Aluminum vs Carbon fiber tripod, a marketing hoax?

<p>Isn't the significance of the tripod legs in dampening vibrations highly overrated? If the tripod legs are firmly attached to the ground so they can't move I have a hard time seeing how they can vibrate enough to cause enough resonance to go back into the camera and make a real difference. Isn't the combination of a good tripod head and the weight of the legs what is important, the heavier legs the better?I have seen some references to a test that concluded that the heavier Gitzo aluminium tripods were actually better in dampening vibrations than the same Gitzo models in Carbon fiber (I believe the test was in View Camera). Carbon fiber is lighter and easier to carry but is there any real world evidence that they dampen vibrations better than aluminium tripods and therefore produce sharper negs than aluminium tripods do or is it all plain marketing to make us worry about unsharp negs and therefore splash out the extra $ for a carbon fiber tripod? I myself use a wooden tripod but would like something less unwieldy for hiking with the Pentax 67.<br /> Chris</p>

<p>I have a $900 Gitzo Carbon fiber tripod. I was really dissappointed to see how thin and fragile looking the carbon fiber threads that connect the legs to the metal head platform. For this seeming mechanical fragility alone, I would say Gitzo carbon fiber tripods are overpriced. Way overpriced.<br>

BUT... I have owned both aluminum and carbon fiber racing bikes. The vibration difference is very noticeable. Aluminum bike frame transmits EVERYTHING from the road to the hands and butt. The carbon Fiber by contrast, is more like riding a bike that has shock absorbers. The aluminum frame is faster and has much stronger crush resistance strength.</p>

<p>Buy your Gitzo Carbon on Ebay if you decide you need one.</p>

 

<p>If weight was the sole determinant of sharpness, then I'd be loading my heavier Manfrotto aluminum legsets with the lead shot I once poured into my speaker stands. But I don't, nor do I get unsharp shots from my Manfrotto 440 Carbon One tripod with a Mamiya RB67 Pro S perched on top. For me, tripod+head+QR plate is at or near the bottom of my list of soft shot culprits. I love carbon fibre for no other reason than its light weight on a long walk.</p>

<p>I use all three, wood, CF, and aluminum. I have never noticed any difference in the results. If you are concerned about weight, get a CF, otherwise stick to wood, which also dampens vibes. Be wary of leaving a camera on a CF tripod. They sometimes go over very easily. We have had several customers in my camera store that have damaged their cameras this way. I use one, but with extreme caution.</p>

<p>Up to the late 90's I primarily used a Linhof studio tripod with aluminum legs (about 1" diameter) which had a cross-brace halfway up, and sometimes found my images shot outdoors were not as sharp as I would expect. Then one day I heard the legs vibrating in a strong wind. Perhaps it was a mis-match with a relatively light camera compared to the design load, but the problem went away with similar-sized Gitzo CF legs. Since then I have gotten smaller and lighter CF legs, and still have no problem with vibrations. The advantage of wood and CF as structural materials compared to aluminum in this application is stiffness. But is CF overpriced? Probably.</p>

<p>Bruce, if those cameras are 'going over', as you say, surely the user has simply not taken enough regard for center of gravity? Are they using a poorly matched camera and tripod? I would hardly say that can be a fault of the equipment, but <em>human</em> error.<br /> I can imagine some amateurs choosing a carbon-fiber tripod a size or two too small, simply because of the price over aluminium. Like so many members on Photo.net who want quality, but don't want to pay for it. So I really can understand you offering the caution on this one. It must be frustrating in your position to see a customer return with a camera they've dropped because of a miscalculation.<br /> I can't imagine many owners of <a href="http://www.sachtler.de/"><strong>Sachtler</strong> </a> tripods putting their cameras at risk of toppling.<br /> Such is life.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I look at the choice of carbon fiber over aluminium in another way. I don't necessarily want it to be so much lighter, in stead it will something bigger and sturdier for the same weight.<br>

Therefore, with an upgrade to carbon fiber, I am paying more for an increase in stability, with no increase in weight.<br>

I'm thinking that many choose CB in the wrong direction, thus resulting in the instability, and the resulting consequences that you tell us about.</p>

<p>It is indeed a marketing thing.<br>

Not a hoax exactly. But something to please customers while having them pay more of their money into the coffers of the manufacturers.</p>

<p>The functional bit of a tripod is its mass.<br>

People hate to lug heavy things around.<br>

So for a premium price, they can have lighter tripods and a promise that the hi-tech materials they are made of (basalt fibres, anyone?) make up for what they lack in mass.</p>

<p>It works. People do spend mone on these too expensive CF thingies.</p>

<p>And lo and behold, there CF thingies work too.<br />But just like a lighter (and very, very much cheaper) aluminium tripod would also work.</p>

<p>A friend of mine has one of these CF Gitzos from the 2 Series and I was immediately fascinated with it. Built quality is excellent and it is light as a feather though of much torsionally rigidity. Eventually I wanted my own Gitzo but bought one made of Aluminium, as I wanted one from the 4 or 5 Series. The weight difference between CF and alu was about 1 pound there and the price of the CF was double than alu. I must say that I´m very pleased with my choice. the price of CF seems only to be justified if you travel a lot.</p>

<p>Kevin: It happens when you don't hang a weight from the center column. I had the one Gitzo makes for 8x10 and sold it. There was no sense in trusting a $10,000 Ebony on that thing. I do not put anything larger than 4x5 on my CF, and am even very careful when a digital is on it. But I do like using it for digital, in the studio. It is so light that it is easily manipulated and changed. </p>

<p>How come a carbon fibre tripod is referred too in derisory terms as a "thingy" but an aluminium one referred to as a tripod?</p>

<p>It is a simple thing to test a tripod by mounting a camera with a long lens, then tapping the middle of one leg, observing the amount of vibration and the time to dissipate. The damping time is related to the resistance to handling and camera-induced vibrations (shutter, mirror, etc) and that caused by wind.</p>

<p>Aluminum tripods are surprisingly springy, whereas CF tripods are very stiff. I find that in the Gitzo line, a CF tripod is nearly as stiff as the next larger sized aluminum tripod. Using an digital Hasselblad without locking up the mirror, I find that a series #2 CF Gitzo results in too many blurred or doubled images due to camera vibration, but there is no noticable vibration with the same setup and a #3 CF Gitzo.</p>

<p>With video, the GT-3540 CF Gitzo is comparable to a #5 G-1504 Aluminum Gitzo, and less than 1/3rd the weight, making it a lot easier to carry on the job.</p>

<p>Need I add that CF is a lot easier on the hands in very cold or very hot weather than aluminum. You don't need to wrap it with pipe insulation either. It's 6 deg F outside now (Chicago), and my tripod is in the car ready for use.</p>

<p>I have had good luck with my CF tripod, but then again I never had a single complaint with my aluminum one. I just wanted a taller tripod without paying for the added weight. CF did that. Is it as stable? Nope.</p>

<p>Like Bruce, the CF tripod is <strong>never</strong> left unattended with my camera on top of it. It just isn't heavy enough to trust it if the breeze picks up. Yes, I guess I could have bought an enormous CF tripod to overcome this.... or I could have stuck with my aluminum tripod which would have been smaller for the same weight. </p>

<p>Let's be honest folks: the best tripod is the biggest, heaviest one you can find. Everything else is a comprimise. For twenty dollars worth of lumber you could build the world's most stable tripod. Just don't try to carry it.</p>

<p>About fifteen years ago the same phenomena happened with rifles. Fluted barrels came on the scene for consumer grade rifles. Ask anybody why the flutes matter. "It makes the barrel stiffer than a round one." Uh, no. Technically, a fluted barrel is stiffer than a round barrel <strong><em>of the same weight.</em></strong> If your fluted barrel is 1 inch in diameter <strong><em>it most certainly is not stiffer</em></strong> than a 1 inch round bull barrel. But it is lighter than a bull barrel and it is stiffer <em>than the same weight</em> sporter barrel.</p>

<p>Hence, CF tripods. This decade's fluted barrel. I'm not saying they aren't cool. I have one. I like it. But let's not confuse ourselves into thinking they are something they are not. Physics still applies. Oh I know.. vibration dampening. That can also be solved with heavier aluminum for a fraction of the price. Again, you are paying for weight ( or lack of ). There has been no new discovery in quantum physics that makes CF tripods magical.</p>

<p>Please do not forget that some ally tripods like the Manfrotto 161 have a centre brace that actually does eliminate movement and vibration. Somewhere along the line we seem to have also missed out steel tripods such as Uni-Loc, the 1700 is ideal for carrying but the Manfrotto 161 is great if you are in training as a weightlifter. With all camera support systems it depends on you as a Photographer to determine what is best for your particular assignment, if I had to take to the hills I would look at CF, and I would also consider any viable alternatives to this such as upping the film speed and bean bags etc.<br>

<p>The only tripod to I've had blow over in use was an aluminum Gitzo G-1340. Considering the sail effect of a large camera (Nikon D2x), the large lever arm of a tall tripod and the nasty wind on the Chicago lake front, the only solution for aluminum or CF is to spread the legs wider. Fortunately I was close enough to catch it. Hanging a weight would have a salutory effect against tipping, but does nothing for vibration - the coupling is too loose.</p>

<p>The tubes in a Gitzo are 1.5mm thick - about 3x as thick as in a Manfrotto tripod, and the leg joints are much stiffer too. The "tap test" is easy enough to apply, and the aluminum Gitzo is clearly more springy than a CF version of the same model. The tortional stability is better too, which is a major issue with video use.</p>

<p>As with cameras, you often pay disproportionaly more for better quality. People P&M about Hasselblads too - it sounds like sour grapes from this end.</p>

<p>IMHO, large diameter legs equals better vibration resistance - large effective platform diameter (wide leg to platform attachment points) equals better torsional rigidity (and allows the weight of the camera to add to total stability), and a low-profile, large platform head equals resistance to flex and wobble at long bellows extensions. The presence of all of the features at once promotes a true ground-to-camera "continuity of effectiveness" - with no weak links. For me, the Gitzo G1325 CF, used with a G1370M low-profile magnesium head, puts it all together - for all formats up to 11X14 - with a weight that helps to leave my back intact so (thus far) I can get up to hike another day with my gear. Perhaps longevity is less of a known quantity with CF versus ALU. On the other hand, I've used this CF tripod with the legs submerged in seawater, in the heat of the southwest deserts, and in the cold of the summit of Mt. Washington, N.H. in winter...and it keeps asking for more.</p>

<p>If you photograph outdoors and it's cold - carbon fiber is waaay nicer to handle than aluminum. There's more than one reason to own a carbon fiber tripod...</p>

<p>Well, if you had a rangefinder camera, the vibration issue would be gone. But as long as you use a camera with mirror and inherent mirror slap, you need to damp those vibrations and the best way is via wooden tripods, the next worse is via carbon fiber ones and the worst is via aluminum tripods. Simply a function of the material resonance. Your bank account will force you to make compromises, I assume.</p>

<p>But this is not a hoax, but simple mechanical engineering principles at work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, if you had a rangefinder camera, the vibration issue would be gone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is vibration due to traffic, wind etc. that is transmitted through the tripod to the camera. Even a moderate wind can make a cheap trpod fairly hum. There are many sources of vibration. If you're doing extreme macro, you can "see" footsteps through the viewfinder, for example, with a cheap tripod.</p>

<p><em>I have a $900 Gitzo Carbon fiber tripod. I was really dissappointed to see how thin and fragile looking the carbon fiber threads that connect the legs to the metal head platform. </em></p>

<p>Huh? The CF tubes are fitted into a metal casting at the head, the same as aluminum tubes and the head (spider) is a metal casting. Likewise, the threads for the locking collar are metal fittings. Except for the tubes themselves, there is no difference in the method nor materials of construction.</p>

<p>I can imagine Frank resting with his 18# Reis wooden tripod at his side while the rest of the troop continues on the hike ;-)</p>

<p>The greater mass is better answer is what I always seem to come back to, as so many situations do require mass coupling to conteract externally induced vibrations (wind, primarily).<br>

Aluminum tripods are imperfect for their vibration resonance but can be a good compromise if you abuse your equipment as much as I tend to, getting to and fro photo setups in my rocky wilderness environs hereabouts.While I've replaced a few bent parts to my 3221 Manfrotto over the past 23 years it's been in service, some of the impacts doubtless would've shattered CF and probably hard maple or ash legs to smithereens.<br>

Too, the ergonomics and fiddly nature of screw collets of Gitzo tripods just don't work for my frequent need to set up in a hurry with fast-changing light. I am a proponent of lever-type leg locks, but these squeeze the tube radially in a way that is not-design friendly to CF tubing (and I believe this is why they're not more often employed).</p>

 

<p><em>"How come a carbon fibre tripod is referred too in derisory terms as a "thingy" but an aluminium one referred to as a tripod?"</em><br /><em></em><br />Quite simple: the working, functional bit of a tripod is mass.<br />Carbon fiber thingies promise to be a tripod, but without the mass (because mass is an inconvenience).</p>

<p>It's like needing to have a wheel, but getting one without a wheel's roundness, because the pesky round things keep rolling away. ;-)</p>

<p><em>"If you photograph outdoors and it's cold - carbon fiber is waaay nicer to handle than aluminum. There's more than one reason to own a carbon fiber tripod..."</em></p>

<p>Yet another convenience thingy...<br>

Quite evidently, CF thingies are for people who like their comfort more than a good tripod. ;-)</p>

<p><em>Quite simple: the working, functional bit of a tripod is mass.<br /></em><br>

I always thought it was the "three legs" thingy, since they will fit any surface (one of those Pythagoram thingys), effectively coupling the camera to the earth. I weigh a lot more than my tripod (and more than I should), but I can't hold the camera as still. A backpack hanging from the column contributes mass but not stability (again, the coupling thingy).</p>

<p>Give it up, Q! You're too much into this "codger" thingy ;-)</p>

<p>A backpack hanging from the column is free to move independently from the tripod. It does not give mass to the tripod. Is just a bit of mass hanging off a tripod.<br />Just like putting a tripod down on earth doesn't couple it to earth. It is free to move independently, whenever something is willing to nudge it a bit.<br />What will stop it moving and do that better and better, i.e. will require a bigger and bigger nudge, is it accumulating more and more mass.<br />If you somehow connect that backpack rigidly to the tripod, so that the tripod can't be moved without also having to move the backpack, the added backpack will do wonders.<br />You could try bolting the tripod down, making it a rigid part of earth's mass. Then the tubes themselves need not have too much of it. Earth will have enough. ;-)</p>

<p>It's mass. And mass. And mass again. And have i mentioned mass yet?</p>

<p>But people don't like mass. They like comfort...</p>