Aluminum vs Carbon fiber tripod, a marketing hoax?

<p>Size and or material are not the only issues here. Design and engineering are key factors.<br>

Before settling on a Leitz Tiltall some 35 years ago, I had owned a couple of others all made of aluminium. A Linhoff: open channel legs...disasterous thing. A very large, heavy, twin shanked Paillard Bolex (of cine fame). Good stabilty but terrible torsional rigidity. My Tiltall seems so compact by comparison and beats hands down, anything I've tried in either alum. or cf of comparable size.<br>

Regardless of what the tripod is made of, grip the neck/collar of the 'pod and try giving it a clockwise and counter-clockwise twist. If it moves, put that model on your "discard" list.<br>

And remember, manufacturers always quote the maximum load capabilities based on the tripod's minimum height! </p>

<p>I can point you to a reasonably accurate and well-conducted test of eight major tripod models - a mix of leading models made from basalt, carbon-fibre, aluminium and wood. It was conducted by Leica Forum International, and is available in LFI Magazine issue <a href="http://www.lfi-online.de/ceemes/base.php?webfile/show/873/">January 2006</a> .</p>

<p>The method of the test was like this:</p>

<p>Each tripod was set-up in the same configuration set to the same height and leg spread and mounted with the same camera and head. The camera was focused on a sheet of graph paper on a flat plane at a constant distance. A laser pointer was mounted to the camera targeted at the graph paper. The shutter was opened on bulb with remote release and the entire rig allowed to steady. A 1 kg weight was dropped from a fixed height at the same place relative to the feet of the tripod. The shutter was closed.</p>

<p>Where a tripod offered minimum protection from vibrations the spread of the laser beam over the graph paper was wide, demonstrating deflection from true center due to vertical and lateral forces induced by vibration. Where the tripod offered maximum protection from vibrations, the spread was contained with lesser degrees of deflection.</p>

<p>The results were fairly consistent in several rounds of testing, and showed that wooden tripods (or at least a specific model) offered significantly more stability and dampening of vibration - from memory, it was a fairly dramatic win, with much better results than any other model.</p>

<p>Next best was basalt, followed by aluminium, followed by carbon-fibre.</p>

<p>Obviously the models and condition of any tripod makes a difference: a poorly-made wooden tripod may perform worse than an excellent aluminium one, and an old and stressed one may perform worse than a new one.</p>

<p>This particular test was based on specific models, each equivalent in features and load weight, and which were the leading tripods in each manufacturer's range, and all tested from new.</p>

<p>If I recall correctly, I think there was an observation that the diameter of the leg influenced steadiness more than materials of manufacture, and that choice of material had a bearing on dead weight only.</p>

<p>Edit to my post above:</p>

<p>For the sake of accuracy I found the article and re-read it. Which is just as well, as I was incorrect in one important regard.</p>

<p>In the test, the carbon-fibre tripod performed better than the aluminium equivalent, not worse. Hence, if you take your conclusions from that specific test, then it looks like carbon-fibre may actually be better from a stability perspective, and not a 'marketing hoax'.</p>

<p>For points of detail, I also omitted to say the test included a swinging pendulum, as well as an impact force, and the shutter was kept open for 15 seconds. Plus the pointer was on a fixed rig relative to the paper, and not mounted to the camera.</p>

<p>If anyone's interested, the winning tripod was a Berlebach - two different models tested both out-performed Giottos and Manfrotto models.</p>

<p>"The advice is not wrong, but you must do it properly. If the extra weights just hangs from teh shaft, swinging freely, all it does is make lifting the tripod up more difficult. Because then you would need to lift both tripod and bag."</p>

<p>The extra weight lowers the center of gravity of the tripod, and that makes it less likely to tip over in the wind. And the tripod has to support the weight in a gravitational field, so there is an increased downward force on the tripod that improves the coupling with the ground. I like to adjust the weight so that it's still partially supported on the ground so that it doesn't swing. And I've yet to have a tripod go over even in strong winds.</p>

<p>A carbon fiber tripod is more damped than an aluminum one. Whether it matters depends on the forcing function; ie how *hard* the a camera shakes it. One can take a frilly 1950's telescoping tripod that by dad had that is only about 7 inches long collapsed; and self timered Retina III c shots are tack sharp; and 400mm Spiratone on an Exatka VX series is abit of a joke. The 45 year old Tiltall here works well with a 4x5 speed graphic whether film or digital. The movement is less than what can be resolved. Thus the lay public seems to be confused by better; a typical lack of scale issue. If it is called better but it cannot be measured; financially it is a waste. Having a carbon fiber bike or tripod may help; or may not either becuase the improvement is in the noise; ie cannot be measured. Polishing your lawn mower will cut air drag but can it be really measured?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is worth an international photographers convention. I picture crowds of arguing photographers, with all manner of tripod and dangling rocks everywhere, and there's a group ready with cameras pointing at the starting line, to document the first track and field event: a line-up of athletic gardeners equipped with roaring lawnmowers, sporting varying degrees of polished paint and chrome, ready to ... (The same model of lawn mower of course, to eliminate at least one variable.) (Thanks Kelly - you've made my day.)<br /> There are side shows, tents and stalls covering all points of contention, including a pavilion with one member giving a lecture on theoretical physics. (No cameras, tripods or even a photograph, just ... theory.)</p>

<p>I have been enjoying this thread.</p>

<p>I appreciate that examples are desirable. However, there are practical difficulties in providing them. Most important, examples don't provide an objective comparison unless you set out to perform tests side by side. Who carries two tripods into the field for that purpose? Secondly, one's impressions are often made over a period of time. If something were consistently "bad", you'd stop using it right away, so it's a percentage game. Finally, we learn from experience (i.e., mistakes), and can do a lot to compensate for shortcomings in our equipment and technique.</p>

<p>These examples were taken with an Hasselblad 205TCC, a CF80 lens, a CVF digital back and a Gitzo, using a Gitzo G-1227 CF tripod (#2) with an Arca B1 head. The examples are shown with a reduced version of the whole frame, with a 100% crop of selected details.</p>

<p>The first (<a href="../photo/10370091">http://www.photo.net/photo/10370091</a>) was taken without mirror lockup, an illustrates the "doubling" you observe with severe mirror flap and a light tripod. The second (<a href="../photo/10370090">http://www.photo.net/photo/10370090</a>) was taken, after a bit of constructive "chimping", with the mirror locked up (MLU). It's still not quite there in terms of sharpness (observe more recent examples), but does not exhibit the "doubling" in the first example. The last example, (<a href="../photo/10191923">http://www.photo.net/photo/10191923</a>) is what I have come to expect using a heaver #3 tripod (GT-3540), using mirror lockup. Without MLU, I occasionally see "doubling", but only about 1/4th that in the first example - maybe 2 or 3 pixels in extent.</p>

<p>My subjective experience can be summed up as follows. The GT-3540 is nearly as vibration-free as my aluminum G-1504 (#5, with 1-5/8" tubes) when used for video, where I am often racked out to the equivalent of nearly 600mm. Both are relatively free from jiggles during panning, but the CF tripod clearly settles faster if bumped. With the same head, the GT-3540 weighs about 9#, compared to over 18# for the G-1504. That's more than a "convenience" when climbing a couple flights of stairs to a balcony along with a 30# video kit.</p>

<p>I have an aluminum G-1340 tripod (#3) too, which I find nearly unuseable for the kind of video I shoot - it's simply too bouncy at 300mm and beyond. Video is demonstrative of the problems you find with stills, exaggerated because you must move the camera, and obvious because you are looking through the finder all the time.</p>

<p>By "light" and "heavy", I refer to the duty rating. The GT-3540 is only about 1# heavier than the G-1227 - hardly a "four inch granite block" cited above.</p>

<p>Edward, I find your images, and post overall, really very informative.<br>

Thank you, Kevin.</p>

<p>the only main difference between the two that i have noted is that aluminum tripods bend, and can be bent back into shape. carbon fiber just snaps.<br>

and i did have a cheap fiber tripod, got it at discount, wasn't up to the company's standads, something about an issue with the fiber that makes it of a lesser quality. wasn't too bad-until i dropped it. then it exploded. pretty loud BANG and fiber flew all over.<br>

I prefer the sturdiness of aluminum and its ease of fixing issues, and the fact it only bends.<br>

the slight extra weight isn't too bad at all.</p>

<p>Edward. To make a valid comparison between your images we have to know whether all the crops you provide were from the point of focus. Without theis knowledge its possible that the increased blurring on images 1 and 2 might be partly produced by depth of field. Its a big ask, but can you remember? </p>

<p>It was my intent to focus on the hood ornament, since it is a key element in photos of antique cars. That said, focusing is often difficult unless you concentrate on the viewing screen itself. This is due to the transparency of Acute-Matte D screens, and has been the subject of several recent threads. Once I recognized this problem, my focusing improved. If I recall, I was shooting at about f/11, so focusing was probably not an issue.</p>

<p>Thank you all for sharing your wealth of knowledge! I think I have gained some better understanding now about tripods in general. I am using the Berlebach 4032. Rock solid but the folding length of 41 inches is very awkward for days of hiking. Now I am looking at the Slik Pro 700DX which seems really solid and ranked 1st in a big German tripod test where there were also a similar sized carbon fiber Gitzo and Manfrottos, Giottos, Velbons and various other tripods represented. The bonus is the low price of the Slik. Really seems like a bargain compared to other tripods and the user reviews seem raving. Anyone here familiar with the Slik Pro 700DX?</p>

<p>I have a Slik 700dx, one of my early tripod iterations. It does what a tripod is supposed to do - hold the camera steady under real-world conditions. It is also heavy (nearly 8#), long (29" folded), can't get very close to the ground, and has handles that stick out (a PITA, literally!). It is absolutely the best buy around for $150.</p>

<p>That said, once I bought my first Gitzo - an used G-224 "Reporter" for $100 - I never looked back. I schlepped it through central Europe for three weeks, and it wasn't hard to "justify" a CF tripod for my next extended trip. The rest is history. A good tripod is worth as much as a good lens. If you start cheap, you'll end up spending three times as much as you would buying a good one up front.</p>

<p>Neil, the LFI test was nicely done, but there was one factor which made it difficult to draw solid conclusions from: the weights of the tripods were all a bit different. The CF tripods were the lightest, pretty much.</p>

<p>Q.G. is correct in that the primary factor is weight. A heavy tripod is more stable than a light one. However, wood and carbon fiber dampen vibrations much faster than metals, as others have pointed out. The conclusion to make is that you should buy the heaviest tripod you want to carry, and then you choose wood if the size of the tripod isn't a problem, and CF if you want something more compact.</p>

<p>I just bought what I hope is my final big tripod, the Gitzo GT3541XLS. It is a bit heavier than my previous tripod, an aluminium Manfrotto 055C, the old version, but somewhat larger, and much more stable. You don't even need to do any tests to feel that. Just put it on the floor, and grab it with a hand. Rock-solid. Then tap it. Rock-solid.</p>