Tripod

[janet_biersack]

<p>Ok, I have a brand new camera - a D600. 90% of the time I`m ok going handheld. But I enjoy night photography from time to time on my travels. So I`d like a good, solid travel tripod.</p>

<p>I know the world of Gitzos - they make some great cf legs. But I don`t think I really need a $600+ tripod.</p>

<p>I`ll stick with brand names, of course, but wondering if any of you guys/gals can recommend some good, lightweight (but still solid) and as compact as possible (don`t have to be the world record holder on smallest tripod, but remember I have to carry this thing).</p>

<p>And perhaps a good head, too...I`m thinking ballhead, but I don`t have a definite preference.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Good and lightweight is an imposibility when tripods are concerned.<br><br>Get an aluminium tripod. Much cheaper than carbon fiber. And (more mass) works better too.<br>You can find tripods like Gitzo's Tele Studex (series 5) Compact models for not much money. They weigh a bit. But that's what makes them work. Depending on your camera, you could go down to Gitzo's series 3 tripods. Already a bit 'flimsy' (very 'rigidly' made, but lacking mass they do vibrate rather easily) though.

[jim_service]

<p>I, personally, do not believe that carbon fiber is all that much lighter than aluminum. It certainly does not justify the price difference.<br>

The big difference is in tripod heads. In general, ball heads can be significantly lighter than a 3-way pan/tilt head.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>For sturdy, I bought a used Leitz Tiltall. It's built like a tank and weighs at least half what one does.</p>

<p>For light weight (good for hiking), I put a Giottos ball head on a set of Flashpoint (Adoroma house brand) carbon fiber, 3-segment legs (not 4-segment, which is more compact but wobblier and heavier). It's not perfect (nothing is), but it's quite good for the money. It has a quick release system I found to be somewhat less than adequate (would rotate on the base of the camera), but I made my own indexed quick release plate to fit the mount. (I cut it with a hack saw on a picnic table, filed it, drilled the required holes, and tapped an indexing pin into one hole on a granite rock, which I used as my anvil. Campsite construction!) That head with a custom indexed QR plate is a rock solid combination. The only down side is that the QR release knob must point backwards to clear most lenses -- not a serious problem.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Tripods - you want sturdy, light, cheap.</p>

<p>Usually you can achieve only two of these criteria <em>at best</em>, often only one.</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>I, personally, do not believe that carbon fiber is all that much lighter than aluminum</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not a matter of belief, tripod weights are listed in specifications. It's also not just weight, but stiffness and damping of vibrations. CF is better on all three counts. Whether or not the benefits justify the price is debatable and probably depends how much you use the tripod and how much disposable income you have.<br>

<br>

There are cheaper CF tripods than the Gitzos, though they don't get much better than the Gitzos. Slick make them and they can also be found under the Flashpoint (Adorama) brand name at reasonable prices.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

CF is not "better on all three counts". Most importantly, it is lacking in the most important working part of tripods: weight. Mass.<br>Being lighter is only "better" if you see being carried around as the main function of a tripod. Though it has to be carried around, it's not one of the functions a tripod has to perform.

[JDMvW]

<p>It's been a while since we've gone over this FAQ, so I would just remind everyone that another variable in the tripod equation is height. I have shrunk in my old age to about 178cm (~5'10"), but most tripods are way too short for me or for anyone else who doesn't like to stoop over. Many of the really portable ones are really short.</p>

<p>I personally rarely use a tripod, preferring hand-held or a monopod, but when I needed something to hold a near 2000mm equivalent lens, I finally went out and bought a fairly cheap (cast iron?) STX 72" 5.8lbs (2.6kg) tripod. I use a couple of Manfrotto grip heads and a Manfrotto gimbel head that are also fairly heavy. It is steady, and I don't have to extend the middle column (an emergency measure only for maximum steadiness).</p>

<p>Of course the weight of the tripod+lens+heads doesn't really matter if you do this right, like a lot of the people I see in the nature shows -- that is, if you have an assistant who carries the lot for you. Before I retired, we called them "graduate assistants" or "student workers". ;)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>CF is not "better on all three counts". Most importantly, it is lacking in the most important working part of tripods: weight. Mass.</blockquote>

 

<p>Not strictly true. Many tripods have a way of hanging a weight off them - whether the "weight" is a bag of rocks or the bag containing all the lenses you're currently not using. It's more important to do this with a light tripod or on a soft surface (carpet!), but a solid 2kg tripod with 10kg hanging below the apex pulling its feet into the ground is a good substitute for a 4kg tripod on its own. Of course, it only really helps if you were carrying the other 10kg anyway, or can pick it up at your location. What we need here is tripods with soft drink reservoirs in their legs... (I'm sure there's an idea there somewhere...)</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>QG. Can you direct us to test results that show that heavier tripods are always better than lighter ones irrespective of materials used , please?</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>QG. Can you direct us to test results that show that heavier tripods are always better than lighter ones irrespective of materials used , please?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>David - that's a bit leading, and not, I think, what QG is saying. It's true that a lighter tripod can feel less stable, especially if you apply force in a direction that makes the legs lift, or if you're on (say) a carpet and the lighter tripod doesn't flatten the carpet fibres as much as a heavier one. Anyone accusing carbon fibre of being light hasn't used a 5-series Gitzo (at least compared with a "consumer" tripod).<br />

<br />

When I bought my Manfrotto 055CXPro3, I was actually shopping for a 055XProB (the metal version of the same tripod). I expected the carbon fibre version to be lighter, and it is (although the amount of difference the tube weight makes once you've added a head, a camera and a big lens is not necessarily all that great). What I hadn't expected was how much more solid it was. It's true that a huge metal tripod will still outdo a small carbon fibre, but, like for like, the expensive technology is better. (Some people like wood tripods, which are inconveniently <i>not</i> cheaper.)<br />

<br />

All this is true even for tripods made of the same stuff - my TVC-34L feels (with the last leg section retracted) every bit as solid as a GT5532L, though it's much lighter and both are made of carbon fibre. Of course, sit it on something bouncy, and it's not - I can lift it comfortably with one finger, so there's no way that it can resist lateral force purely through its own weight. Put it on a solid base and apply some downward force at the apex, though, and it's very hard to make it move at all.<br />

<br />

You can make a light tripod into a heavy one by hanging something from its hook. Making a heavy tripod lighter is more of a technical challenge, with the possible exception of trying to use it underwater...</p>

[peter_n1664876959]

<blockquote>

<p>I enjoy night photography from time to time on my travels. So I`d like a good, solid travel tripod... <br /> And perhaps a good head, too... I`m thinking ballhead, but I don`t have a definite preference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use a Gitzo systematic for long exposures at night but you are right, you don't absolutely need one. I only got mine because its price dipped below that of a Chinese value brand equivalent. For good value in travel tripods the two most popular brands are Benro and Feisol.</p>

<p>Benros are made in mainland China and Feisols in Taiwan. Both are well made, well finished and durable. Benro is an OEM manufacturer for many brands and has two or three of their own brands, their house brand is Benro, their cheaper brand is MeFoto, and their upscale brand sold in the US is Induro. The most cost effective way to get a Benro (assuming you live in the US) is to source directly from China and the Benro tripods are warrantied for 5 years.</p>

<p>I'm in my third year of use with a carbon fiber Benro C2680T travel tripod and have found it to be reliable and durable. Benros are Gitzo copies and some parts are interchangeable, I have a Benro part on my Gitzo and vice versa and have gone through a succession of ballheads on the tripod. Benro make a smaller and lighter version of my tripod and they also make all of their models in aluminum and some of the weights are surprisingly close to the CF models. You can <a href="http://www.holgacamera.com/benro-travel-angel/">look at their best selling models on this page</a> and click through to see detailed specifications. My tripod on this page is the C2680TB1 which is the way it is sold now as a kit with the Benro B1 ballhead. The equivalent aluminum model is the A2680TB1. If you're interested in construction and usability details <a href="http://bit.ly/mCtWJN">I reviewed my tripod here</a>.</p>

<p>The Feisols have stolen a bit of a march on their competitors recently by upgrading the metal components on their better models to parts that are CNC milled from a solid piece of very high grade aluminum. Most manufacturers use a cast alloy for the metal parts which under most conditions will be fine but there have been a number of reports of fractures in extreme conditions. My Gitzo and Benro tripods have metal parts made from cast magnesium alloy and I live in New England where we have severe cold in the winter and I've had ballhead lockups but so far no tripod defects. However if my choice was between a tripod with aircraft aluminum parts or cast parts I would absolutely get the aluminum one, just because of where I live. This may not be a consideration for you.</p>

<p>Most all travel tripods have center columns but <a href="http://www.feisol.net/feisol-tournament-tripod-ct3442-rapid-p-31.html">the most popular Feisol tripod is the CT-3442</a> which has a systematic design with no center column although you can optionally fit one into the top plate. But clearly a systematic design is going to be more stable than any tripod with a center column, and while I've not even seen a Feisol tripod never mind used one enough people who's judgement I trust rate them very highly indeed. I think you should take a serious look at the Feisol range.</p>

<p>WRT ballheads probably the best travel ballhead is <a href="http://www.markinsamerica.com/MA5/Q3T.php">the Markins Q3T</a>, which was specifically designed for the Gitzo style of travel tripod with fold-back legs. It can be a bit finicky in use but it's a marvelous piece of engineering and product design. It's expensive though, and a less costly but very similar type of head is made by Photo Clam. Their smaller models, <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827532-REG/Photo_Clam_PCBH_PC33NS_Ball_Head_with_Friction.html">the PC-33NS</a> and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827534-REG/Photo_Clam_PCBH_PC36NS_Ball_Head_with_Friction.html">PC-36NS</a> are also well made and finished. Both Markins and Photo Clam heads are copies of the Arca-Swiss B1/Z1.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Andrew. Your experience with the Manfrotto 055 tripods echoes mine. So I'm carrying around a view that a CF tripod can be as solid, if not more so, than a heavier aluminium tripod of a similar style/series. But I have no evidence for this- its just my feeling after maybe 18 months experience.</p>

<p>Meanwhile QG gives the impression that he considers weight to be pretty much the most powerful determinant of stability- not just in this thread but in at least several others. Maybe there's some evidence to underpin his conclusion, maybe (just like my own) its really just an opinion. I guess another way of putting it is whether the design, manufacturing quality or materials of a tripod have any significant effect on stability (they certainly have an effect on cost). </p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Find the Gitzo you like, then buy the Benro version.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just as a point of terminology. It's not "weight" that matters, it is mass.<br /> Whether it's relevant to this discussion or not, the greater the mass, the greater the resistance to movement. The term for it is <em>inertia</em>. Some alchemist by the name of Newton figured this out and wrote some laws about it.</p>

[jimcee]

<p>On the subject of the importance of mass for a tripod, I think it's interesting that Really Right Stuff makes that argument, even though they also make uber expensive CF tripods.</p>

<p>Here's a quote from their catalog description pertaining to the smaller ground tripod (model TP-243) that they make (which is aluminum - not CF):</p>

<p>"Entirely CNC machined 6061-T6 aluminum and stainless steel. All aluminum is Type III hard anodized (black) for maximum abrasion resistance. Weight is a two-edged sword. We like light weight for carrying, but nothing trumps mass for stability."</p>

<p>The tripod in question weighs 2.6lb., without a head, which isn't particularly petite for a smaller tripod (my Gitzo aluminum full size tripod - an older Reporter Mode Performance weighs approx. 4.5 lb.).<br>

Jim</p>

[jimcee]

<p>JDM von Weinberg: Unless you're currently residing on a space station, mass and weight are essentially the same in an earth gravity environment...</p>

<p>http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/mass.html</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>But they aren't the same, and it is the inertia that does make any difference there is. I said as a point of terminology, after all.</p>

<p>I always felt that one of the best arguments for keeping the imperial set of measures was the delightful mass units in it - the slug and the blob ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_%28mass%29 )</p>

<p>That tripod above I mentioned would be something like 0.2 slugs. Priceless.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>JDM: I would love to quote Futurama and say "you're technically correct, which is the best kind of correct." Unfortunately, I disagree. Mass stops (some of) the tripod vibration when force is applied, since it influences how easily the tripod is accelerated by forces on the lens. However, on a hard surface, the rigidity of a tripods legs depends partly on the force being applied through them*. The ease by which a tripod can slide on the ground depends on the force being applied through its feet - the total weight of the system - and in extreme conditions, the ability to lift a leg off the ground comes down to weight, not mass. Finally, and probably most importantly, it's common to put a tripod on a surface that's not entirely rigid - carpet or grass, for example. As I suggested above, extra weight squashes the soft material, significantly affecting stability. On a hard floor, my TVC-34L is pretty solid no matter what I do short of cocking a leg; on carpet, it wobbles unless I hang a bag off it.<br />

<br />

Note that hanging a bag of rocks off a tripod doesn't significantly affect the rigid mass of the tripod - you could wobble a tripod apex above a bag of rocks without having to move the rocks very much at all, since they're only a swung weight. It does, however, effect the <i>weight</i> of the tripod in all the ways I suggest above. I deduce that I'm not alone in finding this important, since most manufacturers include a hook rather than making their tripods out of lead.<br />

<br />

James: In honour of JDM's pedantry, mass is a measure of energy (e=mc²); weight is a measure of force, though you could define gravitational attraction in terms of deformations of space-time.<br />

<br />

A little less pedantically, I mentioned using a tripod underwater (not that I've done this). I would suggest that a tripod that's near neutrally-buoyant in water is likely to have quite limited stability - give or take any fluid resistance to movement - however much mass the tripod may have. By all means tether a camera to an airship and prove me wrong!<br />

<br />

As for the RRS quote... I suspect they were being colloquial. (I'm not suggesting that mass - and especially weight - are irrelevant to stability.) If they really believed this, the TVC-34L wouldn't be much lighter than a 5-series Gitzo. Kudos to their marketing team for trying to make an aluminium tripod sound appealing, though.</p>

 

<p>* The coolest example I've seen of this effect is if you visit Salisbury Cathedral, which has the tallest cathedral spire in the UK. The stone columns which support the tower and spire are visibly bowed, and - because of the pressure they're under - "ring" (quietly) if you tap them. Just don't do what I did, and fail to notice someone trying to teach some choristers on the far side of the column I'm tapping.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>JDM: I'm sticking to furlongs per fortnight, though thank you for pointing me at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement">a truly entertaining Wikipedia page</a> while I checked. I'm just glad that most lens focal lengths aren't measured in inches any more.<br />

<br />

Of course, being a Brit, I'm a bit schizophrenic about measurements. I'm not old enough to do temperature in Fahrenheit, so I get very worried whenever I'm in the US and the temperature is reported to reach 70 degrees (though why everyone can't standardize on Kelvin... and since Celsius was historically backwards, I insist at least on saying "centigrade"). I do height in feet and inches, measure objects in metres, but road distances in miles - I've yet to find a sat nav which will tell me I'm 50m from a turning, after which I should drive five miles. I'll do light years and AUs at a push. I do weight in kilos, except for people, where it's stone and pounds (not <i>just</i> pounds - and I'm scarred by the number of arguments on the internet about whether the pound sterling symbol was an octothorpe...) I'm terrible at working out which week of the year I'm in, I don't really care whether I'm using a 24-hour or 12-hour clock, and I'll accept either DD/MM/YYYY or <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/1179/">YYYY-MM-DD</a>; MM/DD/YY drives me nuts whenever I'm forced to use it (I've been known to wait for the day and month to match), and any two-digit year has made me twitch since the 1990s (I still have a chequebook with "19" filled in at the start of the date field). It could be worse - I'm looking up some colour format conversion formulae for work. (Quick: how do you get from BT.709 to BT.601 Y'CbCr? You <i>did</i> ask which country the phosphors came from, yes?) Oh, and someone today was telling me about the nano-Dijkstra unit for arrogance in computer scientists.<br />

<br />

Is sharpness measured in micronikkors?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Thanks Andrew.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Agree with Peter N. I've had a cf Feisol for over a year (might be the model he mentioned) the 3-leg type...without the middle column is a v. sturdy tripod....I can put my 4x5 on it too. The best thing is that it's good for folk over 6' tall. It's slightly over 4.5 lbs and I take it on hikes....even with hefty geared head. Mass ? You can hang a six-pack from the hook that's provided...and you have mass. You can also (if need be) use a log on a string or attach a sandbag. What is really pretty, that it costs appx 60-65% of what a similar Gitzo will run. I've used it in the dunes and in the ocean....no problemas. </p>

<p>Les</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>http://www.photographytalk.com/photography-articles/how-to-photography/2688-how-to-photography-finding-the-perfect-tripod</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is seriously confused. Pan and tilt is a function of a head. You can buy a set of legs and put a pan and tilt head on it or a ball head on it. There are integrated tripods with heads, but that's a different issue.<br>

<br />Also, every post you have made on photo.net has a link to that site. This is considered spam here.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Janet - back to you. "Budget" suggestions often draw out the passionate adherents of more exotic materials. And that seldom results in a "tripod" - legs and head coming in under $600. sigh. To try to be realistic, a couple of other questions are somewhat in order. How tall you are, what lenses you are using on the D600, and in as graceless a way as possible, how much are you truly willing to spend? Oh, and "travel tripod" sometimes draws out the opposite end of the exotics advocacy group. It may well be that it's harder to get a good, light, tripod than it is one that allows for certain amount of brute force design because one is really going to be supporting a very substantial and very expensive camera and really, really big lens.</p>

<p>When it comes to size, many tripod leg sets are paired in 3 section or 4 section models, the uppermost (except Benbo and some similar types) section being the same, then having either two more or three slightly shorter and the last being smaller again in cross-section. They are usually priced pretty comparably and weigh much the same, the difference being an additional lock section wich might be somewhat less rigid and the advantage, the 4 section models collapse to a shorter length. So that's a trade you may need to consider. Depending on how tall you are, you might not need to extend the fourth section much, if at all, and so gain the shorter collapsed length.</p>

<p>I find it difficult to suggest anything lighter than the Manfrotto 055 series although the Slik Pro 700 DX is somewhat lighter than the comparable aluminum Manfrotto and somewhat less expensive. These aren't as light as their CF counterparts but they are less expensive.</p>

<p>Pan/tilt heads can be economical, effective and are kind of klunky compared to ballheads. they also typically don't come with Arca Swiss quick release systems. It's not essential that one go with an AS type system but they are effective and popular for good reasons. I might suggest the Kirk BH-3. RRS and others have similarly sized (check ball diameter for the most part) of similar quality. Manfrotto has released a series of ballheads which are less expensive and claim to have the same sort of friction control but I don't know that they have caught up yet.</p>