p.1 #1 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
Hi,
How are you guys doing : )!!! I hope doing very well!
Several brands, selling light-weight tripods that weigh,
(with the head on), less than three pounds, (or less than
1.4 Kilos), have something that has caught my attention.
The very bottom part of these tripods, measuring eight to
ten inches, (or some twenty to twenty-five centimeters),
is french-fry-thin!!!
I have seen two of this kind of tripods fully extended in
two camera stores. As I saw each of these two tripods, one
six years ago, and the other, some four years ago, the two
tripods had a bit of a problem: the bottom parts seemed to
be 'flexing'. They were not completely straight. A camera
with lens of different size was at the top of each tripod
on display at each of their window shops.
At the top, the cameras looked mighty. It was alluring
that these tripods were light like a feather and held with
head included, loads of, more or less, twenty pounds.
Not bad for tripods that had french-fry-like legs at their
bottom part. However, not everything looked so bright.
As mentioned before, the bottom part looked slightly bent.
The 'bending' in the three legs of the tripod was not
homogeneous, unfortunately.
Do you have any of this kind of tripods? Could you please
tell me your experience with it, specially with the bottom part
of the tripod. They are expensive; many of them made out
of carbon fiber; it is desired, therefore, that they may last for
several years with very straight legs, including the very bottom
parts.
Examples of this kind of tripods are the following. These
are not the tripods I saw at the stores, but look very similar.
The stores were neither, the following store.
In advance, thank you for reading this post and taking a look
at these two links:
p.1 #2 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
It's best to avoid the 4- or 5-legged tripods and stick with the 3-legged ones. The fewer the better and the larger diameter of the smallest one. Flex in the thinnest part is usually most at the extended angles (wide spread) and not so bad at the 23-25° standard angle.
p.1 #3 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
I mostly prefer pretty solid tripods. (My light tripod is one of the “long” Gitzo Mountaineers.)
But I sometimes toss a very light Induro tripod with the smallest and lightest RSS head into my luggage “just in case.” I couldn’t rely on such a thing for normal use, but sometimes it is enough to get some shafts that I couldn’t otherwise get while traveling.
It definitely has some flex and it doesn’t got as tall as I would like. But if I let the vibrations “settle” for a few seconds it usually works OK.
p.1 #4 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
Appropriate tripod weight and leg section diameter is relative to what camera you put on it, how tall you need the legs to be while working and how you use it.
Small, lightweight camera + lens, bright light, fast shutter speed: Lightweight tripod is fine
Heavy camera, low light, slow shutter speed: Heavy tripod is better
Any camera in windy weather: Heavy tripod is more stable on its own. But you can use counterweights to hold down a skinny tripod just as well.
The weak point of the travel style tripods you linked to is not the leg thickness but the presence of a center column. A thin legged tripod with no center column is more stable than a thicker tripod with an extended center column. Of course you can make the tripod more stable by not extending the thinnest lower leg sections or center column. That makes your tripod much shorter, but more stable.
p.1 #5 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
jeffbuzz wrote:
The weak point of the travel style tripods you linked to is not the leg thickness but the presence of a center column. A thin legged tripod with no center column is more stable than a thicker tripod with an extended center column. Of course you can make the tripod more stable by not extending the thinnest lower leg sections or center column. That makes your tripod much shorter, but more stable.
The problem (or challenge, since we understand this when we opt to use a “travel tripod”) is not the “presence” of a center column. The problem is the reliance on extending it all the way in order to get even barely enough height, coupled with the expected less-rigid character of the lightweight tripod.
The problem with the alternative of using a tripod with no center column for travel is that to get a minimally useful height you’ll now have to carry a larger and heavier tripod (part of the height comes from three legs rather than a center column) that won’t stow as small… unless it has lots of sections, which will also degrade stability.
For the specific purpose of travel, where we may be willing to accept that we’ll have to work differently in order to keep size and weight under control, this can be an acceptable compromise — if you understand that you are working with a less-stable tripod and that you’ll have to take extra care to control potential vibrations.
I think it is important to consider the circumstances of the tripod use and the expectations of the user. When I go out to do long-exposure, tripod-based night photography, I’m going to carry a big, heavy, solid tripod and head. When I stick a tripod in my bag for 6 weeks of urban travel and think I might possibly need a tripod once or twice (or not) and I’m carrying a smaller and lighter gear, the travel tripod could fit the bill. And I prefer a smaller one with a center column that is just barely tall enough.
p.1 #6 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
jeffbuzz wrote:
Appropriate tripod weight and leg section diameter is relative to what camera you put on it, how tall you need the legs to be while working and how you use it.
Small, lightweight camera + lens, bright light, fast shutter speed: Lightweight tripod is fine
Heavy camera, low light, slow shutter speed: Heavy tripod is better
Any camera in windy weather: Heavy tripod is more stable on its own. But you can use counterweights to hold down a skinny tripod just as well.
The weak point of the travel style tripods you linked to is not the leg thickness but the presence of a center column. A thin legged tripod with no center column is more stable than a thicker tripod with an extended center column. Of course you can make the tripod more stable by not extending the thinnest lower leg sections or center column. That makes your tripod much shorter, but more stable....Show more →
Within a reasonble weight range the focal length and magnification are more important than the weight being supported.
p.1 #7 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
I have an old Gitzo smaller travelling tripod that has very thin bottom legs. I looked closely and realized they were solid not hollow tubes. They were not much bigger in diameter than large straws.
p.1 #8 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
EB-1 wrote:
Within a reasonble weight range the focal length and magnification are more important than the weight being supported.
EBH
The shutter speed is more important than the focal length. A long lens can be shot handheld or on a monopod with fast enough shutter. A monopod or lightweight tripod can be used to simply bare the weight of the lens without providing any real stabilization.
p.1 #9 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
I have two small or very small tripods. Both offer the opportunity to extend fully with teeny last leg sections and center posts. One has a removable center post, both. iirc, have telescoping center posts which could aggravate the balance and vibration type issues. Within their limits, they are useful and properly functional. I put my A7Riv and 200-600 on the larger one, legs but not center post extended, and it didn't collapse. I didn't try the smaller one although I doubt ever seriously using the 200-600 on either as a possibility.
They can be used much like a tabletop tripod, unextended or minimally extended, on walls, tables, etc. I've used them a few times at a family event with suitable light and higher shutter speeds for group photos to get "all of us" in with a timer or remote. And also with a phone when friends or selfie sticks aren't available, etc.
p.1 #10 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
Recently I've often needed to hike further and over more difficult trails to get photos. That's actually an understatement. The trails often require both hands to be free in order to get over and around obstacles, sometimes in tight spaces. My tripod absolutely had to go on my backpack and couldn't protrude above my head, or far in any direction for that matter. I also needed a much lighter and more compact camera system, and a much smaller backpack, but that's not relevant here.
Around 6 months ago I got an FLM CP30-SL4 II tripod and an Acratech GXP-SS head for this purpose. It was the tallest/shortest/lightest/heaviest and most rigid compromise I could find to fit my needs. https://thecentercolumn.com/ was very helpful in narrowing down various possibilities.
I'm very happy with the tripod and head, but understand that it cannot completely replace the RRS TVC-33 and BH 55 head I always used prior to getting the FLM and Acratech combo. I still use the heavier equipment when it's reasonable. It all boils down to the fact that the best tripod and head for a given location are the sturdiest ones you are able to carry there.
p.1 #11 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
jeffbuzz wrote:
The shutter speed is more important than the focal length. A long lens can be shot handheld or on a monopod with fast enough shutter. A monopod or lightweight tripod can be used to simply bare the weight of the lens without providing any real stabilization.
Sure, but that is not a physical characteristic of the gear that is on the tripod.
And tripods serve two purposes, stability and composition. Composition is at least as important to controlling placement for HDR, panning-stitching, focus bracketing, studio still lifes, etc.
p.1 #12 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
EB-1 wrote:
Sure, but that is not a physical characteristic of the gear that is on the tripod.
And tripods serve two purposes, stability and composition. Composition is at least as important to controlling placement for HDR, panning-stitching, focus bracketing, studio still lifes, etc.
EBH
Tripods don't control composition, you do. Unless you're talking about putting a camera in a position that is physically impossible for you to reach. Tripods provide consistency of composition which is just another word for stability. If your hands are steady enough, you could shoot multiple exposures from precisely the same location. Multiple frames are no different than a single frame at a very slow shutter speed. You need the camera to remain stable in one 3D location over X amount of time.
Heavy tripods can make it easier to maintain composition across multiple frames. You can also do that with a lighter tripod if you physically separate yourself from the camera with a remote or use a long enough shutter delay to allow vibrations to stop.
We need more info from the OP as to what his use case might be.
p.1 #13 · French-fry-like-bottom part of the tripod - Some advice please
I’ve noticed those super-thin “french fry” legs on some travel tripods too — they can flex a bit, especially fully extended or with heavier gear.
I usually avoid extending the smallest leg sections or the center column to keep things stable. The center column often causes more wobble than the thin legs.
It’s a tradeoff with travel tripods: lightweight and compact means some flex. For serious stability, heavier tripods are better.
Gitzo’s Mountaineer line is a good middle ground if you want something balanced.
Hope that helps! Let me know what you pick.
Cheers,
