Induro is not gitzo, i had an eduro monopod and the bottom leg log froze on me. Its been off to the manufacturer for a few weeks now... bought a manfrotto replacement, much better product
And I've had my Induro CX-214 for 3 years now. Outstanding product. It's traveled quite well, and experienced a wide range of environmental conditions. I purchased it to support nothing more than a 70-200 or my 300 mmm f4, and I'm quite impressed with the image quality and handling it provides. It's not up to the task of mounting my 300 f2.8, but that's not a concern for me.
I'll be the first person to report back when it fails, but, I have no regrets with my purchase, and yes, I compared against Gitzo before choosing. I suppose only time will tell whether Induro is a worthy tripod brand.
I'd be happy to pass along the name of a well-known and established professional that has been using an Induro for a couple of years now . . . and I'm not referring to Michael Reichman at Luminous Landscape
Dpic_arctic wrote:
At least Gitzo probably is more rugged than any other brand. It's just that their twist locks probably won't do as well in water as clip-locks.
Chris Noyes wrote:
And I've had my Induro CX-214 for 3 years now. Outstanding product. It's traveled quite well, and experienced a wide range of environmental conditions. I purchased it to support nothing more than a 70-200 or my 300 mmm f4, and I'm quite impressed with the image quality and handling it provides. It's not up to the task of mounting my 300 f2.8, but that's not a concern for me.
I'll be the first person to report back when it fails, but, I have no regrets with my purchase, and yes, I compared against Gitzo before choosing. I suppose only time will tell whether Induro is a worthy tripod brand.
I'd be happy to pass along the name of a well-known and established professional that has been using an Induro for a couple of years now . . . and I'm not referring to Michael Reichman at Luminous Landscape...Show more →
definition of "professional"- i will be compensated for what i say and do.
I might be in the minority, but I think the carbon fiber tripod thing is pointless. When you consider he weight of the camera, lens, and the camera bag over your shoulder, you spent $2-300 extra to shave 3-5% of the total weight. In addition, I haven't seen any image comparisons to that prove carbon fibers superior dampening (as a material it is better, but can you see it in the resulting photo?)
Rugged being a consideration - when CF fails, is does so rather spectacularly. Consider shooting on a rock shore, tripod legs straddling some boulders, you slip, lean on the tripod a bit too hard. The CF leg shatters, the AL leg kinks and bends. Your on a $20,000 Antarctica trip with a two legged CF tripod or a Al tripod with a crooked leg, but otherwise fully functional.
I happily carry the Aluminum tripod.
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:34 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
1fspeed wrote:
I might be in the minority, but I think the carbon fiber tripod thing is pointless. When you consider he weight of the camera, lens, and the camera bag over your shoulder, you spent $2-300 extra to shave 3-5% of the total weight. In addition, I haven't seen any image comparisons to that prove carbon fibers superior dampening (as a material it is better, but can you see it in the resulting photo?)
Rugged being a consideration - when CF fails, is does so rather spectacularly. Consider shooting on a rock shore, tripod legs straddling some boulders, you slip, lean on the tripod a bit too hard. The CF leg shatters, the AL leg kinks and bends. Your on a $20,000 Antarctica trip with a two legged CF tripod or a Al tripod with a crooked leg, but otherwise fully functional.
Yes CF weight less, but it's also stronger than aluminum. So all those scenario's you wrote about, will more likely happen with a alu tripod than with a CF.
There is a reason all the riders in Tour de France have stopped using alu and use CF instead and that's because they need a very strong bike when going up and down in the alps
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes CF weight less, but it's also stronger than aluminum. So all those scenario's you wrote about, will more likely happen with a alu tripod than with a CF.
There is a reason all the riders in Tour de France have stopped using alu and use CF instead and that's because they need a very strong bike when going up and down in the alps
they do have spares however, and it is not unheard of for people to break frames, mountain biking has only just gone carbon and below the pro level its primarily alu, all this said im not sure its really an issue as it relates to tripods
Nov 08, 2009 at 08:53 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
ishootsports3 wrote:
they do have spares however, and it is not unheard of for people to break frames, mountain biking has only just gone carbon and below the pro level its primarily alu, all this said im not sure its really an issue as it relates to tripods
(It doesn't matter but)
every serious amateur also have CF in my country. And many that only practise also. And they did have as many spares when they used alu before and they also did break even more parts of the bike before.
Or do you really belive that the Tour de France riders had better bikes 20 years ago
You guys missed my point, CF is stronger in AL, but when it breaks, it fails completely as in it shatters. For me thats the important difference. Bikes are a reasonable analogy. I've gone down in a amateur road race, the bike was a titanium frame with CF fork. Fork seemed to take a lateral impact in the pile up, the CF had shattered and the fork leg could we bent side to side with little force. It would have severed completely if I had attempted to ride it.
Lars,
I think TDF riders are all on carbon machines because they are lighter, not stronger. Weight is paramount in any mountain stage. 10 years ago a TDF Mtn stage bike weighed 20lbs, now they're under 14. As long as the carbon is not damaged they are incredibly strong for their weight. Trek recommends replacing CF parts/frames if damage in suspected, but not visible. You won't find similar recommendations about steel, Al, or Ti frames.
Bikes aside, CF tripods don't make sense to me, but that's me. Lots of people have them and love them.
Nov 08, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
1fspeed wrote:
You guys missed my point, CF is stronger in AL, but when it breaks, it fails completely as in it shatters. For me thats the important difference. Bikes are a reasonable analogy. I've gone down in a amateur road race, the bike was a titanium frame with CF fork. Fork seemed to take a lateral impact in the pile up, the CF had shattered and the fork leg could we bent side to side with little force. It would have severed completely if I had attempted to ride it.
Lars,
I think TDF riders are all on carbon machines because they are lighter, not stronger. Weight is paramount in any mountain stage. 10 years ago a TDF Mtn stage bike weighed 20lbs, now they're under 14. As long as the carbon is not damaged they are incredibly strong for their weight. Trek recommends replacing CF parts/frames if damage in suspected, but not visible. You won't find similar recommendations about steel, Al, or Ti frames.
Bikes aside, CF tripods don't make sense to me, but that's me. Lots of people have them and love them. ...Show more →
They have made rules for pro's in Tour de France and other races. So they are not allowed to make the bikes very light. If they didn't have those rules they would (especially in the high mountains) make the bikes a lot lighter.
Current limit is around 13lbs if I'm not mistaken, and their is discussion about lowering it further. Pros could go "a lot" lighter as you suggest, but they would likely be totally custom bike built specifically for racing with limited life spans. I say this because as much as I'd love some $5000 Zipp carbon road wheels, I know I' destroy them in a summer of riding, but if I'm time trialing against the worlds best, all they have to do is last a few races. Different requirements.
Nov 08, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I would belive that the good pro's already are using custom built bikes. And they also have very different bikes from one stage in the race to another.
I also do understand that CF is weaker when getting a high shock. (like hitting it with a metal bar) But also CF is a lot stronger when you try to stretch it or trying to bend it. And what's the possibilities of your tripod getting hit with something for that "high shock". It's more about stretch & bend when it comes to tripods
sjms wrote:
definition of "professional"- i will be compensated for what i say and do.
you work out the rest of what it really means.
I have no intention to spar with you about my post you felt compelled to comment on in a rather snide way. One of the Mentor photographers on a recent photo outing I attended at Arches National Park (Mentor Series Photo Workshops, sponsored by Popular Photography Magazine) was using an Induro. This photographer does quite a bit of this type of freelance work in addition to his very successful commercial work. This individual has been making is living through his photography work for over 25 years.
Let me know when Popular Photography invites you to be one of their mentors.
Chris Noyes wrote:
I have no intention to spar with you about my post you felt compelled to comment on in a rather snide way. One of the Mentor photographers on a recent photo outing I attended at Arches National Park (Mentor Series Photo Workshops, sponsored by Popular Photography Magazine) was using an Induro. This photographer does quite a bit of this type of freelance work in addition to his very successful commercial work. This individual has been making is living through his photography work for over 25 years.
Let me know when Popular Photography invites you to be one of their mentors.
