jeetsukumaran
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
So, sjms, this morning I just decided to call RRS to ask about the UV protection of their tripods. I spoke to Jim. He said that no protection was necessary (on the part of users), and he had never heard of any RRS CF legs failing due to UV degradation. I asked if the legs had protective layer applied in production. He said they were "fully protected". I asked exactly what the nature of the protection was, e.g., was there some sort of clear coating or polymer or anything else that protected the carbon fiber epoxy from UV. He said that there was nothing of any such kind, and that the outer layer was just plain old epoxy-resin binded carbon fiber.
So, there you have it.
If you think that the above is in error, and you know someone at RRS who might know different, perhaps you might clarify yourself.
My entire point during all of this is not to that one set of legs was better than any other. It was that this idea that the Jobu legs were not (adequately) protected from UV while the RRS, Induro, etc. legs were, was based on absolutely no evidence, data, or anything at all really. Through this process, somehow or other RRS/Induro legs were suggested to be robust to UV due to asserted common sense, common practice and speculation (e.g., "what else would the cosmetic layer be for"), while the Jobu legs were asserted to be vulnerable to UV degradation due to lack of information to the contrary, even though the same lack of information was there with all the other manufacturers!! And that was what got me down this track: the data-free aspect of these assertions (coupled with some bias that led to speculation of robust practices of one side versus integrity-compromising practices of the other, but both made without any data or evidence or reason, really).
In all honest, I would be happy to find out that what I learned from RRS is wrong. If not, it could also just not matter. It could be a design decision due to the the fact that duration of exposure to UV in most usage might not degrade the CF to any appreciable amount before the lifetime of the photography (or RRS' 5 year warranty ...). This was suggested in that document I referenced above --- the CF parts here were exposed 24/7 in marine environments. You experience might indicate different, but, then, you are dealing with aircraft that are not just exposed almost continuously, but are flying at altitude where the UV is orders of magnitude higher.
However, until you find out otherwise, maybe you might want to contact Jobu and ask what UV protection wax they might recommend to use on your RRS tripods  ?
|
. And it's different strokes for different folks I guess. I do use the multiflex to level my multi-row pano head (quite similar to a gimbal setup). The half-ball is inadequate for precise framing.