No John, saying it is stable means I took test images and compared at 100%. That's what it means. It had nothing to do with "sensing" vibrations. That included indoors with induced vibration via multiple ways and places on the tripod (twisting, applying force to a leg, etc), outdoors (less controlled) in medium conditions (not heavy wind, not still), with MLU and without MLU. And at various angle with the ballhead.

And if you read it carefully, you'll notice where I said mentioned the gear I was using (light, mostly wide angle), the conditions it would be acceptable under (not very window or tough conditions), and the tripod extension (more stable, obviously, at lower extension).

Not only that, but I described how it would be used, what the forces for the purchase were, etc. This is, I believe, far more useful that saying that X tripod is great. It's being far more specific. It's matching specific uses with specific gear to specific comments about stability.

And I don't think you read the part where I said that I loosened the leg bolts... I didn't have to tighten them. Opposite.

justruss wrote:
No John, saying it is stable means I took test images and compared at 100%. That's what it means. It had nothing to do with "sensing" vibrations.

Exactly. So you don't know anything about its ability to damp vibration because you don't know anything about the vibration stimulus that may or may not have been present. You know nothing further about its stability other than that it held the camera up successfully.

I rest my case.


J.

Please read the edited comment for clarificaton.

I think you're being difficult here, and unwilling to consider a genuine attempt at sussing out the product.

I guess we don't agree then.

I don't see a material difference in the description of the performance, it isn't a criticism directed toward you but toward the mfgs who don't really tell us about their products and you really should not be expected to have to drag out your laser to test it all. At the end of the day, we still don't know much about how this tripod performs (and is true of most other tripod reviews as well).

J.

Acratech Long Lens head for long lenses. Solid, light, compact. Not floppy side-to-side unless you want it to be.

For precision work, Manfrotto 410 geared head. If you haven't introduced precision into your photography yet, you migfht want to give it a try.

JohnJ80 wrote:
I guess we don't agree then.

I don't see a material difference in the description of the performance, it isn't a criticism directed toward you but toward the mfgs who don't really tell us about their products and you really should not be expected to have to drag out your laser to test it all. At the end of the day, we still don't know much about how this tripod performs (and is true of most other tripod reviews as well).

J.

Look, we agree one one point: that manufacturers-- or someone in the industry-- needs to have a standardized measure for stability, based on multiple types of disturbance.

That said, I find it odd that such specific comments on goals, gear used, set-up, and outcomes is construed as not enough information for the Benro, but when people simple say "Oh, that Gitzo 1550t or 1541t is stable and makes great pics" that seems to pass muster.

So at the end of the day we still don't know how the Gitzo 1541t performs?

Of course we do. We know it based on those who have used it and reported back on here and elsewhere what lens/camera combinations worked and under what conditions.

And that's what my review was supposed to add to the discussion... that information for a Benro tripod, written from a fairly neutral perspective (Sure, I own it, but only after comparing multiple brands, and thinking it through for a few months; check my posting history).

All of those reviews on Gitzo products have similar problems. This is not a Benro vs Gitzo argument that you seem to imply it is. Good review on the physical attributes, fit and finish, broad generalities with little to none on specific actual performance. Your review suffers the same problems as most of the others in terms of the performance issue - which it would seem to me to be the most important of all. That said, unless you want to invest in serious testing - which is not a reasonable expectation (and is because of the shameful specification methodologies of the mfgs) - we do not know how this tripod (or the others) perform. Claiming that it works well is not supported in any review where there is specific testing based on a known input and measured output (i.e. image quality). It does, however as you point out, look great.

From my own testing, I'd say that Gitzo is the most conservative in their specifications and sort of becomes the gold standard for that. I did verify that the specs on Gitzo's tripods in terms of focal length were right on in the sense that a Series 2 was able to dampen about 1/2 the vibration amplitude that a Series 3 could. That largely corresponds with their specs. Nobody else specifies their products that tightly (it's a shame) and I didn't go and test them to get those specs for them either.

Who knows? Maybe I spend too much on tripods because of this. But after what I learned after doing the testing to satisfy myself and to learn something, I don't see the risk/reward in pursuing tripods with unknown performance and choose to err on the side of safety. The incremental dollars saved are just not worth it for me against the risk.

Good discussion here on this.

The subject of performance is traveler tripods is quite open. There has been no known testing that I know of. The only real but broad guidelines to go with are, again, the focal length specs that Gitzo puts out.

J.

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.

Despite my repeated assurances to the contrary, it appears you've take this personally. I certainly meant no sarcasm or offense.

I don't agree with your rationalizations and I guess we disagree at a quite large level on this (which is all wall and fine as far as I'm concerned). All I know, and all I can possible advocate, is what I have done to figure this out. If you are comfortable not doing the same that is entirely your business and, in truth, I don't really care. For me, I wanted to know what I didn't know and I think I've done that (certainly to my satisfaction) but YMMV.

The one thing on which we do agree is that I'd like to see more quantitative reviews of the performance of these traveler tripods. I'm in the market and I want to know which truly performs best.

I think that about covers it without further restating.

J.

Ok, to get back OT I voted other as I also use the M20.

One thing never addressed by the OP (at least that I was able to find through reading the thread) was the conditions under which the head would be used; he simply asked for recommendations using a 300mm and a 1D series body. I've gone from a small Manfrotto ball head, to a Manfrotto "joystick" style head, to an Acratech Ultimate V2 head, to, finally, an RRS B-55 head. I've also gone through three sets of legs during that time (two from Bogen/Manfrotto and now a set of Gitzo). Each bit of equipment served its purpose well initially..but as my demands on my equipment grew, as the lenses I used changed, and as I used my equipment more and more frequently, under more diverse (and sometimes extreme) conditions, some of the original equipment no longer met my needs. If I had it all to do over again, I'd have just bought the Gitzo legs and RRS head to begin with and been done with it...but if I had not been as demanding of the my equipment, I may have stopped somewhere else in the process and been just as satisfied. I've looked very carefully at the Benro/Induro heads and tripods and there ARE shortcuts taken...but they might serve the purposes of an occasional user or someone that didn't put a lot of stress on their equipment. Having looked at them, I think the lifespan of a Benro or Induro head is going to be shorter before failure of some type...so longevity expectations come into play as well. There's a good article by Thom Hogan (I think it was mentioned in this thread earlier) about buying tripod legs and heads (http://www.bythom.com/support.htm)...one I wished I had read about 8 years ago!...and it boils down to buying the proven components now instead of later and not looking back. When it comes to legs, Gitzo is that component...with heads, I think Arca, RRS, Kirk and Markin are all playing on a fairly level playing field...Acratech is very well made, but it simply is not as good with heavier bodies/lenses IMHO.

Keep chasing the light.

John