justruss Offline Image Upload: Off
|
So John, all we have are you, Leica, and a guy who works for Markins to base our tripod buying decisions on?
I'd prefer to have actual data (I have a B.S. in physics, I like data), but we don't. I disagree with you that we don't know how Gitzo and other tripods work simply because we lack specific numbers. What we have are collected experiences-- and we use that. Specific numbers give us objective measures with which to compare two pieces of gear. But those numbers are intended to get us to a functional outcome: under what conditions can I use X and Y and Z and get a sharp result. "Sharp" and "moderately windy" and "steep angles" are blurry terms, but they differentiate use. And the frequency of a vibration itself means nothing if it doesn't apply to a result.
This is photography after all. It's about making photographs that people can look at.
And when we purchase gear and use it, we see the results, right? I didn't buy the tripod just to buy it. I bought it to use it. To solve a specific problem that I needed or wanted solved. So if it doesn't work, doesn't satisfy what I need it to do... than what's my reason for keeping it (or misleading people about how well or not well it works)?. Same for everyone else who buys a tripod. Or anyone who buys a lens for that matter: if it doesn't work, most of us toss it (or sell it), and try something else. When someone uses a piece of gear, tells me how he or she used it, and tells me how well it worked for his or her needs-- that information helps me make future buying decisions.
I think others looking to buy a similar, ultra light tripod will take away some usage information when I describe 135L as the limit of what I would comfortably use on the setup-- and that I'd prefer to shoot with shorter lenses. Now, maybe I have such low standards of sharpness and vibration dampening that my information is useless, but that's why multiple opinions are useful. I'd love to read more reviews of this particular Benro, the three Gitzos I mentioned, and the Feisol-- with the same degree of information about what lenses worked, under what conditions, given what setup.
Not sure why you think this isn't useful information about how the product WORKS. Oh well, just trying to add a data point, however incomplete. Of course, that's the difference between physics and math: physics, even the theoretical side of the equation, is all about estimation, sloppiness, and trying to work with the information that is available-- while trying to push for better precision.
|