Which Tripod?

Dave Tolcher · Post by **Dave Tolcher** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:19 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Joanna, have you considered one of the long 'arca' plates with 2 tripod screws for the SV ? They are designed for 500mm F4 / 400mm F2.8 / 600mm F4 SLR lenses and can be bought very cheaply on ebay from china. I got one and it has revolutionised my tripod set-up with the SV - admittedly I have a ballhead with arca QR. Two advantages:
1) Ability to set up the middle of the camera over the tripod head giving much better balance cf using either front or rear sockets and
2) Zero flex on the plate.

With the ability to balance the camera perfectly for each lens in use I can get away with the small kirk ball head (Bh-3) or the acratech on a MF055 4 section providing it isnt too windy and I dont need too much height.

I have tried 410 and wasnt happy enough with it mainly due to a bit of flex and it was heavier than my BH-3. I had a small FLM head about 3 yrs ago and it was not smooth, very poor cf a kirk/arca/acratech.

Dave

Jonathan Perkins · Post by **Jonathan Perkins** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:35 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

I use the 055PROB and have replaced the long centre column with the short one to save a little weight and allow usage close to the ground. The main problem with this tripod is that its only really solid when using about 2 1/2 leg sections - pull the thin section out and it flexes too much. Also only having plastic feet its really useless on soft ground - bounces around all over the place. I'm looking at long term replacing it with a CF Gitzo, just not sure what one yet (like the height of the 3541XLS - don't want to use a centre column at all, just not sure if its bulk would annoy me).

I like the Arca Swiss plate system - one reason why I stuck with a ball head. On my 45S I use a Really Right Stuff B22 plate that has a lip and fits the camera base plate with absolutely no flex. I wish there was a 410 with arca swiss style clamp!

lostlandsuk · Post by **lostlandsuk** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Never used an FLM, though I like the look and the idea of all that weight saving.
Gitzo low profiles are nice (Steve Mulligan recommends them for his Toyo).
I for my sins own a Series 5 low profile! It was ex-British Museum, weighs a ton, but was dirt cheap and battered to bits. It cleaned up beautifully, and is as solid as a rock in every situation.
It's the sort of thing Archaeologists will be pondering over in 20 000 years time (and feels like it after 10 miles)

Thingy · Post by **Thingy** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:37 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Patrick Dixon wrote:Tim,

Gitzo seem unbelievably (and in my case unjustifiably) expensive. What's so special about them? There's also an outfit called Red Snapper who make a couple of 'gitzo' looking tripods.

Gitzo tripods are made to last a lifetime, whereas the cheaper Manfrottos (made in the same factory as the Gitzos) are not. Gitzos are expensive because they are assembled by hand and use the latest innovations. Manfrottos are machine assembled. I still have the Gitzo Studex 2 tripod I bought 25 years ago (it cost me two weeks pay, when I bought it!). By contrast none of the other tripods I bought survived more than a few years. My recent CF Gitzo tripods have costed me arounfd the same proportion of my salary today, but I know they will outlive me!

timparkin · Post by **timparkin** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:22 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Patrick Dixon wrote: Gitzo seem unbelievably (and in my case unjustifiably) expensive. What's so special about them? There's also an outfit called Red Snapper who make a couple of 'gitzo' looking tripods.

The main thing about Gitzo tripods seems to be the rigidity of their construction. The gear is just so solidly put together that they are a pleasure to use. However, the price is high and so an alternative like Feisol (which I've seen and am impressed with, although not as impressed as Gitzo) probably makes sense..

Patrick Dixon wrote: Cullman aren't exactly a new company. I've had a fold up tripod (Magic) of theirs for at least 25 years although it's only useful as a monopod these day because one of the leg twist locks broke. I still have the ball head, but it's not up to LF I'm afraid.

You should at least take a look at the new heads just to see..

As for load figures on heads, they do seem pretty arbitrary. The Cullman heads at least measure load capacity in Nm (Torque) which actually means something.. If you take an Ebony 45SU at full extension and at 45 degrees with a medium size lens you have approx 3.5Kg (Camera+Lens) at about 15cm (the camera is 20cm high plus 20cm of extension makes 30cm as a radius. the average distance will be 15cm) which works out as about 6 Nm I think.

Most heads designed for SLR's need to cope with very large weights at large distances from the head (e.g. most of the weight in a large format camera is in the base - generally light lenses whereas in an SLR telephoto, most of the weight is at the end of a long lens) so in some ways large format is only as demanding as SLR Telephoto useage.

Tim

Tim

Thingy · Post by **Thingy** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:50 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

You could always invest in a BH-55 ballhead from Really Right Stuff. Then again, if you think Gitzo's cost too much.......

http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/items.a ... =0&Tp=&Bc=

Patrick Dixon · Post by **Patrick Dixon** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:53 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

At least if I ever make a decent picture I'll know it's not just down to the equipment

Patrick Dixon · Post by **Patrick Dixon** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:55 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

timparkin wrote: You should at least take a look at the new heads just to see.

Yes, they do look good.

jennym · Post by **jennym** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:13 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

I am thinking of buying a Feisol CF tripod which are light and cheaper than a Gitzo. Kerry Thalmann reckons they are the best value CF tripod, and has been really helpful with some questions. It may be worth checking out his website (Reallybigcameras.com) if you are interested. My problem is that I really want two tripods! A light one for backpacking and a sturdier one for closer to the car....

Jenny

Dave Tolcher · Post by **Dave Tolcher** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:23 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Yes, I think that is where most end up and the compromises arent easy ones. I have a 1548 which is the easy bit, tried and have got various lighter weight options but none are comparable to the 1548 so I always feel as if they are inadequate. Same with the Kirk BH-1 - its just so lovely to use that anything else feels insecure and inadequate. Nowadays I just carry the 1548 and BH-1 and lighten the pack by disposing of lenses, film and back up paraphenalia (like a 2nd meter !). Feisol does have a good reputation but I have never owned/used/seen one.

TimH · Post by **TimH** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:24 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

I bought a CT-3472 - Large Tournament Class Carbon Fibre Tripod from the UK importer as he only lives about 5 miles down the road from me. This was originally to use with a Nikon D2X with lens up to about 500mm in 35mm film equivalent. The current price seems to be discounted :-
http://www.feisoluk.com/Tripods-Tournam ... _info.html
I live not far from Dave Tolcher In Southampton if anyone wants to have a butchers at one - indeed I did take it along to the last but one (Keswick) workshop when I was still a digital shooter tho' now Im a convert having bought Daves Ebony 45s - cheers Dave....

Mike M · Post by **Mike M** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:27 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

The only difference that I found between my Gitzo and Feisol tripods was that the Gitzo had anti-twist legs. Both very nice tripods but I wouldnt lose any sleep if you cant afford the Gitzo, the Feisol does the job just aswell IMO.

TimH · Post by **TimH** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:32 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

oops - should be 3 section version - CT-3372 which is er not discounted at moment - still cheaper that a Gitzo

timparkin · Post by **timparkin** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:46 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Mike M wrote:The only difference that I found between my Gitzo and Feisol tripods was that the Gitzo had anti-twist legs. Both very nice tripods but I wouldnt lose any sleep if you cant afford the Gitzo, the Feisol does the job just aswell IMO.

The Feisol's are a lot wider diameter legs for the same spec from what I've seen. Also, a friend (Dav Thomas) couldn't get long spikes for the Feisol but it was easy to get some made up. If I was on a budget I would be very happy with the Feisol.. I would rather skimp a little bit on the tripod than on the head too..

I should have added... in terms of compromise, there is no single solution. If you walk long distance mostly, get a lightweight tripod and save up for a sturdy strolling companion. If you never really walk more than a mile, get something really solid, it will pay dividends.

Oh! And as for maximum height, don't judge it by "how much do I need to get to eye height?" - when you are working on a hill you need another foot in order to acheive this. Also, the amount of times I've found a composition viewpoint that meant standing on something and been able to take the shot bought the extra tall tripod is far from insignificant (I bought the 3540XLS and probably use the bottom legs at least every four shots).

Tim

Dave Tolcher · Post by **Dave Tolcher** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:00 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Tim has a really good point about tripod height. I had a bottom section lock up on my Gitzo which meant I couldnt get above head height and I hadnt realised how much I used it. The 3-4 mth wait for parts meant that I had to buy a second tripod. Gitzo distributor had moved to Bogen and had no parts so had to wait for shipment from Italy. I was appalled for a professional piece of kit and talking to various suppliers who were equally very unhappy.

I dont know what support is like from other mfrs but with the grip locks you can almost gurantee that you will get a lock up at some point and in some cases cannot be freed. Now I always have my lower section out by 6in to stop crap getting in the lowest joint and seems to be better. Long spike would be equally good.