Essentially... Not the same.
Also worth reading the latter posts of this thread I started on TP a while ago.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/3-legged-thing-tripods.448520/
It explains why there are a number of "identical" tripods out there. Lots of design theft around it appears...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2015-Came...6-Max-156cm-/121347447468?hash=item1c40df1aac
Been using this for 4 months now,superb little tripod,sturdy,small and fits lovely on the back of my Lowepro Flipside 400 AW.
Also comes in its own bag which is handy.
Thanks for the two replies.
It would be interesting to compare the two side-by-side at a meetup or something and see just how close the stolen version gets to the original.
That's the aluminium version of the carbon model I posted in the first reply. Nearly half the price again.
The carbon version is 1.38Kg, the aluminium one looks to be 1.46Kg so I expect there's not a lot of real-world difference when carting them about.
If everything else is the same, that is a crazy price for such a good tripod.
XCSOURCE Q666C (Google it).
It's what I've just used on my trip to Australia.
It's essentially a Chinese knockoff of a very well known and reputable brand but it's less than £100 rather than over £250.
Obviously depends on the weight of the camera and lens your using but this happily dealt with a D810 and 16-35mm (not light).
The only problem with a beanbag is having something at the right height to sit the beanbag on.
The only problem with a beanbag is having something at the right height to sit the beanbag on.
these are surprisingly good, and the tripod thread/head can be reversed to work as a cold shoe for a mini flash stand
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0045HKJZU?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s01
I've rolled the dice on a Q666C