I had the original in both CF and Aluminum and I absolutely hated the flip-locks. For what they're asking for their pro version, you can get a really good Gitzo or RRS "travel" tripod that is much sturdier and handles proper ball heads. Just my $.02
People who are paying big bucks for full size tripods usually want their own choice in head and probably have a few already matched to specific use cases. I'm sure they'll sell plenty due to the 'cool' factor, Kickstarter fever, etc but at those kinds of prices there are some very very good options available elsewhere.
As a small business owner I'll say kudos to PD for finding a specific niche and one which has been in growth, marketing to it perfectly.
PD tried to fix one significant issue of their original design. The new head offers a tiny amount of movement without raising the center column. 15 degrees is about the same as a typical leveling base would offer. Unfortunately, the tripod still has a center column and you still have to extend it to get full movement of the head. This remains the biggest failing of the PD design.
Legs without center columns costing a fraction of the PD's price are much more stable.
As an owner of the PD Travel Tripod, I was somewhat interested in these new versions until I saw the prices. On top of that, the price discounts you can get through the Kickstarter campaign mean that either 1) you'll get a small discount without any of the protections you get when buying from a normal retailer but will get the product early (October 2025), or 2) you'll get a more substantial discount but might not get your product for 4 months (February 2026) after they're released for retail sale (November 2025). PD has always delivered on their Kickstarters, but the pricing and delivery scheme they came up with this time makes no sense to me. They're effectively punishing their early backers by delivering later. They get a huge upfront cash infusion (close to $2M as of right now) and don't have to bring in stock to fill many of the orders until after they've also started to sell at higher retail prices. I feel like they're a large enough business at this point that they shouldn't be taking advantage of their customers like this.
jeffbuzz wrote:
PD tried to fix one significant issue of their original design. The new head offers a tiny amount of movement without raising the center column. 15 degrees is about the same as a typical leveling base would offer. Unfortunately, the tripod still has a center column and you still have to extend it to get full movement of the head. This remains the biggest failing of the PD design.
Legs without center columns costing a fraction of the PD's price are much more stable.
A few thoughts.
As a photographer who uses tripods a lot, over the years I’ve become less and less convinced by that “common wisdom” that eschewing a center column makes the camera “much more stable.” I’ll agree that extending the center column a lot can have that effect, at least if you are using heavy gear and/or working in extreme winds… but with the center column fully lowered I can’t see ANY difference in the stability of the tripod-mounted camera/lens combo.
I use legs long enough that I rarely extend the center column… but I can when the ground is uneven (forcing me to retract one or more legs a great deal) or when I need an unusually high camera position.
I’m not sure that I’m a fan of their design of this tripod on not, but I have an open mind. (I was in San Francisco last night, near their Hayes Valley store and was hoping to go take a look at it, but I ran out of time.) I have seen the predecessor “travel” tripod and while I thought it was an interesting concept I was not convinced.
PD as a company in general is a bit of an enigma for me. Some of their stuff seems really over-designed — take the recent release of a roller bag with remarkable little capacity for its size and weight… but lots of little design extras. When we were recently updating our carry-on backpacks for light travel we took a very close look at their popular pack. It is a beautifully designed unit with tons of options and creative design touches… but it weighed about a pound more than the competition and cost a lot more. (We ended up with Osprey Porter 46 bags.)
On the other hand, I’ve used other products from them for years. In particular I’ve had a series of their sling bags, one of which is my “every day carrry” bag on walks and similar — it carries my Fujifilm XT5, a small after bottle, a small snack, my wallet and phone, etc., all in a comfortable and accessible package. I also use their strap attachment system and I very much like their wrist straps, which I use all the time.
On the subject of pricing: Given the actual costs of high end gear from companies like RRS and Gitzo (whose products I currently use), I don’t think that the price of the new tripods is necessarily out of line.
In a general way, I think that tripod design is perhaps due for a new look, and that there are some possibilities for rethinking some of our assumptions about them. One place PD is on the right track is in thinking about how compactly they can be stored…
As a photographer who uses tripods a lot, over the years I’ve become less and less convinced by that “common wisdom” that eschewing a center column makes the camera “much more stable.” I’ll agree that extending the center column a lot can have that effect, at least if you are using heavy gear and/or working in extreme winds… but with the center column fully lowered I can’t see ANY difference in the stability of the tripod-mounted camera/lens combo.
I use legs long enough that I rarely extend the center column… but I can when the ground is uneven (forcing me to retract one or more legs a great deal) or when I need an unusually high camera position.
I’m not sure that I’m a fan of their design of this tripod on not, but I have an open mind. (I was in San Francisco last night, near their Hayes Valley store and was hoping to go take a look at it, but I ran out of time.) I have seen the predecessor “travel” tripod and while I thought it was an interesting concept I was not convinced.
PD as a company in general is a bit of an enigma for me. Some of their stuff seems really over-designed — take the recent release of a roller bag with remarkable little capacity for its size and weight… but lots of little design extras. When we were recently updating our carry-on backpacks for light travel we took a very close look at their popular pack. It is a beautifully designed unit with tons of options and creative design touches… but it weighed about a pound more than the competition and cost a lot more. (We ended up with Osprey Porter 46 bags.)
On the other hand, I’ve used other products from them for years. In particular I’ve had a series of their sling bags, one of which is my “every day carrry” bag on walks and similar — it carries my Fujifilm XT5, a small after bottle, a small snack, my wallet and phone, etc., all in a comfortable and accessible package. I also use their strap attachment system and I very much like their wrist straps, which I use all the time.
On the subject of pricing: Given the actual costs of high end gear from companies like RRS and Gitzo (whose products I currently use), I don’t think that the price of the new tripods is necessarily out of line.
In a general way, I think that tripod design is perhaps due for a new look, and that there are some possibilities for rethinking some of our assumptions about them. One place PD is on the right track is in thinking about how compactly they can be stored…...Show more →
Center column flex is a fact. There are clear, quantitative measurements of the differences. Look at David's outstanding research at The Center Column.
Not all center columns are bad. Often center columns are a necessary evil. But the column locking method is important. Twist lock columns can be quite secure. The PD legs continue to use the same side lock push screw as the original design. That creates a seesaw hinge point where the post moves.
jeffbuzz wrote:
Center column flex is a fact. There are clear, quantitative measurements of the differences. Look at David's outstanding research at The Center Column.
Not all center columns are bad. Often center columns are a necessary evil. But the column locking method is important. Twist lock columns can be quite secure. The PD legs continue to use the same side lock push screw as the original design. That creates a seesaw hinge point where the post moves.
I have no doubt that it is possible to measure some degree of “flex” in center columns… and in tripod legs and so forth.
But when the camera is mounted on a tripod with the center columns retracted — giving approximately the same height as the tripod without the center column — is very solid and there’s no real-world issue with the column. That’s how I normally use the tripod.
But, a plus. In cases where I need more height than the legs alone provide I can still raise that center columns and get additional height.
For me the best of both worlds is a set of tall tripod legs plus a center columns. The tripod is tall enough that I normally do not extend the column. But in cases where the extra height is critical the column gives me that option.
I read the article, and noticed several things. First, the author is not as firmly anti-center column as you suggest. Second, his charts for the period over which instability dies out simply remind us that it is good practice to wait a few seconds (and it is literally just a few) for any vibrations to dissipate, no matter what setup we are using.
Third, I read this — which makes no sense at all to me, a photographer who has worked for years in the backcountry using tripods with center columns: “ On the opposite end of the spectrum, a photographer hiking in the mountains will likely experience adverse conditions and will try to maximize the stiffness/weight ratio of their tripod. For them, a center column wouldn’t be usable even if the tripod had one, so there is no point in hauling around the extra weight.”
“… a center column wouldn’t be usable…” Seriously? ;-)
gdanmitchell wrote:
But when the camera is mounted on a tripod with the center columns retracted — giving approximately the same height as the tripod without the center column — is very solid and there’s no real-world issue with the column. That’s how I normally use the tripod.
I suppose that depends on the tripod, but when comparing the same legs with a center column lowered vs. replacing the spider with a solid one that does not have a center column the vibration is reduced. That is my own experience with Gitzo and to a lesser extent with RRS. Obviously there are times for a center column, but it is a compromise just like using a 4-5 legged tripod vs. a 3 legged tripod.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I have no doubt that it is possible to measure some degree of “flex” in center columns… and in tripod legs and so forth.
But when the camera is mounted on a tripod with the center columns retracted — giving approximately the same height as the tripod without the center column — is very solid and there’s no real-world issue with the column. That’s how I normally use the tripod.
But, a plus. In cases where I need more height than the legs alone provide I can still raise that center columns and get additional height.
For me the best of both worlds is a set of tall tripod legs plus a center columns. The tripod is tall enough that I normally do not extend the column. But in cases where the extra height is critical the column gives me that option.
I read the article, and noticed several things. First, the author is not as firmly anti-center column as you suggest. Second, his charts for the period over which instability dies out simply remind us that it is good practice to wait a few seconds (and it is literally just a few) for any vibrations to dissipate, no matter what setup we are using.
Third, I read this — which makes no sense at all to me, a photographer who has worked for years in the backcountry using tripods with center columns: “ On the opposite end of the spectrum, a photographer hiking in the mountains will likely experience adverse conditions and will try to maximize the stiffness/weight ratio of their tripod. For them, a center column wouldn’t be usable even if the tripod had one, so there is no point in hauling around the extra weight.”
“… a center column wouldn’t be usable…” Seriously? ;-)...Show more →
I never suggested anyone was "anti" anything. I simply referred you to a source of independent data and analysis that shows center columns reduce tripod stability. It's the physics of compromise like everything else in photography.
EB-1 wrote:
I suppose that depends on the tripod, but when comparing the same legs with a center column lowered vs. replacing the spider with a solid one that does not have a center column the vibration is reduced. That is my own experience with Gitzo and to a lesser extent with RRS. Obviously there are times for a center column, but it is a compromise just like using a 4-5 legged tripod vs. a 3 legged tripod.
EBH
Fair enough to describe it as a compromise with both pluses and minuses. My assessment is that the potential for image compromise due to the increased (and very small) flexibility is effectively zero, while the plus of flexibility when needed is greater than zero. YMMV.
I'm happily down to using only 3 tripods on the regular. If I needed a 4th (travel) tripod with a center column option it would not be one of the Peaked Designs. There are other options. For sure I would not buy into the Kickstarts scheme where there might be a tripod in 6-9 months. I don't know what state or country I would be in by then. That's for young folks with plenty of time on their hands.
gregfountain wrote:
I had the original in both CF and Aluminum and I absolutely hated the flip-locks. For what they're asking for their pro version, you can get a really good Gitzo or RRS "travel" tripod that is much sturdier and handles proper ball heads. Just my $.02
For argument’s sake which Gitzo/RRS tripods would be comparable in size to what PD markets for their travel tripod?
corposant wrote:
For argument’s sake which Gitzo/RRS tripods would be comparable in size to what PD markets for their travel tripod?
Maybe Gitzo 1545 & 2545 Travelers and a Series 3 Mountaineer?
Peak's making some pretty bold claims about load capacity; I've found Gitzo to be fairly conservative (don't know about RRS).
The biggest things I see in the PD's is their leg shape, small folded profile, and maybe some of the adjustability. They seem to have raised a lot of money with their Kickstarter campaign. So did Colorado Tripod Co (not sure they exist anymore; their website doesn't seem to have been updated in quite a while).
I'm set with Gitzo gear and am not in the market for more tripods (I've got 4 and 2 monopods). Being on the conservative side, I'd definitely wait for some real & unsponsored user reviews of these units.
My first Peak design tripod was an used aluminum travel model that I bought with a very low price on Ebay. I bought it because of the design of the legs and size. But it was too heavy for what I needed. So I then boyght a new carbon fiber model. I like the weight of this set of legs. But I could never mount a camera easily on the head with their camera plate. So I put on my old Acratech ball head and problem solved. I think they did a good job on the legs but not so much on the head.
Their support is very good despite the wait for an answer. The used aluminum tripod I bought had a broken lever lock. I registered the tripod with them, then took pictures of the the problem and they quickly sent out a whole new leg to me! No cost for shipping. That kind of customer support is rare these days.
I had a chance to put my hands on the new PD tripod this past weekend at the SF PD store.
I have mixed feelings about it. I'm impressed by their attempt to rethink some basic aspects of tripod design, in particular the non-round legs. Their unusual design does allow the tripod to fold into a rather narrow diameter.
I felt that the legs were pretty solid, too. I fully extended the legs on the large model and it seemed relatively rigid.
I have to wonder a bit about that center column. It is quite thin. The triangular design does give it a bit more strength than we might expect for such a thin design, but when extended it felt less that solid. I think it is probably solid enough for real world use, but...
I'm not so sure about the head design. It does have the advantage of very small size compared other tradition heads. On the other hand, it doesn't have a quick release, just a screw tightener. Rotation works fine. tilting the head is a bit odd, since you release it by rotation the ring mourned the head — a ring that might remind you of the focus ring on a lens. You have to raise the head a bit if you want to tilt up or down much.
The quick releases seemed to work well, but they looked a bit flimsy to me. Not sure they really are.
I think it might be fine for some users, especially those who like the smaller packed size — but I think I stick with more traditional designs.
