sjms wrote:
it is a travelers tripod. it gives up some things to be more usable for others. in order to get that 2.4lbs w/o head weight there's going to be some sacrifice. yes it can be for some a challenge but then they must be willing to carry the extra weight for both the height and additional material to maintain the rigidity going up in that height. me I really don't have that issue and I still wouldn't give in to the extra weight and/or loss of rigidity that comes with it. everything is a trade off and its the end users choice of options.
the screw in up height center column is interesting. i'll see what it brings to the table next week in usefulness
....Show more →
I just wanted to make sure you saw the height thing. Looking forward to your review. The screw-in center column is certainly a new one on me, and at my age I have seen a lot..
i appreciate that and thank you. before i do purchase things i look pretty carefully at specs. its what i do and have to do it in my work. this is also what i use in the A/B comparison. what is said and what it is. i'm a few years behind you but I've observed a few things along the long walk we're doing.
I did a ton of research on them, and I think I am going to order the 324CH. $425, but they state a 5 year warranty. I am also going to order the head as well, the BH-40 clone. Hopefully I will order them next weekend.
The sirui N-1004X I used for the last 4 years extended to 63", and i never felt I was missing anything height wise.
These two tripods are very similar in their specs, and its clear from the design that the Leofoto is a ripoff of the TFC-14. This is good in that the TFC-14 is a phenomenal design, but bad of course in that it is clear intellectual property theft.
The height, diameter of the CF tubes, and most everything else is identical. So Leofoto is cheating a bit by having a narrower leg angle. This helps keep the same height with lower weight, but is costly in terms of the stiffness (a wider stance is more resistant to rotations). So, the first thing we see is that the Leofoto is not really close to the RRS in terms of performance, but of course it is also 1/4 the price. Comparing it to the rest of the tripods I have tested though: https://thecentercolumn.com/rankings/
(sort descending by the last column)
we see that the Leofoto performs better than any other tripod I have tested in the stiffness*height/weight metric that isn't made by Gitzo or RRS. So it is a very good tripod for $200. I have some small quibbles with the build quality. The leg opening motion is too stiff, some of the CNC aluminum peices have sharp edges, there are a couple leg twist locks with cosmetic defects that would have been rejected by any mainstream manufacturer. But this isn't really a surprise, and they do not affect the functionality.
These two tripods are very similar in their specs, and its clear from the design that the Leofoto is a ripoff of the TFC-14. This is good in that the TFC-14 is a phenomenal design, but bad of course in that it is clear intellectual property theft.
The height, diameter of the CF tubes, and most everything else is identical. So Leofoto is cheating a bit by having a narrower leg angle. This helps keep the same height with lower weight, but is costly in terms of the stiffness (a wider stance is more resistant to rotations). So, the first thing we see is that the Leofoto is not really close to the RRS in terms of performance, but of course it is also 1/4 the price. Comparing it to the rest of the tripods I have tested though: https://thecentercolumn.com/rankings/
(sort descending by the last column)
we see that the Leofoto performs better than any other tripod I have tested in the stiffness*height/weight metric that isn't made by Gitzo or RRS. So it is a very good tripod for $200. I have some small quibbles with the build quality. The leg opening motion is too stiff, some of the CNC aluminum peices have sharp edges, there are a couple leg twist locks with cosmetic defects that would have been rejected by any mainstream manufacturer. But this isn't really a surprise, and they do not affect the functionality. ...Show more →
finally some science with methodology that is repeatable. measurement and math, the great equalizer. thank you very much!
this replaces a few well known sites of good old boys playing around with their ball heads and sticks with no real methods at all.
You are very welcome! The site was born recently out of a personal project trying to find the lightest, stiffest tripods for backpacking. I soon realized that I had a pretty unique data set and wanted to share.
My next goal is to figure how much stiffness is necessary for different combinations of camera, lens and conditions. Its proving to be a trickier problem than I had initially realized.
DaveTCC wrote:
You are very welcome! The site was born recently out of a personal project trying to find the lightest, stiffest tripods for backpacking. I soon realized that I had a pretty unique data set and wanted to share.
My next goal is to figure how much stiffness is necessary for different combinations of camera, lens and conditions. Its proving to be a trickier problem than I had initially realized.
thats a "slippery slope" kind situation. pretty subjective point of view
These two tripods are very similar in their specs, and its clear from the design that the Leofoto is a ripoff of the TFC-14. This is good in that the TFC-14 is a phenomenal design, but bad of course in that it is clear intellectual property theft.
The height, diameter of the CF tubes, and most everything else is identical. So Leofoto is cheating a bit by having a narrower leg angle. This helps keep the same height with lower weight, but is costly in terms of the stiffness (a wider stance is more resistant to rotations). So, the first thing we see is that the Leofoto is not really close to the RRS in terms of performance, but of course it is also 1/4 the price. Comparing it to the rest of the tripods I have tested though: https://thecentercolumn.com/rankings/
(sort descending by the last column)
we see that the Leofoto performs better than any other tripod I have tested in the stiffness*height/weight metric that isn't made by Gitzo or RRS. So it is a very good tripod for $200. I have some small quibbles with the build quality. The leg opening motion is too stiff, some of the CNC aluminum peices have sharp edges, there are a couple leg twist locks with cosmetic defects that would have been rejected by any mainstream manufacturer. But this isn't really a surprise, and they do not affect the functionality. ...Show more →
Thanks for doing the analysis. This is exactly the kind of information that I would love to have ahead of a tripod selection/purchase. I also really appreciate the parts of your site where you describe the procedure and also where you talk about the data. I have to admit that I got a little excited seeing your frequency analysis as I did that kind of thing all the time before I retired, although it was not on materials, but tide and wave motion. I have passed along your site to a friend who is in the process of looking for a travel tripod and the Feisol on your list is one that she is strongly considering. So, this will be helpful for her as well (another scientist, btw).
i received the tripod last night. a bullet point review. think of it as an addendum to DaveTCC's along with my TFC:
- actually better than i expected in finish couldn't find any real issues from a finish point of view
- yes, it is visually very similar to the TFC in many ways (with a smattering of Gitzo thrown in) and operationally eg: leg position locks and autolocking.
- weight is 2lb 7.4oz
- i liked the stainless spring loaded 3/8 to 1/4 converting head mount studs ala Manfrotto
- CF tubing is very nice. there is a very small difference between the TFC at 1.123" (28.54mm) and the Leo at 1.104" (28.04mm). using a Fowler dial caliper (tol- 0.001")
apex platform and leg locks are visually similar to various Gitzo models
- leg position is very stiff out of the box but can be adjusted to taste
- leg spread at 1st stop (normal tripod usage most vertical legs full extension) approx 6" difference in spread from tripod centerline between the RRS and the Leo
- base threaded insert for foot in addition to being glued has a scroll pin across to "just make sure". i hope they made sure its stainless.
- tripod bag is the best i've seen as an included part. i'd buy one if/when available
i have to say that this is a well put together piece. despite its "platypus heritage" the only real negative is the legspread and the loss of stability. the cure is simply retool the apex for a wider spread and i'd keep it in a heartbeat. at $200 its a steal as long as you can live with its. me? not so much even at the price.
Runamuk- i did give the center post thing a look over and it was interesting just couldn't get into the idea of using it. interesting thinking and good build quality but stability would even be more of an issue.
RRS
Leofoto
Leofoto apex
Leofoto normal spread 1st stop legs collapsed vs RRS TFC
Leofoto normal spread 1st stop legs fully extended vs RRS TFC
Leofoto pin reinforced base threaded insert for feet
sjms wrote:
i received the tripod last night. a bullet point review. think of it as an addendum to DaveTCC's along with my TFC:
- actually better than i expected in finish couldn't find any real issues from a finish point of view
- yes, it is visually very similar to the TFC in many ways (with a smattering of Gitzo thrown in) and operationally eg: leg position locks and autolocking.
- weight is 2lb 7.4oz
- i liked the stainless spring loaded 3/8 to 1/4 converting head mount studs ala Manfrotto
- CF tubing is very nice. there is a very small difference between the TFC at 1.123" (28.54mm) and the Leo at 1.104" (28.04mm). using a Fowler dial caliper (tol- 0.001")
apex platform and leg locks are visually similar to various Gitzo models
- leg position is very stiff out of the box but can be adjusted to taste
- leg spread at 1st stop (normal tripod usage most vertical legs full extension) approx 6" difference in spread from tripod centerline between the RRS and the Leo
- base threaded insert for foot in addition to being glued has a scroll pin across to "just make sure". i hope they made sure its stainless.
- tripod bag is the best i've seen as an included part. i'd buy one if/when available
i have to say that this is a well put together piece. despite its "platypus heritage" the only real negative is the legspread and the loss of stability. the cure is simply retool the apex for a wider spread and i'd keep it in a heartbeat. at $200 its a steal as long as you can live with its. me? not so much even at the price.
Runamuk- i did give the center post thing a look over and it was interesting just couldn't get into the idea of using it. interesting thinking and good build quality but stability would even be more of an issue.
Totally agree about the leg spread. I did not have issues, but it would certainly be more stable with a larger angle. When playing around with it at home, I felt that improved stability could be obtained by retracting the lower legs sections and using the center column (I only played with the center column in its shortest setting). As weird as it seems, I felt that by setting up the tripod this way, it could be more stable than no center column and legs fully extended. Have not tried that in an actual shooting situation where it mattered though.
but, retracting the lower set (creating an even smaller stability triangle) and then topping it off higher on a single post is sort of counter productive. personally i wouldn't be carrying the particular CP around with me.
sjms, thank you for your review. I completely agree with everything you said. This really is a fantastic tripod for the price. The case is quite nice, though I never use a tripod case. It is hard to believe that they can make a tripod this good, with all of the included accessories, and make money selling it for $200. The worst fit and finish piece I encountered was on the leg lock: https://thecentercolumn.com/miscellaneous/leofoto-ls-284c-review/
Sorry for the awkward way to link an image. I realized that I can't upload images to FM without upgrading my account.
Abuttolph, I did a short exploration on using the center column vs the lower leg on a tripod: https://thecentercolumn.com/2018/02/22/center-column-vs-bottom-leg/
It is possibly that using the center column instead of the bottom leg results in better stability, but it is highly dependent on the tripod. The only tripod where I saw a positive effect had a very flimsy bottom leg. I think that using the center column is probably the worse option for the LS-284C, but I haven't tested it. The LS-284C is quite stiff for a travel tripod to begin with.
The CF in the Leofoto is from Japanese company Toray Industrial which is a major producer of the product from aerospace to bicycles. They are well known in pro racing bike frames, among many think Boardman, Cervélo, Colnago, and Pinarello frames which are used by Team Sky - team winners of the last few Tours de France. Toray framesets are very highly regarded.
DaveTCC wrote:
sjms, thank you for your review. I completely agree with everything you said. This really is a fantastic tripod for the price. The case is quite nice, though I never use a tripod case. It is hard to believe that they can make a tripod this good, with all of the included accessories, and make money selling it for $200. The worst fit and finish piece I encountered was on the leg lock: https://thecentercolumn.com/miscellaneous/leofoto-ls-284c-review/
Sorry for the awkward way to link an image. I realized that I can't upload images to FM without upgrading my account.
Abuttolph, I did a short exploration on using the center column vs the lower leg on a tripod: https://thecentercolumn.com/2018/02/22/center-column-vs-bottom-leg/
It is possibly that using the center column instead of the bottom leg results in better stability, but it is highly dependent on the tripod. The only tripod where I saw a positive effect had a very flimsy bottom leg. I think that using the center column is probably the worse option for the LS-284C, but I haven't tested it. The LS-284C is quite stiff for a travel tripod to begin with....Show more →
Thanks, Dave. This makes a lot of sense and I appreciate the link and explanation. My comment on that was just from playing around with the tripod in the house. The lowest leg sections seem to be the weakest component and most likely to be prone to vibration. By withdrawing them, it seemed like the tripod was more stable, even with the center column, but that may have just been my perception and not reality - plus, that was not under actual field conditions. It does make sense that reducing the spread by retracing the lower sections would decrease stability, as well as increasing the height of the center of gravity.
Abuttolph wrote:
I don't have other travel tripods to compare this one to, so I cannot comment on the features and performance of this tripod in comparison to others.
I have one, a series-2 Benro that I bought in 2010 that has given sterling reliable service. I've never had a problem with it and I've had no worries with stability. It does have a center column though. I got this Leofoto traveler last week and used it over the weekend. With just a few hours with it it seems like a pretty decent tripod, as good or better than my Benro. There are comments about leg angle and stability above but it's not a surprise that travel tripods have reduced angles, look how similar the angles are on the legs in the first pic below. The only time I've had issues with the Benro in 8 years was on top of the Sugarloaf in Ireland.
I'm inclined to keep the Leofoto I think. It's lighter and folds smaller than the Benro, it has aluminum hardware and doesn't have a center column. The spider is also just the right size for the 53mm base diameter of my Acratech heads and it fits into the side pocket of my nice new carry-on roller. I'm taking it to the Berkshires over the weekend so we'll see how it fares there.
