Tripod for Backpacking

[greenlander]

<p>I've been living with an old, beat up aluminum tripod for years now. It's so clunky and heavy that I avoid using it.<br>

So, with an upcoming backup trip coming up next week, I'm trying to make a last minute decision on a tripod. Since I'm looking for something compact and lightweight, I'm obviously looking at Carbon Fiber.</p>

<p>I was at my local Calumet today looking at their offerings, as well as the Gitzo Series 1 Traveler.</p>

<p>My main concerns for this immediate trip as well as going forward are weight, portability and stability/general quality.</p>

<p>So my initial impressions were as follows:</p>

<p>Gitzo: by far the smallest when packed up. Lightest by about a pound (2.2 lbs). Quality seems very good. Around $600 (not from Calumet at this price, however).</p>

<p>Calumet 8156: by far the biggest of the two, still very light compared to what I'm used to at 3.8 lbs. Nice advantage of 71" max height. $379.</p>

<p>Calumet 8132: in the middle as far as size goes. Same max height as the Gitzo (58"), packs up small but not nearly as small as the Gitzo. In the middle as far as weight goes as well at 3.1 lbs. (For some reason this isn't showing up on Calumet's website right now but details can be found on eBay and possibly on the UK site as well).</p>

<p>I had no intention of spending $400 on a tripod, let along $600+ for the Gitzo. But there's obvious perks to the Gitzo. It packs up much smaller than the others, seems equally stable, and is lighter. Build quality seems higher all around as well.</p>

<p>That said, the Calumet offerings seem pretty nice. Now, I don't know what I'm talking about since I don't spend much time around tripods and the price tags on all of them seem way to high to me.</p>

<p>So I'm trying to decide what is prudent. I don't typically mind spending premium prices for quality, but whether that quality makes a difference in the field is what really matters. I had convinced myself in the store that the Gitzo was the obvious choice, but $600 is a lot of money.</p>

<p>What seems sensible right now is the $279 offering from Calumet, given that the quality is as acceptable as it seems. I don't make my living with my tripod, I just need something that will cut it in the field while being light and compact enough to backpack with. And "cut it" means really cut it, allow me to not compromise results. Do I need a monster that will produce steady shots from a mountain top during a windstorm? No, but the Gitzo would hardly do that anyway. Would I like the small form factor Gitzo that I could stash right in my pack and that is a pound lighter? Of course. But I'd also like that $400 in my bank account. So the more affordable option seems prudent. Still, am I being pennywise and pound foolish? Are the Calumet offerings impostors that will reveal themselves as such once in the field?</p>

<p>Any input is appreciated.</p>

[SCL]

<p>It really comes down to a matter of $, weight, and stability. Only you know if the tripods you are considering will sturdily hold your gear. If you're a serious backpacker, particularly for extended trips, every ounce counts...the famous author and backpacker, Colin Fletcher, used to cut the plastic end off his toothbrush to save weight, and that was just the beginning. Years ago I gave up on extended backpacking trips using a tripod and switched to a monopod which doubled as a walking stick. I suggest you try out the tripods in question and see which one best meets your overall needs.</p>

[paul_kent2]

1. Tripods are some of the longest lived pieces of photographic equipment. Try not to skimp.

 

 

2. You did not mention the tripod head you will be using. This is an additional area where you can save weight. No need to have an overbuilt head for a light tripod. At the same time, do not get a poor head or your photographic trip will be frustrating.

 

 

3. If you routinely backpack but also shoot roadside or studio, you will likely end up with at least two good quality tripods and matching heads. Plan for this. I have a no longer in production lightweight Gitzo and small RRS head for long hikes, plus a larger Gitzo and RRS BH55 for macro, long lens work, and for bad weather events.

[greenlander]

<p>Sorry, I forgot to mention my gear. For this trip I'll be taking a 5D Mark II, a Canon 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) and the Canon 17-40L. I think each of these will hold that setup fine.</p>

<p>I suppose I was hoping to run into someone who had any type of experience with those Calumet tripods. I'm actually a bit surprised on the lack of internet reviews/feedback on Calumet's tripods.</p>

<p>I can't judge them, given that I've just been lugging around a clumsy broken albatross for years (when I even use it). So, I'm looking to do the right thing this time. I suppose the heart of my question is whether there is something that isn't obvious that sets higher priced tripods apart. As I said, the Gitzo appears to have better build quality in general and is definitely more portable. Overall I'm sure it is better, but I'm not sure it's 2-3x as good by my untrained eye. The 8132 is very portable as well, is not quite a pound heavier and the quality seems good. But again, I'm an uneducated evaluator. That's where my uncertainty lies.</p>

<p>I'm not into spending unnecessarily. If the more affordable options can be viable, then I'm fine with them.</p>

<p>I'm betting part of the reality here is that I shouldn't be making this decision in 2 days. Unfortunately that ship has sailed. It's either pull the trigger on something or go sans-tripod.</p>

<p>Stephen - I thought about the monopod route, but I'm hoping to do some night sky shots and perhaps even a timelapse or two while I'm out there. Monopod obviously won't cut it for that. That said, now that I've seen the Gitzo in question ... I'd throw out the monopod idea anyway. That thing packs down pretty darn small ... and at $600, there's no doubt something that beats it handily for more money. So, if you're willing to invest that kind of $$, it seems like there must be many many options out there that are perfectly portable.</p>

[greenlander]

<p>Oh and my head is a Manfrotto 486 RC2 (~ 1lb). Sure I could go lighter but I can't invest in a new tripod and head right now.</p>

[gary_c4]

<p>Take a look at Benro they do a very good selection of carbon fibre at very good prices that allows for a more expensive head</p>

[greenlander]

<p>I read somewhere that the Calumet tripods were relabeled Benros. Haven't confirmed this yet.</p>

[jim_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>"Any input is appreciated."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I read here one time . . .<br>

"That anything that is further than 100 yards from your car is not very photogenic!"</p>

<p>Seriously Chad, . . . best wishes!<br>

(From one who still packs aluminium, but also wants a carbon fibre someday!)</p>

 

[greenlander]

<p>I've added the Feisol 3442 to the list of contenders. Which pretty much eliminates the 8156 from Calumet. The 3442 is flat out superior (on paper) for the same price.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Hi Chad.</p>

<p>Sorry I posted something here that didn't seem to go up, hopefully this isn't a double post.<br>

A tripod that I have grown very fond of is the Manfrotto 190CX3 Carbon Fiber Tripod. It only costs about $220 from B&H or Adorama and I have used the tripod with a Markin's Head (Arca Swiss) with lenses up to 400mm f5.6 (Sigma) and can easily handle your setup. The tripod is light (but not too light), very fast setup with flip switches (I prefer this over my Gitzo's twist legs). The other nice thing about it is that macro is very easy with the tripod although it takes a little more manipulation.<br>

As others have stated a tripod is a long term investment; at some point you will likely discover the many advantages of using a system with an Arca Swiss quick release. Definitely more expensive than Manrotto plates, but a lot more versatile.<br>

IMHO the 190CX3 is worth a look.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>There is an article at my blog about backpacking photography equipment: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/08/26/thoughts-on-my-summer-2007-backpacking-photography-kit">Backpacking Photography Equipment</a></p>

<p>The 70-200 plus 17-40 setup is a good one, favored by a number of folks. I like to also use the 24-105 as my primary lens, though YMMV. In my article I mention several tripod options, though you could also think of them as being about some of the options to consider. </p>

<p>The tripod you select will be a compromise in one way or another. If you get the sort of major tripod that you might use (or that I would use, anyway) for non-backpacking photography, you'll have an impressively large and heavy tripod to deal with. If you get something that is as light as you might like, you can compromise stability and/or height and so forth. For me, the particular Gitzo model that I mention is the right compromise: it is quite stable, it goes to eye level and perhaps slightly higher, and it collapses to reasonable (for me) size.</p>

<p>I'm also a fan of the Acratech Ultimate Ballhead for backpacking. The design is a bit unusual, but it is very light and very adaptable for backpacking.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Chad, I am not a long-distance back-packer with years of experience using various tripods, but I think you should consider the versatility of the Benbo (not the Benro), before making your decision. It is less expensive, and only weighs about one pound more than the Calumet you are looking at (including the ball head). It may not be as compact though. Still, the reason you get a tripod is to have the ability to hold your camera, and that is where the Benbo shines. It can do things other tripods can't do. I have their biggest tripod, and I love it. There are some great photographers who trek into the wilderness with their Benbo tripods. Give it a look, at least:</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4822-REG/Benbo_BEN107C.html</p>

[scottelly]

<p>

<p>Clyde Butcher uses Benbo tripods (amongst other equipment).</p>

[capturedabroad]

<p>If you're tall and want something you don't have to bend down to, there aren't many other options better than feisol CT-3441T Rapid. When you add say a markings Q3T head, yes it does get a little heacy (~1.5kg) which is a lot for backpacking. I've been lugging it around for 9 months now, along with two bodies, three to four lenses, flash, laptop etc - and it's tough work. I've barely used it though so wasn't sure if it was worth it's bulk and weight, but i made an effort last night to put it to use, and I think i'm slowly starting to justify it... This was the image i made with it:<br>

<a href="../photo/16364092&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/16364092&size=lg</a></p>

 

[carl_becker2]

<p>I am not a long distance hiker but I am a ultra light backpacker. I found a very small light Gitzo and with a small head, it is very light - about 20 ounces. I use a D700 on it but very low. It is stable enough and the size works for what I do. For my weekend trips of 15 miles I carry about 15 pounds of pack using a Fuji X100 + Gitzo including food, water, shelter etc. Add a couple of pounds when I take the D700 and lens. </p>

[boulderjoe]

<p>I have been using a Giottos QU305B-1004 tripod for hking, mountain biking and backpacking. It is very sturdy and gives you about 16" lift off the ground.<br>

<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-qe7GV7lR9qg/TtL4fDqrXjI/AAAAAAAAEbY/o0jULE-T9C8/s640/IMGP0837.JPG" alt="" /><br>

<br />Cheers,<br>

-Joe</p>

 

[dfperrault]

<p>I use a slik sprint pro II with a decent benro ball head, the tripod is $75 and the head is about $125. (Very few people may agree with me on this). It is surprisingly light and reasonably durable for the price. I prefer it over my larger Induro Carbon fiber tripod that is almost as light but it is too bulky.</p>