I have a cheap-o Hakuba carbon fiber, 3-section twist lock tripod. It was just something to get me started. I shoot with a 40D, 300 f/4L IS & 70-300 f/2.8L IS on a Arca Swiss Z1.
My Hakuba tripod will shake if you look at it. My questions are.
Do the better ones shake that much less?
Should a center column be avoided?
Why would one choose between 3 or 4 tube legs?
I have seen the Gitzo, Manfrotto's and such but not used them. Appearance wise they look no sturdier than my Hakuba. Sliding carbon fiber tubes on hinges?
Is FEISOL a good or respected maker in comparison?
I will not be hiking long distances but do not want to disregard weight. I like the large 37mm diameter tubes on the FEISOL CT-3371 (3 section) legs.
i consider feisol a good product. not as nicely finished as the gitzo but will do the same job in the equivilent class (26lb support). i own both a gitzo GT2540EX and a Feisol CT3371. mine is a very early rendition of this tripod and it has been improved from its humble beginning http://k43.pbase.com/g6/89/44489/3/76384155.AmcKQTD6.jpg
As John said, a good tripod is actually a very complex piece of engineering, a cheap tripod is well errr just a cheap tripod really.
I have a Gitzo 5560SGT, a 6x carbon 5 leg tripod. It is incredibly steady. While my previous Manfrotto was strong, with a big lens on top in windy conditions it was not so steady, very little moves the Gitzo!
A centre column? Depends really. Personally I prefer longer legs and a heavier tripod and no centre column that a lighter tripod with a centre column, but that is only because I never really found a centre column that was very good and with most of my lenses I wouldn't want a centre column. I use a tripod in pretty much 2 ways, flat and legs splayed out with me lying behind it or extended enough so that I can comfortably use a super telephoto without having to hunch, I am 6'4" and hate hunching!
I never used a Feisol but if your budget will run to a carbon Gitzo then you can pretty much forget buying another tripod ever again.
therock wrote:
My Hakuba tripod will shake if you look at it. My questions are.
Do the better ones shake that much less?
Should a center column be avoided?
Why would one choose between 3 or 4 tube legs?
Yep.
Yep. Because once you raise that single column you star losing the stability you spent all that money on.
4-section legs are for convenience in carrying at the cost of a bit of stability.
Stick with the better brands. Gitzo is obviously the top of the heap. Then Bogen/Manfrotto, Velbon, Slik Pro, Giottos, Feisol. Each of those has a following around here.
I have a Giottos, and as far as I can tell I have about 80-90% of the functionality of a Gitzo for 50% the price. That is the general sentiment I've seen from Feisol users as well.
It all depends on how much weight you're putting on the tripod and the size of the tripod. But "shake" is not a word that I would associate with any of the Gitzo's I have used or currently use. I think a Gitzo that weighs 3 lbs (the 2530/2540) could easily hold any combo of the equipment you currently own (To me, 3 lbs is light enough for hiking; you can go a little lower in tripod weight but you're not really saving much. For example, 2.5 lbs vs 3 lbs.) Add another 1lb to the 2530/2540 weight and get a "3-series" tripod (the 3530LSV) and you could put a 600mm lense on the thing with no problem. And if the tripod is strong enough and the camera/lense weight is moderate enough, you can raise a center column a few inches with little problem.
It will probably depend on which tripod and equipment you're using. Looks like the 2-series tripods all require center columns to get up above 52-54 inches. So if you need to go higher than that, using a center column to go up a few for your lightest equipment should be fine. For a 3-4 lb lense, however, you might start to run into issues so either don't use the center column and bend down a bit, or get a 3-series and never worry about shake issues again.
in the real world there are to many external non linear factors that impose themselves on the object (tripod) at hand to be filtered out completely. in short a good tripod still is not a perfect instrument no matter how complexly someone engineers it not to move because you still need to put the camera on it and use it. and this is where things start to fall apart. we don't shoot in a vacuum.
sjms wrote:
in the real world there are to many external non linear factors that impose themselves on the object (tripod) at hand to be filtered out completely. in short a good tripod still is not a perfect instrument no matter how complexly someone engineers it not to move because you still need to put the camera on it and use it. and this is where things stare to fall apart. we don't shoot in a vacuum.
your point being what? I'm not sure I see where this goes.
as was said once before the tripod by itself will do one thing load it with various cameras and lenses it will do another. bring it to a beach on sand yet another, in a concrete basement floor another on solid granite another. too many factors no real answer no optimum component (tripod). you cannot take a tripod on its own merit. too many other things involved that make or break the chain.
