what is your suggestion for a sturdy tripod?

[Manfred M]

Lex - having had a traditionally cast frame on cheap tripod (Slik; and no it wasn't mine) fail on me at an inopportune time due to poor casting (gas inclusions and crack propogation was detectable by naked eye) just got me wondering about why this technique is being used for a premium product. Yes, it does work, no question about it, but it doesn't say "state of the art" product either.

[Nancy Moran G]

What is advantage of NOT having a center column when doing long exposure-stability?
( is center column the 'neck' I can crank up higher to eye level? )
Yes, I have a cheapie, but looking to improve.
Nancy

[Inkanyezi]

What is advantage of NOT having a center column when doing long exposure-stability?
( is center column the 'neck' I can crank up higher to eye level? )
Yes, I have a cheapie, but looking to improve.
Nancy

Fact is that the most rigid part of a tripod is where the legs meet. Of course a centre column does not much harm when it is fully retracted and the head rests upon the junction of the three legs, but the recommendation is that the tripod should reach eye level without extending the centre column.

[Colin Southern]

What is advantage of NOT having a center column when doing long exposure-stability?
( is center column the 'neck' I can crank up higher to eye level? )
Yes, I have a cheapie, but looking to improve.
Nancy

Tripods are one of those things where folks need to take a step back and think through how they're going to use it and with what equipment. I use a Gitzo 1548; it doesn't have a centre column, it's built like a tank, but then again, I'm exposing for up to 40 minutes at a time - with heavy equipment - sometimes in strong winds - and for that it does the job well. On the flip side though, when I'm doing art reproduction in the studio it's not the most convenient to "raise the camera up 6 inches" because it doesn't have that centre column - and in that situation even a 30 Velbon would work just fine, but in contrast, the $30 Velbon would be swinging like the pendulum of a grandfather clock in some of the other situations I use it in.

Generally you'll hear the purists saying that a centre column is less stable, but unless your exposures are running to several minutes and/or in strong breezes (and assuming that it's an appropriate strength tripod to start with) then you should be fine with one that has a centre column.

[Ady]

... the recommendation is that the tripod should reach eye level without extending the centre column.

That would be nice but I have had real trouble finding anything tall enough. Last time I was measured bare foot I was just over 6'4" (so not what you'd call freakishly tall) but add in a pair of walking boots and the tallest of my tripods is only just at eye level with the centre column fully extended.

Ideally I'd like something robust (going to survive being dragged around coasts and moors in all weather) and stable that hits 6'+ without a centre column, but so far I've not had any luck. Does anyone know of something suitable?

Cheers,
Ady

[Colin Southern]

That would be nice but I have had real trouble finding anything tall enough. Last time I was measured bare foot I was just over 6'4" (so not what you'd call freakishly tall) but add in a pair of walking boots and the tallest of my tripods is only just at eye level with the centre column fully extended.

Ideally I'd like something robust (going to survive being dragged around coasts and moors in all weather) and stable that hits 6'+ without a centre column, but so far I've not had any luck. Does anyone know of something suitable?

Cheers,
Ady

Gitzo 1548GT

[Polar01]

Ady: take a look at the following link, Manfred uses the CT-3372LV and I use the CT-3472LV which I have found to be excellent. Now if you are looking for something tall then look at the second link Really Right Stuff.

http://www.feisolcanada.com/?pr-categ=tripod

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl...code=46&key=fr

Cheers: Allan

[Ady]

Couldn't find the 1548GT (not in the UK anyway) but thanks for pointing me in the right direction, now looking at the Gitzo GT3542XLS, 200cm without centre column

Cheers,
Ady

[Colin Southern]

Couldn't find the 1548GT (not in the UK anyway) but thanks for pointing me in the right direction, now looking at the Gitzo GT3542XLS, 200cm without centre column

Cheers,
Ady

No worries. It's probably discontinued now.

I recall seeing an average height guy standing on a stool using one - they were like a standard 1548, but with an extra segment.

Here's some FM reviews of it ...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp/product/144

[Ady]

Thanks Allan, just seen your post.

I've not come across the Really Right Stuff over here but they do some nice looking kit.

That's fabulous, I've some choices now.

Cheers,
Ady

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Allan, just seen your post.

I've not come across the Really Right Stuff over here but they do some nice looking kit.

That's fabulous, I've some choices now.

Cheers,
Ady

I've got a wee bit of RRS product and they're always 2 things ...

- Exceptionally well engineered, and

- Expensive.

For the likes of a tripod though - if you can get over the price - you'll be getting top-shelf quality (on-par with Gitzo IMO).

[Ady]

Hi Colin,

well I didn't fall of my chair at the prices attached to the Gitzo's so I'm happy that I have some options open to me.

To everyone: I sometimes have to remind myself what a fantastic community there is here, which is unforgivable, especially when compared to some of the other online photographic communities I've dipped in and rapidly back out of.

Thanks to all!

Ady

[Manfred M]

What is advantage of NOT having a center column when doing long exposure-stability?
( is center column the 'neck' I can crank up higher to eye level? )
Yes, I have a cheapie, but looking to improve.
Nancy

Let me try to explain this in layman's terms.

Go outside and find a twig or tree branch that is 1/2" - 1.25 cm in diameter. Hold it in one hand and try to bend it with the other hand. It bends, lots. Slide the two hands closer together and try bending it. As your hands get closer and closer, it will get harder and harder to bend, but there will still be a bit of bending.

Now find a 2" / 5 cm diameter branch and repeat the same experiment. You might get a tiny bit of movement out if your hands are a long way apart, but get them closer together, and you won't b able to bend it at all.

The tripod with the column (or neck as you describe it) is the equivilent of the thin branch; the farther away your hands are (i.e. the more the column is extended), the more flex and movement there is. Even when the hands are close together, there will still be some ability to move it.

The diameter of the frame, like the large branch held with your hands close together, results in a very stiff, rigid and mechanically strong place to attach your camera to. The centre column,due to its smaller diameter will always be less rigid than the columnless design.

[Inkanyezi]

That would be nice but I have had real trouble finding anything tall enough. Last time I was measured bare foot I was just over 6'4" (so not what you'd call freakishly tall) but add in a pair of walking boots and the tallest of my tripods is only just at eye level with the centre column fully extended.

Ideally I'd like something robust (going to survive being dragged around coasts and moors in all weather) and stable that hits 6'+ without a centre column, but so far I've not had any luck. Does anyone know of something suitable?

Cheers,
Ady

Glad you got relevant answers. Us smaller guys won't have the same trouble finding a suitable tripod. I'm 5'4".

The one in the image is a Bilora Rotax, also a very sturdy tripod and among the easiest to set up, as it has automatic leg locks. It's been around for some 40+ years, I must have got it used about 1967. I found it easier to handle than the Gitzo, as it did not need any force to lock the legs.

There's a maker of very good tripods here in Sweden, where one can actually order a tripod to size. http://www.stabil.nu/7.html

[Glenn NK]

As Colin demonstrated in his linked post, strength is seldom the problem with tripods; the problem is that they are often not stiff enough. In post #33, Manfred explained very clearly what stiffness is all about.

I'll take it a bit further using physics/math.

The following applies:

The stiffness of any prismatic section (tripod legs) = E.I/L, where:
E is the modulus of elasticity (Young's modulus)
I is the moment of intertia,
L is the length of the section.

The larger the diameter, the stiffer the legs will be; the longer the legs, the less stiff they will be.

For a given material (CF or Al), the "E" value is fixed as it is a material property, and for a given tripod height, the lengths are pretty well fixed, leaving "I" as the variable of concern.

In the equation for a hollow round section for "I", the diameter is taken to the fourth power, so the diameter has a huge effect on the stiffness of the tripod.

I measured the diameters of the legs of my tripod:
largest 28 and 24 mm (inner and outer diameters)
medium 24 and 20 mm
smallest 20 and 16 mm

The stiffness of the largest section is 1.71 times as stiff as the medium section.
The stiffness of the medium section is 1.91 times as stiff as the smallest section.

A few things can be learned from this:

1) Buy the largest diameter legs you can afford and carry (see 4 below).

2) If at all possible, don't extend the smallest sections.

3) Since the centre column is usually the same diameter as the largest section, if it is raised a few inches, it won't have much effect on the overall stiffness.

4) The weight of a tubular section varies as the first power of the diameter, weight doesn't grow as fast as stiffness with increase in leg diameter.

Glenn

[Colin Southern]

As Colin demonstrated in his linked post, strength is seldom the problem with tripods; the problem is that they are often not stiff enough. In post #33, Manfred explained very clearly what stiffness is all about.

I'll take it a bit further using physics/math.

The following applies:

The stiffness of any prismatic section (tripod legs) = E.I/L, where:
E is the modulus of elasticity (Young's modulus)
I is the moment of intertia,
L is the length of the section.

The larger the diameter, the stiffer the legs will be; the longer the legs, the less stiff they will be.

For a given material (CF or Al), the "E" value is fixed as it is a material property, and for a given tripod height, the lengths are pretty well fixed, leaving "I" as the variable of concern.

In the equation for a hollow round section for "I", the diameter is taken to the fourth power, so the diameter has a huge effect on the stiffness of the tripod.

I measured the diameters of the legs of my tripod:
largest 28 and 24 mm (inner and outer diameters)
medium 24 and 20 mm
smallest 20 and 16 mm

The stiffness of the largest section is 1.71 times as stiff as the medium section.
The stiffness of the medium section is 1.91 times as stiff as the smallest section.

A few things can be learned from this:

1) Buy the largest diameter legs you can afford and carry (see 4 below).

2) If at all possible, don't extend the smallest sections.

3) Since the centre column is usually the same diameter as the largest section, if it is raised a few inches, it won't have much effect on the overall stiffness.

4) The weight of a tubular section varies as the first power of the diameter, weight doesn't grow as fast as stiffness with increase in leg diameter.

Glenn

When discussing tripods and stiffness, I think most people are still thinking "inside the box" in that they're assuming that the tripod is only going to be used at eye-level. In reality though the weight rating and stiffness characteristics are for when the legs are fully splayed, eg for shots like this (don't try this with your average Velbon!).

[Jim35010]

I have a Manfrotto O55x proB. It may not be the answer to any of your needs, but it does fine for me. I take a lot of photos from old snapshots and school year books, so I like the center column, and I have a ball head on it that helps with alignment. I also like it for flower Macro shots!
Now granted I don't take "long" exposures, but a couple minutes is not unrealistic. Now it is heavy, but I feel the trade off is with the stability I have for the money it cost.
So just my view, and what I use.
Jim