Assistance need in choosing between 2 tripods

[susiewond]

<p>I have a Nikon D700 camera, two lenses 28-70 mm and a 28-300 mm<br>

I have narrowed down to 2 tripods<br>

1. Indura Carbon 8X CT 114 tripod<br />2. Feisol Travel CT-3441S Rapid 4 -Section Carbon Traveler Tripod<br>

My needs are for a light tripod that is easy to set up and fold as small as possible. Of course it needs to be sturdy.<br>

Has anybody had any experience with these tripods.</p>

<p>thank you</p>

<p>sue</p>

[irusan]

<p>Sue,<br>

How tall are you and, with the camera on the tripod and the center column raised no more than an inch or two (at most), does the viewfinder on your camera come to eye level or do you have to bend over a bit?</p>

<p>If you have to bend over, do NOT buy the tripod. It may not feel too bad at first but after a day of bending a couple of inches to look through the viewfinder, your back will feel like it's on fire.<br>

<br />Also, what head are you looking at? If a ball head, make sure the ball is larger rather than smaller.</p>

<p>A good tripod will last for years - I am on my third camera body but I still use the same tripod I bought many years ago.</p>

[susiewond]

<p>Hi Rob</p>

<p>Thank you for your response.<br>

I am 5ft 3in tall.</p>

<p>I have a Markins ball head that is now on my heavy Manfrotto tripod, which I will move to the new tripod I purchase<br>

From the specs the Feisol Tripod is much taller than I am - not sure about the Indura.</p>

<p>Sue</p>

<p> </p>

[johnw63]

<p>Look at the " height with the center column down " measurement, not the MAX height.</p>

<p>With the Indura and the Freisol that is 4 foot 2 inches. About a foot below your eyes. The more you raise that center column, the less stable things will be. If you add your Markins ball head and then the camera, it gets closer, but I don't know the specs on those items. If you can swing it, a tripod that is a bot taller at max with column down might work better. That way you don't NEED to extend the legs ALL the way and start cranking up the neck to get it to you eye level.</p>

<p>Another consideration is the terrain. If you are on a hill and you are UP hill from the tripod, the low legs are fully extended and the close legs will need to be shortened to get the camera level and stable. Now that working height is even lower and you either need to stoop, or crank up the column even more. If you are just doing paths and streets and level ground, forget all that ! </p>

<p>The down side is ... taller won't fold down as small.</p>

<p> </p>

[susiewond]

<p>Thanks John for the information. It really makes sense. Are you aware of any tripods that could fit your description for a tripod that will meet my needs?</p>

<p>Sue</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>I have the aluminum version of this (wasn't concerned about carry around weight). I find it affordable, well made and with easy to use control options. Leg clamps are flip type, not twist if that matters. 3.5 lbs compared to the 2.8 lbs of the two you mentioned. It is 55 inches tall (w/o center column raised) compared to 50 for the two you mentioned. (note: It's 3 sections, so as mentioned, will be longer when collapsed than a 4 section unit. But, most 3 section units are <strong>usually</strong> more rigid than 4 sections.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584476-REG/Manfrotto_055CXPRO3_055CXPRO3_3_Section_Carbon_Fiber.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584476-REG/Manfrotto_055CXPRO3_055CXPRO3_3_Section_Carbon_Fiber.html</a></p>

<p>If at all possible, I'd suggest hitting a store for a hands-on-test. Of the photogear I use, the tripod has the most 'this feels right / this doesn't feel right' sense about it. Hard to explain as the usage is a rather personal feel type of thing.</p>

<p>Cost is also a consideration as lightweight/rigid tripods get pricey, rather quickly.</p>

<p>An excellent read - Thom Hogan's old chestnut ...<br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/support.htm">http://www.bythom.com/support.htm</a></p>

<p>Happy tripodding<br>

Jim</p>

 

[johnw63]

<p>Sue,</p>

<p>I guess it depends on just HOW small it must fold down to and just HOW light it needs to be. 4 segment legs tend to fold down smaller, but more joints mean a little less rigid. </p>

<p>Looking at the Induro web site ..</p>

<p>The 213 model of the Induro gains you about 5 inches and the 313 gives you almost 5'3" platform before you add the head and camera, but ... you gain folded up length and weight. ( 25.3" and 3.3lbs or 28" and 5 lbs ). The 114 model you mentioned is just under 3 lbs and will fold down to 19.7 inches. ( the 14 series are 4 segments and the 13 series are 3 segments ) </p>

<p>I'm sure others will chime in. I've not gotten to the point were I need the ultra light weight of carbon , yet, so I'm not the expert on the choices. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

John's exaggerating - 4'2" is about a foot below the top of your head, not a foot below your eyes. I just measured my Triopo RS-3 head for

another thread, and it adds 10cm (4"). The body, to the finder is similar. I'm around 5'8" and a tripod that's 4'7" to the plate (Manfrotto

055CXPro3) is tall enough that I don't extend it fully on the flat (if it's below me on a hill or I'm shooting upwards it's different). Also, it's easy to

lean down slightly to look through the finder, and means you can look over the top or read a top-mounted LCD. I'm not advocating a 3' tripod

(although for portability they're handy) but I don't think these are too short for you unless you only shoot in high heels. In the 055 series at

least, carbon fibre affected stability more than weight, I found.

 

Good luck, and I suggest trying before you buy more with tripods than with most camera kit.

[2Oceans]

Sue, I have handled the Feisol, Its very light and has some flex to it. A good rule of thumb is your height minus 14 inches

without the column extended. That makes either of the two pods you mentioned satisfactory as far as height. I like the

Feisol but not enough to replace my stiff 3 section Gitzo 2530. Good hunting. Andy

[susiewond]

<p>Thanks everybody for your helpful responses.</p>

<p>Andy in your view do you think the Feison Travel CT-3441S could be a better option for me than than the Manfrotto 055CXPro3 or the Indura Carbon *X CT 114 tripod?<br>

<br>

I know it it is a difficult decision - seems the heights of the tripods meet my needs - which is the sturdiest as well as the easiest to use and carry around?<br>

<br>

One other thing will my Markins ballhead fit the Manfrotto and the Indura tripods?<br>

<br>

Sue</p>

[2Oceans]

Sue, Your head should go on the Manfotto no problem. I. have handled the Manfrotto. It is nice and stiff but also three section

and not as short when folded. The Manfrotto is also about one pound heavier than the other two. I use Gitzo twist locks

and have gotten used to them but the flip locks seem to work faster and easier IMHO. One place that might know would

be B&H. They carry all three of the brands your interested in. It's seems that you have narrowed thing down to some

good choices. The next thing would be to gets your hands on them either by ordering all three and picking that way and

returning the other two or by finding a store(s)that carries them. My personal first choice of the three tripods is the

Manfrotto partly because the company has been around for a while and sells parts for their tripods. That is also one

reason why I have been using Gitzo tripods. Andy

[david_henderson]

<p>I can only comment on the Manfrotto which I own. I chose it because</p>

 

<ul>

<li>It is frequently available in good photo dealers to get a feel for the leg lockss, how it erects, how solid it feels and so on</li>

<li>As mentioned, Manfrotto sells parts</li>

<li>I really hate twist locks. Mind I hate the ancient Manfrotto butterfly screw locks too, but the 055CXPro3 has a very nice flip lock.</li>

<li>I couldn't find any objective evidence that the much more expensive Gitzo CF tripods would improve the sharpness of my photographs. </li>

<li>I could buy one immediately and there are lots of stockists to provide price competition. </li>

<li>I've used Manfrotto in the past and they proved efficient and durable over years without any maintenance.</li>

</ul>

<p>Be sure to check that you can cope with 65cm minimum in your baggage, since a new suitcase could add to the cost significantly unless you need a new one anyway.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The tripod-to-head screw is one of the few things that's pretty standardized in photography - most tripods will fit most heads.</p>

<blockquote>I couldn't find any objective evidence that the much more expensive Gitzo CF tripods would improve the sharpness of my photographs.</blockquote>

<p>I've seen vibration from my 055CXPro3 when used with a 500 f/4 for long exposures. It may not all be the tripod's fault, but a 5-series Gitzo or a RRS 3-series really is appreciably more solid. If you're not using a huge lens in awful conditions, though, I'd expect it to do pretty well - it's a solid tripod, much more so than, say, a 190 series. There's the 057 Manfrottos if you want to step up without going Gitzo or RRS. Money no object, I'd check out the RRS 2-series for lighter weight stability (Thom Hogan uses one, apparently).<br />

<br />

That said, I've found even a Velbon VTP-777 or a Tamrac ZipShot to be better than nothing with a D800 + 14-24, and very portable (with a lot of care in use while the vibration stops and checking that the head doesn't flop). One of the photo magazines I read over Christmas recommended the Velbon Ultrek UT-43D for portability, though I'd not put money on its stability.<br />

<br />

Oh, and the Manfrotto Neotec is very neat and easy to use, and reasonably light. It's not as solid as the price would suggest, though. (I wish they'd make a big carbon fibre one - I like the leg release mechanism.)</p>

[susiewond]

<p>Thanks again for all your views. Patrick I found your link ver helpful.</p>

<p>thank you</p>

<p>Sue</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm sure Sue has got this far, but for the clarity of anyone else reading this thread, I'll just correct Patrick's categorization to "tripods with integrated heads" and "tripods with interchangeable heads". Tripods with integrated heads <i>often</i> have pan/tilt heads because they're cheap to make (a <i>good</i> pan-tilt head is a useful tool for video, but generally annoying for still photography because it's awkward to get the camera level quickly). Some tripods with integrated heads have ball heads - the Tamrac Zipshot does, for example, and so do some gorillapods. For higher-end work, it's worth buying a tripod which has a separate head (as pretty much all high-end tripods do), since this lets you choose (and switch) heads according to your preference and what work you're doing - geared, ball and gimbal heads all have different uses but could use the same tripod, for example. Sue already has a good Markins head, and that can obviously be moved to any decent tripod that doesn't have an integrated head.</p>

[susiewond]

<p>I went window shopping today looking at the Vangard carbon Fibre tripods and the Indura Carbon Fibre CT214. There are very few retail photographic outlets in Melbourne so many makes are not available .</p>

<p>I am very happy with the Indura CT214. Well made, light and sturdy. Unfortunately it is pretty expensive here in Australia $484.00. Does anybody have any knowledge where I would find on line a cheaper price on the net?</p>

<p>Sue</p>

<p>Sue</p>

[hadi_khademi]

Sue,

 

Her is US you can buy one from several outlets including B&H and Adorama starting from $400 USD but you have to pay about $70 shiping too. In AUD we are talking about 447 AUD in total. I think you are better of buying locally and you have it right away rather than waiting for a week or two.

 

Cheers, Hadi

[susiewond]

<p>Thank you Hadi</p>