There were 4 mentors on this trip. One used Gitzo, one used Induro, one used something so old, all identifiers were worn off (it was bare metal with lots of scratches but built like a tank, and I never heard of the brand before -- can't remember now). He used an equally old head, and surprisingly, it wasn't a ballhead. The fourth used a Bogen.
I have done quite a lot of research of CF vs. aluminum. First of all, because I live in Alaska, I would be doing a fairly large amount of photography in the negatives (farenheit). Aluminum would get too cold. CF would fix this. I could get pads on the aluminum tripod which would eliminate the temperature problem, but that just adds more weight and bulk to an already heavy tripod. CF is lighter than aluminum, so I could get a heavy duty tripod that doesn't weigh as much as an inferior aluminum tripod. CF also absorbs vibrations better than AL.
The Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 is 3.6 lbs. It can support 17.6 pounds. The Manfrotto 055XPROB is 5 lbs, and it can only support 15.4 lbs. Because CF is lighter than AL, it will enable faster setups and easier carrying on long hikes, etc.
Chris Noyes wrote:
I have no intention to spar with you about my post you felt compelled to comment on in a rather snide way. One of the Mentor photographers on a recent photo outing I attended at Arches National Park (Mentor Series Photo Workshops, sponsored by Popular Photography Magazine) was using an Induro. This photographer does quite a bit of this type of freelance work in addition to his very successful commercial work. This individual has been making is living through his photography work for over 25 years.
Let me know when Popular Photography invites you to be one of their mentors.
i in no way made a snide reply. its reality. you might as well realize that the truth in the marketplace is that whether you are willing to accept the fact that people are compensated to use gear. they do not necessarily have to openly promote it but just be seen with it. we all look to see what the next shooter is using. its in the nature of the beast. look at the way you can rattle off who had what and where. as to the PP Mentor program i carry enough paid work to support my bad habits and then some w/o out the need for compromise.
Nov 08, 2009 at 07:55 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Chris Noyes wrote:
I have no intention to spar with you about my post you felt compelled to comment on in a rather snide way. One of the Mentor photographers on a recent photo outing I attended at Arches National Park (Mentor Series Photo Workshops, sponsored by Popular Photography Magazine) was using an Induro. This photographer does quite a bit of this type of freelance work in addition to his very successful commercial work. This individual has been making is living through his photography work for over 25 years.
Let me know when Popular Photography invites you to be one of their mentors.
It's a bit funny Because last week you wrote nearly the same thing about ballheads. Then you had been on those workshops/photo outings also. And they gave support that your Manfrotto 488 RC2 ballhead with Manfrotto clamps where as good as the best from RRS & Markins with Arca-Swiss clamps
Lars Johnsson wrote:
(It doesn't matter but)
every serious amateur also have CF in my country. And many that only practise also. And they did have as many spares when they used alu before and they also did break even more parts of the bike before.
Or do you really belive that the Tour de France riders had better bikes 20 years ago
i ride a full carbon road bike, and love it. Im mearly saying it has some issues then again aluminum has fatigue issues of its own. PS, most pro bikes are stock and fitting is customized with stem post and so on. all this said as far as tripods are concerned i really dont see it being an issue
ishootsports3 wrote:
i ride a full carbon road bike, and love it. Im mearly saying it has some issues then again aluminum has fatigue issues of its own. PS, most pro bikes are stock and fitting is customized with stem post and so on. all this said as far as tripods are concerned i really dont see it being an issue
Lars Johnsson wrote:
It's a bit funny Because last week you wrote nearly the same thing about ballheads. Then you had been on those workshops/photo outings also. And they gave support that your Manfrotto 488 RC2 ballhead with Manfrotto clamps where as good as the best from RRS & Markins with Arca-Swiss clamps
You crack me up Lars! I never made any such assertion that comes close to what you just stated. I find amusing that you and others of your ilk like to twist, belittle or fabricate words of others to suit your petty needs.
In the ballhead thread, it was you that stated the manfrotto ballhead was in "a different league" than the Arca-Swiss camp, and that somehow it was "inferior". I simply called you out on your condescending remark and asked you fill in the missing details. However, someone else was polite enough to do that for you.
Also, I never stated that the Arca-Swiss products were inferior in any way, shape, or form as you claim. In fact, I did agree that there are features of the Arca-Swiss system some might find useful. Personally, I haven't had the need, nor desire to pursue those features because they aren't affecting my image quality. I could go on about this, but this is way off topic for this thread.
jonshonda wrote:
A good example of what your looking for is like asking for a Honda Accord with Rolls Royce components, and expecting to pay for a standard Accord. You are asking for the Superman of tripods, but not willing to pay for it. Just save your money, and get something that will last a lifetime.
That is good advice if you can save and wait awhile. When I started into photography a few years ago, I saw what a Gitzo cost and said "now way." Well after several carbon Manfrottos, I will be ordering a Gitzo. I would have saved money if I had gone "first class" to start with.
I'm ten years into a Gitzo 1228CF it's been all over USA/Central America/Europe, I live on the coast so it's been in salt water, salt marsh you name it and still going strong..it cost over $500 back in 99. I just grab it nearly every day and don't think about it, I'm on my second head.
SHVv wrote:
That is good advice if you can save and wait awhile. When I started into photography a few years ago, I saw what a Gitzo cost and said "now way." Well after several carbon Manfrottos, I will be ordering a Gitzo. I would have saved money if I had gone "first class" to start with.
Steve
depending on what model and what your willing to spend you might find that there is a tripod that is more then a notch or two above above certain models of the gitzo line and well within the price range. it is stronger and ligher in that same class too.
thedruid wrote:
I'm ten years into a Gitzo 1228CF it's been all over USA/Central America/Europe, I live on the coast so it's been in salt water, salt marsh you name it and still going strong..it cost over $500 back in 99. I just grab it nearly every day and don't think about it, I'm on my second head.
You've got me thinking about Gitzos again. I thought it was Manfrotto for me, but I am starting to rethink...for the 582nd time.
I have a Gitzo GT3541LS on order. For my needs, nature, birding, and portraits, this fits the bill. My criteria was (of course) price, height without a center column, and stability. With a gimbal head attached this should be just the right height for me, and I'm 6' tall.
It also folds down to 21.7" so will make traveling by airline a bit easier too!
Dave Good wrote:
I have a Gitzo GT3541LS on order. For my needs, nature, birding, and portraits, this fits the bill. My criteria was (of course) price, height without a center column, and stability. With a gimbal head attached this should be just the right height for me, and I'm 6' tall.
It also folds down to 21.7" so will make traveling by airline a bit easier too!
I evidently took the long road..... but in tripods....... you get what you pay for... I have wasted enough $$ on the same quest for a cheap tripod..... and finally arrived at 2541LLVL gitzo......... although I will say my 400 2.8 should really have something a little heavier....... like a 3541L gitzo or possibly a CX-414 Induro
Dpic_arctic wrote:
Thanks, Dave. Let me know how it works.
Well, I picked it up last night. It is considerably taller and sturdier than the Manfrotto 190XBPRO that it's replacing. It looks and feels as sturdy as it is, but it's surprisingly light.
First shots were this morning, high ISO shots just before sunrise. So far the "3541" has met with my expectations, but they sure don't give it away!
Dave Good wrote:
Well, I picked it up last night. It is considerably taller and sturdier than the Manfrotto 190XBPRO that it's replacing. It looks and feels as sturdy as it is, but it's surprisingly light.
First shots were this morning, high ISO shots just before sunrise. So far the "3541" has met with my expectations, but they sure don't give it away!
I went to a camera store in town, and I got to try a bunch of Manfrottos (no Gitzos there). I was impressed with the solidity of the 055CXPRO3, and the I loved its Q90 center column system. It had a nice height, unlike the 190CXPRO3 (the 190 was not as sturdy and I didn't like how short it was). The flip locks on all of them were very convenient. I can't imagine using twist locks. The 055XPROB was very solid as well, and had a nice height, but it WAS heavier because it is aluminum. So now I would rather go with the 055XPROB more than the 190CXPRO3, but the best would be the 055CXPRO3.
thats a given. i had one of the original 055 pro CF tripods and it did serve me well. the 190 is not an appropriate model for a growing interest in photography
