Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Giottos Tripods & Ballheads  (Read 14453 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« on: January 30, 2008, 09:51:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I am considering purchasing the Giottos MT-8361 MT III carbon tripod and the Giottos MH-3300 Pro Series II extra large ballhead with MH-658 quick release plate. I have never held either piece of equipment, and no vendor local to me carries them, but I just think they look nice.

I know B&H carries them, but I wanted to get some general feedback from any of you pros regarding the real-life quality/durability/usefulness of these products first.

Any insight will be appreciated, thank you.

Jack
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 09:52:29 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2008, 10:10:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Not an answer but have you considered Feisol?
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2008, 08:53:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I have never heard of them, no.

There seem to be an infinity of different brands and models of tripod, but the Giottos stand out as some of the snazziest to me.

However, I wanted to make sure their tripods were actually as good as they look, so I was looking to get some feedback.

Thanks.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2008, 10:22:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I use the largest Pro ballhead and it is wonderful.  Solid metal, very smooth with no travel.  I've had it from 110 to -5 deg and it's worked very well.
Logged

ternst
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2008, 10:45:29 AM »
ReplyReply

John:

Our local camera store gave me one to use during workshops that I teach and one leg fell off the very first day - needless to say I was not impressed. I would not buy one, but perhaps someone on the assembly line just had a bad day...
Logged
Bill J
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2008, 09:14:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am considering purchasing the Giottos MT-8361 MT III carbon tripod and the Giottos MH-3300 Pro Series II extra large ballhead with MH-658 quick release plate. I have never held either piece of equipment, and no vendor local to me carries them, but I just think they look nice.

I know B&H carries them, but I wanted to get some general feedback from any of you pros regarding the real-life quality/durability/usefulness of these products first.

Any insight will be appreciated, thank you.

Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,

I bought the Giottos MT-8180 carbon-fiber three years ago and was really impressed with its versatility and how steady it is. I found a couple of problems when I took it to Zion NP two months later and got caught in some rain: when wet, the legs tend to stick and become very hard to raise or lower until they dry. The carbon fiber legs have a noticeable grain, so maybe this causes a big difference in the amount of internal friction depending on the weather conditions.

Also, moisture got under one of the rubber rings for tightening or loosening the legs and it slipped so much I couldn't use it until it dried out.

Last year I bought a Gitzo GT-2540EX as a backup - for about twice the price of the Giottos. It's a bit lighter, a little bit smaller, although it's maximum height is lower than the Giottos. The Gitzo's quick-release mechanism for extending or collapsing the legs is wonderful. I've used it in cold weather, warm, wet dry, and I've had no problem with the legs sticking. That said, I think the Giottos is a bit sturdier when raised to the maximum height.

Bill
Logged
NYRich
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2008, 07:41:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack,

I've been using a Giottos GB3150 (aluminum) leg set for the past few years and consider it an excellent tripod. That said, I'm not a heavy user so I think that it will probably outlast me.

The overall build quality is quite good. Finish is not up to Gitzo standards, but neither was the price.

I'm not nearly as impressed with Giottos ballheads. I checked a few out at B&H and decided against them. I went with a Kirk BH3 and don't regret spending the extra money one bit.

The Kirk head is simply in another class. It's smoothess and secure lockdown go way beyond any of the Giottos offeriings. Any of the Markins, RRS or Kirk heads that meet your size requirements are well worth the investment as they will last you "forever".

As long as you're not going to give the tripod heavy, professional use, a Giottos should serve you well.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 07:42:19 AM by NYRich » Logged

Rich
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2008, 08:18:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank for the input fellas.

My primary use for a tripod is going to be recreational macro work on butterflies and insects. My attraction to the Giottos was simply the ads that I saw for them in the photo mags, where they looked quite versatile for this very purpose.

My secondary purpose would be for bird shots, also out in nature, out here where I live (on 27 acres in TN). I may do some traveling at some point to photograph nature also, but I doubt it will ever quality as "heavy professional use." Recreational amateur use is more like it

That being said, "steadiness" is what I want them for mostly, as well as for versatility of position. Again, the advertising for the Giottos product made it look like quite the contortionist, and if the Giottos can be put into such dramatic postures and still hold steady, then this is what I would want.

The lenses I intend to put on it will be a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM, mounted on a Canon 40D.

As for the ballheads, I was looking at Arca-Swiss, but figured I should just match the Giottos MT-8361 MT III carbon tripod with the Giottos MH-3300 Pro Series II (extra large) ballhead.

It is really hard to reach a decision without actually being able to see and feel each tripod, and online there are 28 different Bogen/Manfrottos, 34 different Giottos, and 51 different Gitzos (let alone all the other brands totalled) ... and yet none of my local dealers carries any of these so I can see them in person.

For a guy who is green as a spring meadow to photography, the only thing I can go on is what looks good to me in the ads I see. It was easy to narrow-down my camera choices for what I wanted (and could afford), which was between Canon and Nikon brands, and the 5D, 40D, and D300 models, respectively. Choosing what lenses to buy was fairly easy also, once I made a decision as to which way to go with my camera choice.

But there are dozens and dozens of tripod choices, it seems, and no real consensus (reviews or articles) as to the quality, design, and how they each stack up against the other. So I guess that is what these forums are for, to get real-life opinions, and so again I appreciate the input.

Jack
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 08:22:38 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2008, 10:47:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I can relate, Jack, as I just finished the ball head study myself and am still thinking about the legs.  I just ordered a Really Right Stuff (RRS) BH-40 LR II ball head, which is in the middle of their line of three basic sizes of ball heads.  Your interest appears to be in a bit more substantial supportable weight class than mine, however.

I would suggest that you navigate to the RRS website to read their substantial tutorial information about ball heads and tripods.  (See the left-hand side of the home page "Ballheads: Use and Selection."  Then, under "Tripods and Monopods," the website has a link to an even more interesting tutorial:

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Good luck!
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2008, 11:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can relate, Jack, as I just finished the ball head study myself and am still thinking about the legs.  I just ordered a Really Right Stuff (RRS) BH-40 LR II ball head, which is in the middle of their line of three basic sizes of ball heads.  Your interest appears to be in a bit more substantial supportable weight class than mine, however.

I would suggest that you navigate to the RRS website to read their substantial tutorial information about ball heads and tripods.  (See the left-hand side of the home page "Ballheads: Use and Selection."  Then, under "Tripods and Monopods," the website has a link to an even more interesting tutorial:

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Good luck!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



That was an extremely helpful article Bruce, thank you. I too was reading your tripod questions with interest, as it seems we are doing much the same thing in our chin-rubbing, acquisition-phase of shopping. (I noticed that you too went with the 40D.)

Thank you again, that is exactly the kind of information I was looking for.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2008, 09:01:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Bruce,

I read and re-read that article you posted with interest, and I shopped and compared the models Thom mentioned with interest also, but found many of the models he recommended to be outdated.

One the things Thom mentioned in passing (but really didn't delve into) was, "These days, there are some acceptable 'equivalent' legs. Look carefully at the Bogen, Giotto, and Manfrotto lines and you'll find good solid legs that accomodate the heads I mention below." And since my original question centered around the Giottos, I guess I am still left wanting.

Yet after giving an entire dissertation as to "steadiness" being the most important factor in a tripod, I was a bit dismayed to see how cavalier and easily Thom mentioned the following: After saying he had been a long-time user of the Gitzo 1228 Mountaineer, Thom ended (in his right-hand column) by saying, "(My current support kit is a) Gitzo GT2540. This 6x version of the old Mountaineer is slightly lighter and considerably more steady, both good things."

I wonder if he might not say the same thing about his next upgrade? It almost seemed to me that Thom was guilty of doing the very "constant-upgrading" that he advises against doing in his article.

What impresses me more than a fellow who moves from one model to the next every year, praising each new step, is a fellow who's had something for years and never switches because what he bought the first time never failed him to begin with, and for the fact that no new models have advanced enough to make a difference enough to switch.

On this thread here, for instance, Bill J. has used the Giottos MT-8180 carbon-fiber tripod (which is the closest model to the one I am interested in), and Bill started by saying, "I bought the Giottos MT-8180 carbon-fiber three years ago and was really impressed with its versatility and how steady it is ..." and he ended by saying, "That said, I think the Giottos is a bit sturdier when raised to the maximum height (than the Gitzo)."

And that was in direct comparison of the Giottos MT-8180 carbon-fiber tripod to the Gitzo GT2540, which is the very tripod Thom uses.

The "inbetween" part of Bill's experience centered around weather-proofing and functionality of each brand when exposed to the elements, which Bill said favored the Gitzo, while all-around versatility and sturdiness in fact favored the Giottos.

And the Gitzo cost $639 while the Giottos cost $349 ...

Jack
« Last Edit: February 03, 2008, 09:22:12 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2008, 10:37:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Keep in mind that weight is very important to Thom.  He lugs this stuff up (and presumably down) the sides of mountains.  If weight isn't a consideration then your cost goes way down.
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2008, 12:23:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Right; and tripod weight is a very important factor for me, because I do not want to end up leaving the tripod at home (or in the car trunk) because it is too great a burden to carry.

So, I have begun to think in terms of the ratio of rated load capacity to tripod weight.  I am looking seriously at the Gitzo GT-2540 because it has a whopping 8.5 ratio!  No other tripod seems to approach this ratio, and many others exceed my self-imposed maximum of 3 pounds, even using carbon fiber.  A much more thorough article, written by a Mexican "Nikonian" is at:

http://www.nikonians.org/tripods/index.html

I was actually looking at an even lighter tripod than 3 pounds, but a technical article on camera vibrations as a resolution killer written by a Markins ballhead egineer, Dr. Charlie Kim (referenced by the above article) scared me out of going lighter.  Your eyes will glaze over and you will be encouraged about looking for a heavy tripod if you read this one:

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/no...ort_v4_2006.pdf

One problem with the load-to-weight ratio is that, while the denominator is objectively measurable, the numerator appears to derive from no objective standard.  It is manufacturer-specified and therefor subject to marketing manipulation.  So, for example, I would love to buy the Induro C214 (Chinese knock-off of Gitzo with a good reputation), weighing 3.5 pounds and costing $384 from B&H, rather than the GT-2540 costing $590, if I could be sure that the C214 would be as stable and damp vibrations as well as the Gitzo.  The C214 is rated at 17.6 pounds of load and has a load-to-weight ratio of only 5.0 compared to the GT-2540's 8.5.  However, for all I know Induro is specifying their load ratings more conservatively than Gitzo and the C214, at 3.5 pounds, may perform equally well from a camera and wind-induced vibration standpoint as the 3.1 pound GT-2540.  Or, perhaps one would need to go to the Induro C314, rated at 22 pounds load, to equal the stability of the GT-2540.  But then we would be up to 4.9 pounds of weight for the Induro, which is excessive for my purposes.  So, it appears that either Gitzo is light-years better than the Induro knock-off or that Gitzo is fudging the load capacity numbers.

I just do not know.  There does not seem to be any comparative vibration testing on current models that is required to make an informed decision.  The largest (and only) pro dealer in San Antonio carries only Induro.  I may try to find a dealer in Austin who carries both brands so that I can at least do a visual comparison.  The Gitzo website (poorly designed though it is) highlights a few design improvements that Gitzo has implemented with its latest models.  These include several stability-enhancing features.  For safety's sake in protecting such a large investement I will probably buy the Gitzo GT-2540 if I cannot objectively determine that the Induro C114 or C214 is at least as stable.  I will base that decision on the theory that, having been in the business since 1917 or so, it is likely that Gitzo carries forward vibration-reducing technology in its latest models that may be difficult for the Induro knock-off to duplicate, especially given a $200-$300 price differential.
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2008, 12:40:41 AM »
ReplyReply

By the way... I looked up the specs on the now-discontinued Giottos MT-8180 that you mentioned as compared to the GT-2540.  They are comparable because of a similar load rating: ~26 pounds.  However, as yesterday's technology, the MT-8180 weigh(ed) 5.7 pounds, almost twice the current-model GT-2540's weight.  The trick is to achieve greater stability at lesser weight.  The technology appears to be slowly evolving to make this happen.  It is not surprising to me that this progress is slow, because the laws of physics relate these two quantities directly and not inversely.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2008, 07:30:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
By the way... I looked up the specs on the now-discontinued Giottos MT-8180 that you mentioned as compared to the GT-2540. They are comparable because of a similar load rating: ~26 pounds. However, as yesterday's technology, the MT-8180 weigh(ed) 5.7 pounds, almost twice the current-model GT-2540's weight. The trick is to achieve greater stability at lesser weight. The technology appears to be slowly evolving to make this happen. It is not surprising to me that this progress is slow, because the laws of physics relate these two quantities directly and not inversely.



Hey Bruce, you raise some great observations about weight and capacity-to-weight ratios, but unfortunately none of those apply to my particular circumstance.

First of all, the model I am getting is the Giottos MT-8361 MT III (not the 8180), and the Mt-8361 is only 5 lb. True, the 2540 is only 3.1 lb and that is almost a 2-lb difference, and from strictly a weight standpoint that is significant. Yet for me, 2 lb isn't going to make me or break me, and when considering that the Gitzo 2540 is $589 compared to the Giottos Mt-8361's $339, that is a $250 difference in price ... or $125 a pound.

But there is more to this than a mere savings of 2 lb (at a cost of $125/lb), and that is versatility and strength.

Let us examine what $589 gets you in a Gitzo 2540 versus what $339 gets you with a Giottos MT-8361 MT III:



* The Gitzo 2540 only raises to 52.4" in height (column down).
* The Giottos MT-8361 MT III raises to 58" in height (column down).

* The Gitzo 2540 only raises to 61.4" in height (column raised).
* The Giottos MT-8361 MT III raises to 64.5" in height (column raised).

* The lowest height in the field the Gitzo 2540 can reach is 11.4" in height.
* The lowest height in the field the Giottos MT-8361 can reach is 10.2" in height.

* The only extra feature the Gitzo adds is a warranty.
* The Giottos MT-8361 MT III also comes with a tool kit, a tripod strap, and a padded carrying case, in addition to a warranty.

**** Finally, the  Giottos MT-8361 MT III center column acts as "a lateral arm with angle adjustment, which makes it especially ideal for nature and micro photography. It allows for 360 horizontal and 180 vertical adjustment, and the column can be positioned and set quickly with the locking knobs. The column can also be used upside down and reversed," all of which are features the Gitzo is completely lacking.



So while the Gitzo may be "2 lb lighter," the fact of the matter is this product is also quite a bit lighter on features, advantages, and benefits to my macrophotography ... while at the same time it has the affront to be $250 more expensive.

The "bang for the buck" award is clearly with the Giottos MT-8361 MT III ... at least for my purposes.

Honestly, if I was going to get a Gitzo, I wouldn't even waste my time with the 2540, because it skimps almost everywhere. What I would do is dig a little deeper in my pocket and get the Gitzo GT-3540L, which at least offers me some tangible benefits in height and load capacity, if I were going to shoot landscapes or something like that. But yet it is still twice as expensive as the Giottos ... and I am not sure it is any sturdier than the Giottos for macro nature photography. It certainly isn't as versatile for my purposes.

If I were a serious landscape photographer who wanted absolute stability for a long-exposure shot, I would probably select the Gitzo 3540. But as a fellow who wants tremendous versatility for macro shots taken in the nature I find myself surrounded by on 27 acres in TN, the Giottos MT-8361 MT III is simply a better and more versatile tool for me, at half the price.

And when I couple that with an Arca-Swiss ballhead, I think my tripod needs will have been perfectly addressed.

I thank you very much Bruce for your posted articles, because they opened my eyes to what is most important, for me. If I were hiking all over and wanting low weight with reasonable stability, I might make one choice. If I were doing landscapes and wanting prolonged exposures at dawn, I might make another choice.

But for macro work on my own acreage, that offers amazing contortionist versatility and stability ... it's not a 2-lb weight difference I am looking for ... it's the added features found only in the Giottos. So really, I am more confident than ever that the Giottos MT-8361 MT III is the best choice for me. However, if I ever hit the road and try to broaden my photography to involve landscapes, I will probably pick up a second tripod for that purpose, which at this poing looks to be the Gitzo GT-3540L.

Thanks again,

Jack
« Last Edit: February 04, 2008, 07:38:00 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2008, 10:20:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hey Bruce, you raise some great observations about weight and capacity-to-weight ratios, but unfortunately none of those apply to my particular circumstance.

First of all, the model I am getting is the Giottos MT-8361 MT III (not the 8180), and the Mt-8361 is only 5 lb. True, the 2540 is only 3.1 lb and that is almost a 2-lb difference, and from strictly a weight standpoint that is significant. Yet for me, 2 lb isn't going to make me or break me, and when considering that the Gitzo 2540 is $589 compared to the Giottos Mt-8361's $339, that is a $250 difference in price ... or $125 a pound.

But there is more to this than a mere savings of 2 lb (at a cost of $125/lb), and that is versatility and strength.

Let us examine what $589 gets you in a Gitzo 2540 versus what $339 gets you with a Giottos MT-8361 MT III:
* The Gitzo 2540 only raises to 52.4" in height (column down).
* The Giottos MT-8361 MT III raises to 58" in height (column down).

* The Gitzo 2540 only raises to 61.4" in height (column raised).
* The Giottos MT-8361 MT III raises to 64.5" in height (column raised).

* The lowest height in the field the Gitzo 2540 can reach is 11.4" in height.
* The lowest height in the field the Giottos MT-8361 can reach is 10.2" in height.

* The only extra feature the Gitzo adds is a warranty.
* The Giottos MT-8361 MT III also comes with a tool kit, a tripod strap, and a padded carrying case, in addition to a warranty.

**** Finally, the  Giottos MT-8361 MT III center column acts as "a lateral arm with angle adjustment, which makes it especially ideal for nature and micro photography. It allows for 360 horizontal and 180 vertical adjustment, and the column can be positioned and set quickly with the locking knobs. The column can also be used upside down and reversed," all of which are features the Gitzo is completely lacking.
So while the Gitzo may be "2 lb lighter," the fact of the matter is this product is also quite a bit lighter on features, advantages, and benefits to my macrophotography ... while at the same time it has the affront to be $250 more expensive.

The "bang for the buck" award is clearly with the Giottos MT-8361 MT III ... at least for my purposes.

Honestly, if I was going to get a Gitzo, I wouldn't even waste my time with the 2540, because it skimps almost everywhere. What I would do is dig a little deeper in my pocket and get the Gitzo GT-3540L, which at least offers me some tangible benefits in height and load capacity, if I were going to shoot landscapes or something like that. But yet it is still twice as expensive as the Giottos ... and I am not sure it is any sturdier than the Giottos for macro nature photography. It certainly isn't as versatile for my purposes.

If I were a serious landscape photographer who wanted absolute stability for a long-exposure shot, I would probably select the Gitzo 3540. But as a fellow who wants tremendous versatility for macro shots taken in the nature I find myself surrounded by on 27 acres in TN, the Giottos MT-8361 MT III is simply a better and more versatile tool for me, at half the price.

And when I couple that with an Arca-Swiss ballhead, I think my tripod needs will have been perfectly addressed.

I thank you very much Bruce for your posted articles, because they opened my eyes to what is most important, for me. If I were hiking all over and wanting low weight with reasonable stability, I might make one choice. If I were doing landscapes and wanting prolonged exposures at dawn, I might make another choice.

But for macro work on my own acreage, that offers amazing contortionist versatility and stability ... it's not a 2-lb weight difference I am looking for ... it's the added features found only in the Giottos. So really, I am more confident than ever that the Giottos MT-8361 MT III is the best choice for me. However, if I ever hit the road and try to broaden my photography to involve landscapes, I will probably pick up a second tripod for that purpose, which at this poing looks to be the Gitzo GT-3540L.

Thanks again,

Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep; I hear you, Jack.  Discounting the weight opens up many possibilities.

In fact I was earlier taken with a Manfrotto model that I saw at the (only) pro camera shop in San Antonio.  I do not remember the model number, but it has a center column that pulls up and then snaps to various angles to the vertical without fooling with any locking knobs at all.  I too do macro work (bugs), so that center column was inviting.  Unfortunately Manfrotto has not yet rolled out that feature in a carbon fiber model; but supposedly it is coming.

However, the more I read the more convinced I am of the importance of the center of gravity of the camera and ballhead being directly over the column centered between the tripod legs for maximum stability.  Also, fewer components should result in less vibration and greater stability.  So, for example, I am interested in the Gitzo's feature of being able to remove the center column entirely and mount the head directly to the tripod legs.  I will unfortunately have to stoop over or sit down on a rock to use this "feature."

I certainly do agree that the GT-3540 is a trade-off of features for basic stability and light weight.  The GT-3540L increases the height but adds 1.6 pounds.  For these reasons I had narrowed my search to Gitzo or Induro.  So, I called Gitzo and spoke with the technical services manager to inquire how the load-to-weight ratio could be so much higher in Gitzo than Induro.  He responded that Induro has knocked off Gitzo's prior models and achieved Gitzo's PRIOR ratios.  The new ratios are achieved with Gitzo's patented "G-Lock" system.  This apparently uses v-shaped bushing inserts to increase rigidity at the leg joints as load increases.

Anyway, I ordered a 3540 from B&H this afternoon to complement a RRS BH-40 also on its way to San Antonio, so I will probably be living with this expensive combo for awhile...

Cheers!
Bruce

P.S.  Monarch butterfly photo attached, taken with Panasonic DMC-TZ3 coupled to a Raynox diopter macro lens with a homemade PVC pipe extension tube, hand-held, 1/200 sec at f/4.7 (image stabilized).

What the heck... I will throw in a moth munching on nectar for good measure.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2008, 10:42:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad you made your decision Bruce. I will be ordering mine soon also.

I must say I am also a bit jealous that you can still take butterfly shots this time of year ... I have nothing but cold rain and mud where I'm at

Judging by the species, I'd say you live in sunny Florida  

Jack
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2008, 11:19:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I am in San Antonio, with few bugs around now.  Those two pics are from the San Antonio botanical gardens in late November.  The weather has begun to turn warmer over the past few days, though.  By late February we will have blooms and enough bugs to require the big cans of bug spray.  
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2008, 11:33:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Ahh, yes. Texas.

A girl I know (who lives in Miami) always sends me photos of the butterfly shots she takes there, taunting me especially in the winter (and many of her shots are of the Queen too). That's why I figured Florida.

But, if I am not mistaken, Texas actually has more species of butterfly than any other state, in particular at the southern tip. There are a few dozen species that are only found at that point in TX, same as at the southern tip of FL, where they too have year-round butterflies.

But I was surprised that (according to the Kaufmann Guide) southern Texas has a more diverse butterfly population than even Florida.

I need to move  

Jack
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2008, 09:55:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, Jack, honestly the only thing that I know about entomology is that I mustn't run out of bug spray down here.     I photograph the critters mainly for the challenge that the macrophotography techniques provide.

I do know that San Antonio is in the (or one of) the Monarch's migration path to Mexico.  Some years the sky is rather thick with them for a few days.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad