I have it down to about 5 tripods- Benro, Induro and Sirui
Question is does carbon fiber really make that much of a difference ? Yes it tends to be lighter, but most of these are really close in weight. Second question is leg sections 3 or 4 ? I would think 3 is better as that small one on the bottom is gone and setup should be faster as well.
I'll be using these with a Lensmaster RH-2 Gimbal head. Only a Canon 1DMKIV and 100-400 for now, with thoughts on getting the Sigma 150-600 later on.
What are your thoughts on this ?
Carbon Fiber is a natural dampener. Aluminum is the opposite and will amplify any vibrations. I shoot some astrophotography so CF was the only choice for me. I went with Calumet 8145 and 8122 tripod legs and I use a Manfrotto mini ball head and a Nest gimbal depending on the size of the gear I'm using. Total cost for both legs was under $500 since Calumet is somewhat out of business but if you need it for professional work, I'd go with Induro or Gitzo.
every junction is a source of possible instability and a place that is more likely to break - they are there so the closed tripod will fit into cars, carry-on airline bags, or backpacks, but the fewer the better
I've never seen data on CF dampening vibrations in a tripod, but the above comment is true.
CF is also less likely to chill or heat your hands during inclement weather - Al can and will freeze to your skin in some conditions.
cheap tripods do not use the highest quality CF, which may account for the similarity in wt. you saw
I always advise people to think about finding a used CF Gitzo tripod - or an RRS if you can find one
RRS is pretty much the best you can get right now, but I wouldn't say the best value. As far as what it will be used for, mostly wildlife and birds.
Weight for all the above is between 4.6 and 5.2 lbs.
All of these are rated for 30lbs or more as well.
Sirui makes a quality product. I am still blown away at how nice my Sirui N-1004KX tripod and the K20x head. great lightweight combo. I use this with my D600+14-24
Have you considered Feisol tripods? My 3441S weighs about half of those you list, and it provides fine support for my 500/4L IS + 1D-series camera (with a Wimberley SideKick on Manfrotto 368MG head), even though its max. capacity is only 10kg. The 500/4L IS + 1DX + 2x III weighs about 5.6 kg.
P.S. the 3441S has four leg sections, which enables it to fit in my suitcase, at 17" long.
I use both carbon fiber and aluminum Benro tripods and quite frankly haven't seen a discernible difference except for weight. And with Benro/Induro tripods that weight difference is pretty small. With modern leg locks there's negligible difference in stability between 3 or 4 leg sections, I use both types and choose 4 leg section models for travel and 3 leg section models otherwise.
I would think that these models you list might struggle with a 600mm lens. Also all of these tripods have center columns, aren't gimbals normally mounted on systematic-type tripods with no center column?
The carbon fiber are lighter though how much depends on the tripods, aluminum and CF, being compared. At most the difference will be 2 lbs.
Carbon fiber legs are better for cold weather use and 3-section are faster to setup but you end up with a 6" longer collapse length on average.
I ignore the center column if there is one and select the height of the legs only in selecting a tripod. I want something with a minimum height of 52 inches without the column for general shooting. Taller is better when photographing birds in trees with a heavy lens.
I have found that the load ratings of some tripods are pure fiction. They do not reflect the load that the tripod will actually support without any flexing of the legs. Gitzo ratings are accurate and they do have the lightest tripods for a given load rating that will not have problems with flexing of the shafts but you pay a higher price for this.
The flip lock type are not going to have problems with sand like the Gitzo tripod legs but they can make a lot of noise when closed which is a problem with wildlife photography efforts.
Those who claim CF is a natural dampener are right - and wrong to some extent. In order to have dampening, you need to have movement. Unless you are photographing by rushing waters or a train, then the CF won't do anything dampening wise. There will be more movement and vibration from the shutter actuation and wind than anything else would cause. It's a great gimmick and marketing hype, but holds no merit in real world application, unless it is in very specific circumstances.
For those that argue CF is better against wind, need to revisit that thought. CF is lighter, and thus more susceptible to wind vibration. Also, wind is a lateral function, and the vibration it causes in cameras is because the legs move back and forth - which are directly affected by stability and weight of tripod and camera system, or because the camera body and lens act as a sail and point of wind resistance. Therefore, vertical dampening that CF is so renowned for, will have no effect on this specific type of motion. Physics is king when combatting wind - more weight on tripod ( or on center hook/apron ) and larger legs win. Get a sandbag, use the center hook with your bag attached or fillable tripod apron to hold and stabilize your tripod. That is where you will really make a difference.
CF is used in high end bikes because they are constantly in motion, and that is where CF shines in its dampening abilities. A tripod, by nature is still and static. Therefore, CF will not be of any discernible difference.
CF is great for weight difference in larger applications of tripods, and also is less susceptible to temperature changes than aluminum. This makes it easier to hold in blazing sun and heat, and in freezing cold temps.
Sounds to me, considering the weight is about the same on these tripods, that aluminum or carbon fiber are just about the same. I took a quick glance at the Gitzo and RRS brands and there wayy out of my league, but as far as specs go there not that much different, except for build quiality.
I still favor the 3 leg section, just less parts and less areas to flex. Since it isn't a travel tripod I don't care about length. I do wish Sirui had more 3 sections legs as they seem like a good option as well, and very well made from what I've read.
The part that confuses me the most is the height. I'm 5' 10", and I read the tripod without the center column up should come to the bottom of your chin. But I also have to consider the height with the Gimbal attached as well.
Dustin Gent wrote:
Sirui makes a quality product. I am still blown away at how nice my Sirui N-1004KX tripod and the K20x head. great lightweight combo. I use this with my D600+14-24
I agree, I have a Sirui P326 carbon fiber monopod and their L10 tilt head which has been amazing and supports a very heavy combo with ease. That company has really impressed me and I would try one of their tripods in a heartbeat if I didn't have two already.
Daboyle wrote:
Those who claim CF is a natural dampener are right - and wrong to some extent. In order to have dampening, you need to have movement. Unless you are photographing by rushing waters or a train, then the CF won't do anything dampening wise. There will be more movement and vibration from the shutter actuation and wind than anything else would cause. It's a great gimmick and marketing hype, but holds no merit in real world application, unless it is in very specific circumstances.
For those that argue CF is better against wind, need to revisit that thought. CF is lighter, and thus more susceptible to wind vibration. Also, wind is a lateral function, and the vibration it causes in cameras is because the legs move back and forth - which are directly affected by stability and weight of tripod and camera system, or because the camera body and lens act as a sail and point of wind resistance. Therefore, vertical dampening that CF is so renowned for, will have no effect on this specific type of motion. Physics is king when combatting wind - more weight on tripod ( or on center hook/apron ) and larger legs win. Get a sandbag, use the center hook with your bag attached or fillable tripod apron to hold and stabilize your tripod. That is where you will really make a difference.
CF is used in high end bikes because they are constantly in motion, and that is where CF shines in its dampening abilities. A tripod, by nature is still and static. Therefore, CF will not be of any discernible difference.
CF is great for weight difference in larger applications of tripods, and also is less susceptible to temperature changes than aluminum. This makes it easier to hold in blazing sun and heat, and in freezing cold temps. ...Show more →
I was shooting the milky way and the moon recently in close proximity to a gravel road. Aluminum=camera shake when a car would pass. CF=no shake. Easily noticeable at 14mm and the alum tripod could not be used with the 800mm focal length I was using for the moon and Jupiter+moons. Some geologies will create lots of ground shake especially when shooting long exposures and/or long focal lengths. Not much we can do to control where we are shooting so a CF tripod helps address this. Eastern WA here where I do most of my astro work is notorious for having a very solid geology where everything is closely connected by very hard bedrock that tends to be only a few feet deeper than the ground surface. I've picked up vibrations from bulldozers that were 1/4 mile away which is super aggravating but just the nature of some areas of the world.
My most stable tripod in wind or any other condition is an ancient aluminum Gitzo 500 Systematic tripod. The legs alone weigh over 9 pounds with no head and they have an enormous spread. I use it with a 600mm f/4 when I don't need to walk very far. For a long time I used a Gitzo 1320 Mk2 Systematic carbon fiber tripod with smaller lenses. It was good but it would definitely resonate in some conditions and wasn't quite adequate for a 600mm f/4 lens. The RRS TVC-33 does not resonate, weighs the same as the old Gitzo, is the same height, and will support the 600mm lens with ease.
The point here is that the tripod design and sheer mass matter more than the material. My old Gitzo CF and the RRS are very similar in every way, but one resonates and one does not. The old aluminum tripod is rock solid (more so than either CF tripod) because it is incredibly heavy. It would be a good idea to, if possible, do some testing of the tripods you are interested at max height with a camera and long lens attached. It's pretty easy to tell when there's any "ringing" from mirror slap. Even if you typically use mirror lockup or live view, the mirror slap test is still a measure of the tripod's stability.
I'm not sure why someone hasn't yet created an intermediate tripod head mount. Something that goes in between the tripod and the head, and acts as a vibration reducer....
Daboyle wrote:
I'm not sure why someone hasn't yet created an intermediate tripod head mount. Something that goes in between the tripod and the head, and acts as a vibration reducer....
Easiest way would be to get a big puck of something rigid and heavy -- lead, maybe, or steel -- drill and tap and stick it between the head and tripod. Done. Cheap, too.
Vibration reduction can mean reducing the amplitude of vibration, the ring time, or both.
Amplitude reduction is easy -- increase the mass. F = ma. For a given force F (shutter actuation, say), you minimize the motion (described by acceleration, a) by maximizing mass m. Material is important only in that it be stiff enough to ensure that all of the mass is fully engaged on acceleration. Even if that's not the case, more mass helps -- that's why hanging weight from the tripod stabilizes it, though of course having that weight rigidly attached is better.
Ring time can be reduced by using materials that damp vibration well, CF and wood, typically. If the amplitude is small enough this becomes less important. A light CF travel tripod won't reduce vibration as well as a heavy aluminum tripod that costs half as much. But a light Al travel tripod may be so weedy it doesn't engage the full mass on initial acceleration.
Personally, I have 4 tripods, 2 CF, one Al, one wood. I almost never use the Al and I like the CF tripods for the weight savings (they feel nice too). But I know that that weight savings comes at the cost of reducing vibration, and am under no illusion that they would work as well as a heavier Al tripod of similar quality. F = ma whether that's aluminum, carbon fiber, unobtainium or notexistium. The important thing about a tripod is to use it, and here CF is just nicer to use, not least for the weight but also the rigidity, which ensures that the mass is more fully engaged.
As for astro, use what works for you. For what it's worth, almost all high end astro tripods are metal (here are some). Some are wood, and at least one is a wood-CF hybrid. What they have in common is that they're all massive. F = ma and all.
With no disrespect at all (I enjoyed reading their posts) talking about Astro/Landscape shooting and suitable tripods in no way corresponds to shooting wildlife / birds unless the tog happens to be in a hide, and even then since the shutter speed is normally far faster the concerns are in no way comparable.
OP : are you shooting from a hide or on the move ? Most of my bird photography is done on the move, in which case a solid monopod and gimbal (I use a large CF monopod, the Benro C49T (650g), and a Nest gimbal (1290g), total rig weight is ca. 7 kgs) is far more flexible and will get you far more shots (carried slung over my shoulder and set-up is waaaay faster than my friends and their tripods), it's extremely rare, and would be operator-error, there is any camera movement visible in a shot.
When shooting from a hide then I use a heavy Fancier F667T tripod (2550g) with the gimbal and hang a weight from the centre column. You still generally need shutter speeds of 1/500 and more anyway (subject dependant) and I never go lower unless I'm losing the light. I'd go for a Feisol or Sirui if buying the tripod again. Love Sirui, high quality manufacturer at very reasonable prices.
I have tons of tripods and the one I used the most was the smallest and lightest even though the others are much more sturdy. It can be the best tripod in the world but if you don't bring it with you, then it's the worst tripod in the world.
I have ended up with two tripods, for different situations. My main tripod is a Gitzo 1325cf. I've had it for a dozen years now. I'm starting to think it will outlive ME! It's perfect, holds anything I put on it, and despite rough treatment it has yet to break. It's carbon fiber and three sections. My second tripod is a Benro Travel Angel A269. It's aluminum, 5 sections, and reasonably solid if I'm careful. I use it only for travel and backpacking, when compact size is needed. I have looked at buying a CF version, but I'm saving less than a pound of weight! Just can't justify it for the money and number of times I use it.
My advice to you is to buy a really top grade tripod, used on ebay. If something happened to my 1325, I'd simply buy another one (or a used copy of the newer version.) You really can't beat a 300 seies CF Gitzo for durability and performance. Still not cheap even used, but I'd much rather go that route than buy a newer but cheaper made tripod. Hard to go wrong buying a used tripod, really. If you buy a "sort of" good tripod, you will end up buying another one sooner rather than later. Buy the best (used) to begin with and you are set for the next 20 years. My Gitzo has now seen six Nikon cameras come and go.
I'll also mention that the tripod head is what's really critical. Most of these low priced tripods come with a crappy ballhead that will drive you insane until you eventually wise up and throw it in the river, and replace with something decent and A/S compatible.
Eastern WA here where I do most of my astro work is notorious for having a very solid geology where everything is closely connected by very hard bedrock that tends to be only a few feet deeper than the ground surface. I've picked up vibrations from bulldozers that were 1/4 mile away which is super aggravating but just the nature of some areas of the world.