack for this one like the PB-E2, the pack that you use with the EOS5 is called the BP-5, which is attached with a really awkward cable and houses 4 heavy D cells. The VG10 vertical grip duplicates all of the controls for you when you hold the camera in a vertical (portrait) orientation, which is nice to have, but it makes the camera bulkier.

The EOS 30 replaced the EOS 50, which also went off the market recently (last year), the EOS 30 is called the Elan 7 in the States, and the EOS 50 was called the Elan II. (If there is an "e" in the designation, that means the model, Euro or US, has eye-controlled focus). These are intended for well-heeled amateurs, and are also great cameras. They have quite a bit of metal in their construction. The 30 will shoot at 4 frames per second with autofocus, and the 50 2.5.

You can get external battery packs for the 30 and the 50, both holding 4 AA cells. They do not increase the framing rate, nor do they duplicate vertical controls (except for the shutter release.)

The EOS 300 (Rebel 2000 in the US) replaced the EOS500 (Rebel G in the US). These are pretty much bottom of the line SLR's but VERY capable cameras. These are pretty much all plastic... which isn't really bad, it makes them VERY light to carry. There are battery packs available that hold 2 AA cells instead of the expensive lithium batteries, they don't increase the framing rate or duplicate vertical controls. The battery pack for the 300 does put an additional vertical shutter release on the camera.

I think the 3000 is what is called the Rebel XS in the US, it is a less-capable version of the other Rebels.

[i]which out of these is the best camera for what I want it for,thanks.:rotate:

It's kind of like cars and driving... the car can't go any faster than the driver can! :) Similary, it isn't the camera that takes the picture, it is the photographer. Since you can put any or the Canon lenses on each of these cameras, the results will look similar. The main thing that is different between camera models is the framing rate, how fast the autofocus is, and how solidly constructed the camera is. IMHO, most of the other stuff is bells&whistles. You can take good motorsports photographs with any of these cameras. What lenses you select, and how good your technique is, will probably make a bigger difference in the results.

I used a pair of Rebel G's for about 3 years and was pretty happy with them, and then moved up to some Elan II's. I didn't notice a huge improvement in the pictures, but some special features made certain types of shots easier. I got a pair of EOS A2's a couple of years ago and have been using them a lot. The bottom line is, with practice, I got publishable results from all of them.

Spending more on the camera body makes a difference in certain instances, but I'm pretty sure that most people could take pretty decent motorsports pictures with the Elan models (EOS30/50) with some practice. If you want or need to spend more that's up to you, what you are mainly buying if you spend more is a more rugged camera with a higher framing rate (which translates to higher film consumption for a lot of photographers!) and faster autofocus.

Originally posted by kdr
just look to see if it'll go manual settings...you don't want anything where the camera is dictating what you might want to do....ie slow shutter speeds for panning, changing the film speed rating so you can push the film if it gets gloomy. in some ways the more basic the better!

All of the Canon EOS SLR's that calcium listed can be used in a manual mode... as a matter of fact, they all have aperture-priority (Av), shutter-priorty (Tv) and Programmed (P) exposure modes, which are shiftable to allow over- oir under-exposure at the photographer's discretion, and all let you set film speed independent of the automatic film speed indexing through the DX codes on the film cannisters.

If you want to go the other way, all of the EOS except the EOS3 and EOS 1/1n/1v let you switch into a "green rectangle" mode, in which everything is automatic... kinda like having a point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. Of course, I NEVER use this... :)

Originally posted by kdr
don't know too much about canon...i rely on nikon f4, and f3 - which you really don't want to drop on your foot!

I think Nikon goofed big time when they went from manual focus cameras to autofocus... they decided to put the autofocus motor in the camera body instead of in the lens... which means focus on some of the bigger lenses can be ponderously slow. Canon rightly decided to put the focus motor in the lens, which means they can be matched to the lens, which allows for faster focus. In doing so, though, they made the old lenses incompatible with their new cameras, which Nikon did not do. In my mind, the F4 is just too slow to use as an autofocus camera, so when I do use a borrowed one, I switch it over to manual focus. F3's were manual focus to begin with.

But for shooting fast things like cars, nothing beats Canon lenses with the USM (ultra-sonic motors) for autofocusing... these are incredibly fast. Canon seems to be the first to market with really cool technology, like gyroscopic image stabilization in some lenses.

Nikon now has a line of lenses for their highest-level pro SLR's that have similar AF-S ("Silent Wave") motors in them, but they are very pricy.

But again, if you're good and have solid technique, you should be able to take great photos no matter what kind of camera you're using. The lenses, it's the lenses...

If you have the budget, perhaps you should consider going for a digital slr body. The Current Canon digital bodies are the D30 c£1800 or the D1 c£5,000. These are athe digital equivalents of the eos 30 & eos1 models.

To be honest though, its the quality of the photographer and his "vision" for a picture that counts most, the camera and lenses are meerly tools. It's your brain that makes the picture good or bad.

Wow,thanks for all that you guys,it's all been very helpful.
As you've probably gathered I'm just starting out.I've always been interested in photography(but not done much about it) and I have a huge passion for Motorsport, especially Superbikes.I've only ever taken a 35mm camera with me and to be honest I have some good pictures of riders/drivers (well, I think they're ok,you professionals would probably think different!!)I think being a female helps when you are fighting the crowds shouting out a riders name to get them to smile at you, ha ha.

Thanks again,I may return asking for advice on how to get my pictures published !!!

Calcium
you have had much good advice from members on your choice of cameras, May i also add mine. Last year i attended Brands Hatch for the first time (World Superbikes) and i soon realised that my 35mm compact was just no good as i soon became totally addicted to taking photos of motorsport after talking to people at other race meetings i was advised to go for something very simple to start with and as i was on a very limited budget i bought a olympus 0m10 for the princely sum of £25 at a boot sale, it came with a 70-210 tele lense. I know this is a really basic camera but the quality of my pics was amazeing compared with my 35mm compact. well i am at brands most weekends and like all things i again wanted better, so yet again i asked around the paddock ect,and they pointed me in the direction of the DYNAX 5. Well i find it difficult to put into words how my technique and quality of photo's has improved.There are so many features on the dynax and with two lenses at under £400 i reccomend it especially if like me you are on a budget.I wish you very good luck with whatever you buy and if you are ever at brands(on paddock bend ) please come over and say Hellow, i am easy to findi will have my Dynax and the wife will have my old Olympus(she's hooked too.
good luck
pauldavid:beer:

hey everyone

agree that canons image stabilzer is a cool thing, long lens work in the pits when you may be shooting down to a 30th or 60th. maybe because of the f4's diffcencies i never autofocus cars...frame and pre-focus is always the way i go.

calcium...as imsa dude says...its the lenses. the lenses bring you closer...oh and a good eye for pictures helps!

look thru the magazines to see the sort of shots they're using...then rip-em off...everything i know i learned from looking at pascal rondeaus pictures! then you can develop your own style as you go along.

usage...print them up and approach a photo agency or paper. if they're good enough they may get you some accreditation to get you even closer.

have fun.

I'm also just getting into motorsport photography. I have a Canon SLR, And would really appreciate some advice on how to take the night shots at Le Mans....Particularly interested in the glowing brakes...What sort of film speed / Shutter speeds do you need for these types of shot?

i've only ever done a few night race shots, but i got some cool results from about 1/90 on 400 or 800asa film. do panning shots as you normally would, i'm not sure about a flash though?

i use nikon stuff so can't really help out on the canon side of this discussion, but i can reccommend sigma's 50-500mm lens. it's a little slow on autofocus (i'm still learning), but it's fantastic should you decide to spend some serious money.

next toy on the way is a nikon d100 digital camera. i can't use the d1x because it's too heavy and my hands are too small to hold it. it nearly caused me to sell all my nikon stuff and switch to the canon d30, but luckily nikon are bringing out the d100 in a very decent price range. it's also got better picture resolution than the d1x...

Ooh, small hands - you can use both on me if you like! ;)

As for camera's, if you're just starting out I recommend you get a Canon EOS 600 (I've got one and find it very good) - they're reasonably cheap second hand. I got mine for £140 over a year ago. They have very good metal parts as opposed to carbon and are very resilient to being mashed about a bit.

As for lenses - you can pick up 2 Sigma lenses (28-70mm and 100-300mm) for about £210 all together, which are very decent, yet not quite as good as Canon's own stuff. If you happen to be a student, they may knock some money off if you shop at Jessops.

Don't go for too large a lens straight away - work up to a 500mm - they cost way too much to be rushing in and buying straight off.

Hope this helps a bit - happy snapping!

As for digital cameras, remember that they are all just computers with lenses stuck onto them, as so they depreciate and are out-paced by the newer ones, just exactly like a computer, so do as much reading as you can in researching any digital stuff, cameras, memory cards, whatever.

I bought a Dynax 500si a few years ago and have been more than happy with it. Its gone every where with me from Le Mans to rallying in the Welsh forests and I've always got some good pics (well most of the time if i don't :censored: the shot up).
I bought a set which came with 2 zoom lenses(70 to 210 and 35-70)and camera body, which is fully automatic with manual options, and I also have a 500mm mirror lense, which only cost about £85 new. I know the more money you pay the better the equipment, but if you are on a tight budget it's £85 worth spending. The only draw back is the lense is not auto unlike the 2 you get as standard.
Here's a picture of the Brit Audi just after dusk at the Essess. The original is good, when its enlarged its even better. This was taken not using a flash as you tend to find a lot of flashes going off at tha same time as you take the shot, and unless you are using a powerfull flash i don't see the point when your stood 100 metres away! The photo is not as good as the original as my convertion from standard print to digital photo editing is not the best - i need more practice.

Two more pictures I have taken are on the thread Le Mans pre-qualifying,may, again could be better if more transfer technique was better.

Sorry the image is a lot darker than the original and grainier!

Thanks pauldavid,I've never been to Brands Hatch,I'd love to go to all the circuits (at least once)Oulton Park is the one I go to most,I've been to Donington and I hope to be going to Thruxton this year and maybe Knockhill (fingers crossed)

I've now bought a camera taking on board all of the above advice. It's a Canon EOS300 with a 100mm - 300mm lens.I took it with me for the British Superbikes at Oulton Park over the Bank holiday.I messed about with it a lot,just trying different things,I'm going to pick up the photos later today,lets hope at least some have turned out???

Thanks again everyone.

You've done well there - the 300 is the commercial progressive of the one I have. It has more features for toying around with, but you'll find the 'sport' feature will be best, I think.

100-300mm lens is decent for getting up close to cars/bikes, especially if you sit on the gate at Lodge and pan round with the vehicle. Down at the bottom of cascades is decent too. Don't try and see too far with it though as you'll end up feeling disappointed at the small images of vehicles you're left with.

Hope the piccies coem out well. :)

quattro

only at ford chicane and the run up to the dunlop chicane will you get close enough. dunlop is your best bet because its elevated above the concrete wall. either way you're flash won't carry - so forget it. shoot provia or velvia pushed one. shoot at dusk while theres still some light - not darkness...you'll hopefully still get some glowing brake detail still. 60th or 30th at f2.8 or f4. wait for the pescarolo courage and the corvette...they're both chucking out flame this year. even if its a little muzzy it should still look interesting.

for true darkness there should be a nice slow shutter speed shot on a clamp of the lights coming down the new curve section. i'll be giving it a go...armed with nikon, baguette, brie et vin rouge!

as people have said, work up to a longer lens...but don't break the bank because its your hobby - not your livelihood!

i'd look for a 35-200 zoom and something like a 400 sigma f5.6. i have heard that bellas 50-500mm lens is good, even if it does sound a little bonkers!

if you can't get trackside, and the cars look a little small - you can still frame the cars with interesting features - trees, gravel, rumble-strips, grandstands. close shots of the cars can be done on the friday pitwalk after all. stock is all well and good...but you want to convey what le mans is all about - the cars in the countryside.

bella has the right idea - go digital. no more processing fees for 36 frames of s**t! and you can check your framing and exposures as you...which is good because dig is more sensitive than neg.

f3000 editing beckons!

Only just caught this thread, i'm not going to be much help as I, like Bella am that of the Nikon persuasion.
However,
I will back up Bel's comments about the 50-500mm Sigma. It is worth the money. But ONLY and ONLY when your serious it all.
Bella and i do look quite strange i will admit with the same lens trotting round together but neither of us i think regret the fact that we've got it.
On the subject of digital i also agree totally. This means today i have bought myself one.
Thank the lord i have less 35mm stuff to pick up from the developers anymore!
So now i've two Nikons, both which i love and wouldn't swap. One film (F100) and one digital (D1x)
and no motor racing for a week to try it out............... thats going to be painful!!!!

Anyway, I hope your happy in your choice. No matter what anyone else says, if your happy its doing the job you want it to do, and you've bought it for the right reasons, then you should be very satisfied with it all!

Happy shooting.

I'm off to install software til it comes out of my ears!

can anyone recommend a good place to buy cameras from ? or maybe a UK website where things might be a bit cheaper ?

for the cheap things don't take this as read but for the new 'costs an arm and a leg' stuff i've been finding Jessops as the cheapest quotes (hence the little man in there REALLY likes me!). Shocking i know but true. None of the others i tried - high street not internet - came within a hundred pounds of them!

oh and they are not usually bad for second hand older lenses like the manual focus and smaller lenses etc.
ps i don't work for them. - wish i did.... imagine that staff discount!!!! hmmm!

must admit I get all my stuff from there as well - well it's the only place that holds stuff my old beastie.

no! jessops is expensive!

try kp photography in cambridge (www.kpprof.com i think). remember to add vat to the prices, but they work out better than jessops.

I'm also after my first SLR, is there any other new SLRs to consider other than the Canon EOS 300 (in that price range) ?

first i'm going to ask if you are going to drop it or be a bit brutal with your camera like Bella is ! ;)

I ask because you find that Nikons you can drop on your foot and although you end up breaking your foot because of the weight of the camera, the camera itself doesn't NORMALLY (please please god) break. On the other hand i know many cannon users who are crying because they have now a rather large bill for camera repair but no sore foot.
;)

oh i think i would be very carefull with a camera :)

i was looking around £400 including a 300mm zoom, any suggestions ? I read that the Nikon F80 has good image quality. Ive not really read about other brands yet.

I'm going to point out a difference between the cannon and the Nikon that you might or might not realise.
It is to do with the Auto Focus mechanism and where it is held.
Cannon has the funtion in the lenses. Therefore if the thing has beggered up in some way you can take just the lens in for repair, not have to lose the camera itself.

On the other side of the coin, Nikon have the mechanism in the Body of the Camera.

Now I know this probably sounds as if i'm shouting Go for Cannon but NO!
Wouldn't swap my Nikon for anything at the minute. .... well, unless anyones offering a nice TVR Cerbera! ;)
and then that would be a crow bar jobby.
No I lie. I wouldn't be parted from them.

Anyway its a thought to bear in mind.

That's why the lenses are never inter-changeable.

Anyone interested in the D100, the site www.dpreview.com has just put out some more pre-production D100 shots to go along with their preview of the new Nikon body soon to come out. The shots were taken in London, so if you look carefully, you may be able to spot Craig or TimD lurking around.

anyone have any suggestions for removing blue ink from photos ??

i found that where i had wrote on the back of some, the ink has transfered onto the pictures :(

(i do have the negatives as a last resort,,,)

cheerz

The product that works the best is called PEC-12, a photographic emulsion cleaner that is also archival, so it will not hurt negs, slides or prints. Made by Photographic Solutions and comes in a small 4ounce bottle. May be a bit pricey, but it generally gets any sort of ink or stains off any of the forementioned items.

good luck

cheers i might ask a photographic shop about it.

or do any common household chemicals work ?
bleach maybe ???

nail varnish remover doesn't work either... ;)

s'ok i dont have any of that :P

we hope, but then we wouldn't hold it against you, we're a pretty much open-minded bunch here, and besides, I live in Montreal and am used to that sort of thing;)

if you can't find this stuff anywhere,or if it's frightfully expensive (as the British market is wont to screwing all of you royally compared to over 'ere) I'm sure that if you went into any professional lab that prints colour, and asked nicely enough, they would get it off for you.

I have been taking photos at racing for a year or so now, when I started I had a EOS 5 which I still use and cant fault it, I now work on an EOS D30 which is great. When you are considering spending money think LENSES these are the most important part. I love to use the canon 70-200 F2.8L i know these are not cheap but the quality is the best you will find (they do it in a F4 version which is half the price) I have found sigma lenses to be a bit slow and the standard canon lenses seem to hunt when in auto focus mode.
I will say this again get good lenses first dont buy rubbish you will regret it in the long run because they will be a bit disapointing, I started with a 75-300 canon F4-5.6 and in the end saved up a bit a got better lenses.
Canon IS is great but the sometimes take a bit longer to focus as they are stabilising.
happy snapping

I was looking at the 75-300 canon F4-5.6 lens too.

can someone explain what the F thing is all about, it is also used in astronomy but i was never sure what it was.

The F is your F-stop. This is your apature size the lower the number the better, as this lets more light in allowing you to take pictures under lower light. The 75-300 F4-5.6 is ok in good weather. If it is cloudy you will have trouble and will have to go for a faster film. The 70-200 F2.8 is very good under most conditions but it comes at a cost (around 4X the 70-300 but you get what you pay for)

they don't do nicely priced lenses below f3.something or other, and at 300mm can't get anything better than f5.3. it's thoroughly annoying. i need a 300mm lens that's got a better focal length than my 50-500mm, which is f4-5.3, or something like that. it's impossible, without spending about £5k. you need better than my 50-500 in late autumn/winter conditions at racetracks. ie renault winter series conditions.

swines.

Looking over this thread, lots of good advice. Like many I'm looking for an intro-level (read: cheap) SLR camera. I've been getting by borrowing a friend's Pentax MZ-7, which I actually quite liked, but others have said is a **** camera. Anyway, now that I have a new job I can probably afford one soon!

Also, you'd be surprised how well you can do with just a compact 35 mm camera at some tracks, like Toronto where you can get really close to the cars in the turns...you don't need a lense any larger than 80mm to get some nice close ups. Still, need SLR for just about any other track, and non-racing photography.

bella...just looking at your sig... expecting a PM from someone? :laugh:

I am asuming that you mean F6.3 on the 50-500mm as 5.3 doesnt exsist.I know that the 70-200mm F2.8 or F4 isnt cheap but they are a good quality lens. I know sigma stuff is ok (asume that you 50-500 is sigma) but when you go for the canon L-seires that is just top quality gear. And if you go for a digital then your 200mm turns into somthing like 305mm so you get a bit extra

Originally posted by Jay
bella...just looking at your sig... expecting a PM from someone? :laugh:
jus' droppin' a subtle hint ;)

brickkicker, i do have mostly sigma stuff, and am going digital by the end of june (damn exams, damn nikon). after spending what will in the end be damn close to £3k on digital camera and associated paraphenalia, i can't really justify that sort of money on a middle range lens. the next thing on my spends list has to be a decent 500mm lens. got any idea which are available for a nikon autofocus mount? admittedly, it's bankloan/small car sacrificing territory. which is why i guess i'm stuck with my beloved sigma monstrosity. thank god for the lens lengthening effect that digital has, it'll save me coughing up for a converter that won't work... does digital increase the minimum f number?

No your F numbers stop the same. But i have found that most work on a track can be done with 70-200 an even in the pits its a usefull tool. Sorry but not realy up on nikon have only ever had canon stuff. I dont know about you but when i looked at the sigma 50-500 i thought it was a bit bloody heavy.Which digital body was it you were looking at? I know that the nikon bodys are slightly heavy (but then again most are when you add all the batterys. are you going to be having nikkor lenses or going to stick with the sigma stuff.

it's a nikon d100 i'm getting (6.1 megapixels, i think), and i'll have to keep my sigma lens. i don't like the nikkor version of the 300mm lens that sigma do, it's far too plasticky and naff. i couldn't get the d1x because my hands are too small to hold the thing, and i can't reach the button either... the d100 is much lighter than even the f100.

the 50-500 is really heavy, it breaks my back at the end of a 2 day meeting. the fact i've got a naff little camera (f65) on the end of it because i couldn't strech to a few more hundred pounds for a decent one is even worse.

Do you use a monopod or do you just carry it i now that nikkor stuff is plasticy but they are light durable but bloody expensive

i've got a monopod, but i can't find the bracket for the lens, and it'd snap the mounting point off if i used it on the camera....

they gave me a little nikkor lens with the camera, and it's just cr*p, i definitely prefer sigma.

Companies like Mannfrotto make quick-release tripod adapters that you leave screwed into the camera, and enables you to take your body on and off a tripod or monopod in a snap. Very handy if you need to go from monopod to hand held quickly, and you don't have to screw around with the monopod getting in the way. The fellow I work with has this, I have a good old fashioned ball head on my monopod, but don't really use it that often to warrant getting the other type.(and I can borrow his if I have to) Thought to mention it in case anyone was looking to get a new head, as it would be worth the extra money if you were going to purchase a regular screw-in one anyway.
With heavy lenses, lens mounts have been known to suffer from improperly supported bodies (no lens bracket tripod mounts) so a word of caution. A bent lens mount is not something anyone would want, and "cheaper" bodies are more susceptible. I'm surprised that your sigma's tripod mount isn't a permanent fixture.

this sort of thing, http://www.manfrotto.com/products/index.html?doc_from=home
Manfrotto stuff is pretty well bullet proof, but I'm sure there are other products like it that would cost less.
djb

I have got a manfrotto monopod and can say that there are well built and very light it also makes the camera and lens easier to carry as it ballances the whole thing better. Mine is the 681B I havent bothered with the head but I can see its uses, if you look at monopods try pushing them down when they are locked if they push down then they arnt going to be that good the monfrotto can be pushed with all my weight and it wont fold up. If you realy want to spend loads try going for Gitzo these go up to many hundreds but are made by the same company as manfrotto I think.

i normally carry my camera. well, i carry the lens, the camera just follows... also got a manfrotto monopod, but since i mislaid the mount thing, it's not been used. i'll have a look for it at the end of june though when the d100 arrives.