Ahhh, sjms, I really do respect your insight and opinion, from the posts I have read here and in your responses to my questions.
But this sort of vague non-specific ominous hinting-without-saying-anything is too much theater and not enough information for any meaningful objective discussion! Sorry, not meaning any slight or anything.
jeetsukumaran wrote:
I am sorry, sjms, either I am not understanding exactly what you are saying, or we disagree.
I am asserting that, with the Algonquin, we have essentially (I) the strength and rigidity of a Gitzo 5-series tripod, (II) in a Gitzo 3-series size and package, (III) at a Gitzo 2-series price.
Given that, than either with the Jobu you are getting more than you pay for, if the price for a Gitzo 5 series is "fair", or, conversely, the Gitzo 5 series is way overpriced.
So, it is not a simple case of "you are getting what you paid for", unless you are saying that the Jobu somehow or other revolutionizes market pricing. Now, I like the Jobu, but even I am not going to go that far!!
Of couse, while the basis of (II) and (III) or objectively verifiable. (I) is a little more tricky without doing extensive empirical experiments that neither of us has the time or money to do (I am assuming that a good experiment will involve, ultimately, breaking multiple tripods!), so I am relying on manufacturer's claims backed up by somewhat reliable objective proxies, such as upper leg diameter etc. We may debate this latter inference bit till the cows come home, so if you disagree without any additional evidence (that the Jobu's strength == Gitzo 5 series), feel free to amend the above description to "as strong as the Gitzo 4". Or, even, for that matter, "as strong as the Gitzo 3": you are still getting a lot of good legs for a much lower price.
you are getting a good set of legs as long as you are settling in for exactly that. when looking into a set in that class i do look at versatility that goes along with the functionality. with the Jobu you get exactly what you paid for a basic set of legs. nothing more nothing less. if thats all you want you got it. for me there is more to it use as legs. i like the modularity that exists in both the RRS and Gitzo. yes i do think the RRS design is smarter and is potentially more durable. it has more overall strength and simpler functionality in that design class of multiuse.
i choose gear by :
1- functional strength
2-functional versatility
3- price
Jobu lacks the functional versatility.
i think they will address this in a sooner rather then later either with a new model or version update. most likely a new model.
sjms wrote:
you are getting a good set of legs as long as you are settling in for exactly that. when looking into a set in that class i do look at versatility that goes along with the functionality. with the Jobu you get exactly what you paid for a basic set of legs. nothing more nothing less. if thats all you want you got it. for me there is more to it use as legs. i like the modularity that exists in both the RRS and Gitzo. yes i do think the RRS design is smarter and is potentially more durable. it has more overall strength and simpler functionality in that design class of multiuse.
i choose gear by :
1- functional strength
2-functional versatility
3- price
Jobu lacks the functional versatility.
i think they will address this in a sooner rather then later either with a new model or version update. most likely a new model. ...Show more →
I do agree that Jobu lacks the functional versatility. However, if we list all these so called "versatile" functions out, some might see them as minor (like me) or major (like you):
- No hook: huge oversight IMO, but they promised to send me an add-on for free
- Non-modular apex design: you can't add center column (for me, I don't know why anyone interested in this tripod class would add a center column), leveling base (you can get add-on base from Acratech or Sunwayfoto), and video bowl (I'm a stills-only guy so).
I don't know if I miss anything else, but certainly it fulfills its role as a tripod for me. I haven't used my tripod for anything else other than a tripod. Maybe that's the group they're aiming at.
As for the strength/vibration dampening of the tripod, unless someone shows me otherwise, I think the Jobu would be just as good as the RRS 3 Series and Gitzo 4 Series since they all have similar top tube diameter. The apex design might sway the result but I'm not certain until I see some valid tests.
The current pricing places the Jobu at or below the Chinese knock-off offers. For now, I give them the benefit of the doubt since I believe they would put more thought and effort into a ground-up design. And Jobu makes excellent Gimbal head so they're not new in this. RRS started out as a tripod head maker as well, IIRC.
What Jobu has that I wish others follow are the loyalty program for trade-in and trade-up and free-of-charge minor add-on upgrade. This is one of the pluses that I decided to be the early adopter of this tripod. That and their very responsive customer service. The small appreciation package that they're sending is nice as well, but that is a minor thing.
Ok, then thats what you go for. and yes it does fill the roll of a tripod. but if one were in the market of spending for in a range again i am looking for maximum versatility especially at those prices.
actually RRS started out making only plates for AS heads back in 1990. it was a ownership changeover about 2002 and a few more years that then brought about their own ball head. and they were actually real late to the gimbal making party.
i don't doubt that the the Algonquin is a well made product. maybe i just expected more from the relatively inspired manufacturer Jobu is. and i still think/feel this is more a working prototype and thats why they are doing what they are doing. it is a shame they won't be showing at Photo Plus at the end of this month in NYC.
I currently tend towards the TVC-24L, the reason is that I think I probably won't use my 500mm on a tripod too often (it is used mainly for airshow photography where I handheld it).
The benefits of the TVC-24L over the series 3 for me is that it is enough for my 5D+200mm/f2.8 and shorter lenses but is a bit more lightweight and compact as I need it for a lot of hiking.
Didn't decide on a ballhead yet, those Arca Swiss Cubes look nice, but are way too expensive haha
Many people are using it, there are several threads on luminous landscape.
However, if I would buy it I would also use it on a RRS Series 3, but as I've said, I'm not buying it
Right now I tend towards the TVC-24L due to the following reasoning:
It's enough for a 5d III with max 300mm lens, as I'm doing mostly nature/landscapes, some long exposures, etc.
If I would use my 500mm/f4 on a tripod only twice a year, and would therefore go for the TVC-33, it would not be worth it if I have to carry around the additional weight (as opposed to for example the TVC-24L + BH30/40 instead of 55) most of the time..
Your rationale sounds decent... If you don't go beyond 300mm, hike a lot, etc., then the 24L may be ok.
I'd always err on the safer side, and get the 33/34L. Although not the exact same parallel, I've found a huge difference between going from a 2-series to a 3-series in Gitzo for my slightly longer lenses, just in basic stability, and vibration dampening/resistance (from wind, etc.).
I would love to own the 34L from RRS, but can't afford it quite yet. (saving up!)
I do have both the BH-40 and BH-55, and LOVE the 55.... I'd get that over the 40. Everything is just better/nicer on the 55, and when I do put my 400mm on the tripod, I don't have to ever really worry about it.
Size/Weight and Stability is always a tradeoff... If you hike/fly/travel on foot to your landscape spots, the weight reduction would make perfect sense and well justified.... if you're like my friend, who only really takes landscape shots from places that are within 15 minutes of where he parks his car, then the sacrifice in stability isn't worth the weight savings. I have never heard of having a support being "too stable". And if you have a beefier and stronger tripod, you can use your 500mm whenever you want, with less worries.
I agree, for that purpose I would get the TVC-33 + BH 55
But I'm hiking a lot, and this combination is quite heavy - of course it's sturdier, but it seems (based on reviews I wrote) it's not necessary as the 24L a different ballhead (not sure if the BH-40 or something else).
I'd like to take it with me to Iceland next year again, where I'm on the trail for 1 week..
For a lighter ballhead with at least the same strength as the BH-55 but at half the weight, you might want to look at the Markins Q-20. Ditto for the BH-40 vs. the Q-10.
I have the BH-40 as well as the Markins Q-20. These are different classes of ballheads, so it is meaningless to compare them in terms of strength, but in terms of smoothness and ergonomics the Markins is hands-down superior in every respect [EDIT: I recognize that there is a larger degree of subjectivity with judgement of "ergonomics" than smoothness; but I think that the RRS "drag" setting control is a little bit of a joke compared to the Markins, and this leads to forcing you to a "orient-lock-and-shoot" type of ergonomics rather than "orient-and-shoot" that is available with Markins].
You have probably heard that manufacturer's exaggerate their load capacities, and that Markins is guilty of this with the 100 lb claim for the Q-20. This is not accurate: Markins load capacity is not exaggerated, it is just that their definition of "capacity" may not be what most of us think it means (and indeed, what it should mean in this context).
The Markins do claim a 100 lb load capacity. But they do back up their claims with published testing procedures and results, which cannot be said for any other manufacturer that I know of. Having said that, their testing procedures test to the point the destruction of the ballhead, rather than compromise of functionality. The latter presumably will occur before the former and with a lighter load, and it is the latter that is of primary concern to users (I have yet to read of any decent quality ballhead actually breaking in use).
RRS claims 50 lbs for their BH-55 capacity, but (as far as I know) provide absolutely no data, evidence or information as to how this value is obtained. You will often here people claim that RRS is "conservative" regarding their capacities, but again, there is no real data, evidence, or information, to back this up beyond repeated hearsay and "techno-gossip". So, if you value information integrity, you should not rely on this too much. However, experience of 1000's? 10's of 1000's? of users do tend to back up the notion that BH-55 is an absolute solid device that can take any load that anyone would put on it in practice. And if anyone puts 50 lbs on their ballhead, I would like to know what that is.
When I first got the Q-20 I loaded it up with ridiculous amount of weights. Not 100 lbs. But well over 35 lbs. That thing was not going anywhere, no matter what angle it was locked in at. I cannot speak as to whether or not it is better than the BH-55. But I have no doubt that there is nothing to choose from in terms of load capacity and strength between the two.
So it comes down to (ballhead weight and ergonomics ...
Also the same weight, but you might want to look at the Acratech ballheads that include leveling base functionality. I'm using their GP Ultimate on a travel tripod and a GP on a Gitzo systematic. They're well made and basically maintenance free so they're good for extreme environments as well.
I also use a RRS leveling base which is a quality product but like most leveling bases it's restricted to 15º whereas the Acratech heads give you a 40º range. It's great to have the higher range if you're dealing with rocky ground conditions.
