Tripod Overkill

[Fotoguy20d]

I know the question of "which tripod should I buy" has been done to death but I'm going to come at it a bit differently. A couple of years ago, when I got into LF, I asked the question and based on the responses, I bought a Bogen 3021/3047 for my Speed Graphic and GV-II. I've since used it with my Eastman 2-D (8x10) but didn't think it was quite big enough (plus, I needed a second tripod). So, I just picked up a 3051/3047 and 3036/3047 locally, along with a Bogen monopod with 3025 head. The price was right (I think), and they didn't seem so big when I was buying them but once I put them beside their little brother, they dwarf the 3021. So, I guess my question is, how much overkill are these things? What can they really carry? I've never actually had a problem with motion blur using the 2D on the 3021 so which one should I be using (or which one can I get away with)

Thanks,
Dan

[Ash]

I can't help on specifics, but I've used tripods from telescopic metal legged travel ones (built around 60 years ago) to 6ft solid wood legs for surveying.

I realised that if the pictures are important I'll take the heavier legged tripod I bought recently, but if I'm traveling light I'll take a baby one.

I was using 5x4's on a cheap plastic and metal tripod for ages til I could afford a better one.

In fact an indoor shot (slow shutter) taken with an RB67 using the travel tripod is going to be used for all sorts of press for an artist. The tripod held the camera but only just. It held it still, no shake. It was better to have the weak tripod than nothing at all.

If I could carry a beast of a tripod everywhere I would.

[Bob Kerner]

They aren't overkill when you need them, that's for sure.

Rather than comparing sheer size, how do you feel lifting and moving them? Do you find the new legs to be too big? That's the threshold question because if you think they are too big, you'll probably leave them home.

I have a monster Sachtler that I use for a pro video camera but I also put my SLR on it from time to time when I don't have to carry it for any length. I'd always pick "bigger" if I'm working from the car or inside; always "smaller" if I have to carry it more than a few blocks. It's overkill, for sure, for the SLR, but I have it, it's a work of precision engineering so I might as well use it.

[biglewsmi]

I use a monster Davis and Sanford video tripod. It's big and it's heavy, but the features far outweigh those shortcomings. For example I can raise this thing to about ceiling height. This is great for shooting over crowds or over fences when they surround the building I'm photographing. I carry a little step ladder to raise me to camera height and it works perfectly. Heck the center post is about 2 inch diameter, and rock solid and smooth. You should the look on folks faces when I send the air assisted column high above their heads. Overkill? Heck yes, but I do love this thing. Then again I don't do the hiking thing, I'm usually pretty close to my vehicle. If the shot requires walking I usually kick down to MF anyway with a liter tripod.

[Vaughn]

The tripods are fine -- you just need bigger cameras...

[Steve M Hostetter]

If I were you I'd try to work tward a carbon fiber tripod ! You can find em used on occasion but considering your camera weight you need to have the pod weight down to compensate for camera being heavy..

[eddie]

i use a 3021 with a 3047 head for most of my shooting. chamonix 4x5 up to kodad century universal. i use it mostly as it is tall enough that i do not need to raise the center column.

i also have a 3251 with a 3039 that i love. the little buttons that allow you to adjust the height quickly is awesome. then the side ones allow individual leg adjustments all from the top of the pod. i use this one for bigger cameras or if i am not going far...and in the studio.

i also got one of them HUGE Linholf beasts. i had to buy it....it was only $60 with head column etc etc......it never leaves the original resting spot in the studio...:)

[Brian Stein]

2 tripods = nearly enough tripods. Big and heavy for when you dont schlep it, smaller for when you do.

[Brian Ellis]

I've owned a Kodak 2D, a Bogen 3021, and a 3047 head. Never owned a 3051 or a 3036 though I've owned several similar Bogen tripods (e.g. the 3046).

The load capacity of both the 3051 and the 3036 is 26.4 lbs. However, the 3051 weighs 12.6 pounds and the 3036 weighs 9.8 lbs so obviously the 3036 is better for field use based on weight alone. The 3051 might also be a little on the short side for someone who's fairly tall because its maximum extension is 63 inches (and I never like to use any tripod at its maximum extension) whereas the 3036 goes up to 81 inches, more than you'd likely ever need in the field especially when the head and camera are added. Which means you wouldn't need to fully extend the legs to use the tripod, which is good. Both have geared center columns though I never use center columns with a LF camera.

I wouldn't use the 3021 with an 8x10 camera. I used mine mostly for an early digital camera and a Pentax 67 system. I might also have used it with light (4 lb) wood field cameras. But for me the 3021 would feel too insecure with a 2D mounted on it. I don't think either the 3036 or the 3051 is "overkill" for a 2D. Both should work fine, their load capacity is well above the weight of a 2D with lens but that's not unusual with many LF cameras.

I never used my 3047 with an 8x10 camera. Its load capacity (16.5 lbs) is right at the weight of your 2D with a lens. It might work fine, I've used plenty of tripods and heads that weighed more than the manufacturer's stated load capacity, but the 3047 would make me a little nervous with a 2D on it. I used the 3047 for medium format and some 4x5 wood cameras. For 8x10 I preferred a head with a larger mounting base, such as the Bogen 3057 which has a 4" square base but weighs the same as your 3047.

If weight isn't a big issue I'd just use whichever of the 3036 or 3051 feels easier to use, quicker to set up and take down, etc. If weight is an issue then the 3036 would be the better choice if it otherwise suits you. And I'd probably look for another head.

[Kevin Crisp]

So many of us have used the 3021/3047 combination. I used to use it with the Zone VI 8X10 (no lightweight) and it worked but was obviously too heavy for it and I was pressing my luck. It was just fine with 4x5 and 5x7. I know they are expensive, but I agree with the carbon fiber suggestion. I finally bought the Gitzo and it is just a pleasure to use. I have handled some of the Feisol ones and they seem like credible less expensive options.

[eddie]

but I agree with the carbon fiber suggestion.

i do noty like the twist lock legs on carbon fiber so i never got one. also the weight difference on a similar CF and my 3021 was like less than 2 pounds. i just could not justify spending all that money just to save like 2 pounds....

i sure would like to have a super light TP for my chamonix but again i find the smaller lighter ones too short for me (6'2") without raising the middle part (making it sway like crazy).

eddie

[Bill_1856]

TILTALL. From Leica to 5x7. After 70 years still the best combination of weight, price, stability, and reliability.

[John Koehrer]

Anyone remember the Ads for Bogen tripods that had Lester Bogen sitting on one of his tripods? With a plate of some sort I hope.

[rjmeyer314]

My first good tripod was a Bogen 3051 with a 3047 head. I've used it with everything from 35mm slr's up to my 4x5 Calumet monorail. I tried it with my Calumet C1 8x10 and thought that the part holding the detachable plate that screws to the camera was too light. The Bogen has worked fine with the C1, but I just don't trust it. I picked up a Majestic tripod for the C1 and I don't worry about that failing.

[neil poulsen]

My first good tripod was a Bogen 3051 with a 3047 head. I've used it with everything from 35mm slr's up to my 4x5 Calumet monorail. I tried it with my Calumet C1 8x10 and thought that the part holding the detachable plate that screws to the camera was too light. The Bogen has worked fine with the C1, but I just don't trust it. I picked up a Majestic tripod for the C1 and I don't worry about that failing.

That's my experience as well. I have the 475, which is the current model 3036. It's an excellent tripod. But, it was too light for a Calumet C1. It works very well with my 2D. My head is the 3039, which is the update from the 4047. The 475 and the 3039 make great combination.

With that said, I've been thinking about down-weighting my tripod. It gets a little heavy. I've not tried them myself, but you might take a look at Kerry Thalman's www.reallybigcameras.com. He has a selection of CF tripods that are a little more reasonable price wise.

[mentalcrisis00]

I have a 475B tripod with 3047 head. The only reason I have it is cause my parents gave it to me as a christmas present while I was in college some years ago. If they hadn't got it for me I would have went for something more conservative.

However even though this tripod weighs something like 8 pounds it's a great tripod for windy days where I'm not traveling more than a couple miles. If I need to keep my camera rock solid without worrying about it falling over in the wind I use the 475B because I have absolute confidence in it.

For traveling I recently bought a Benro Travel Angel with Bogen 494RC2 and let me tell you this thing is a godsend for traveling or backpacking. Extends to 55 inches, 8 pound capacity, weighs only alittle over a pound, and folds to 14.5 inches. If I have this thing strapped to my back I barely know it's there. Thing with this is that I wouldn't trust it holding my 4x5 on a windy day unattended for say long exposures. It holds my wista DX fine but it is so top heavy even with my DSLR I'm afraid it would blow right over. It does have a hook on the bottom to add extra weight but even with that I'd think twice.

I approach tripods like lenses, I have a different one for each situation. A heavy one for studio, and short range work and then an ultra light for backpacking and air travel. Having an "in between" tripod would be useless to me really. Seeming I wouldn't want to backpack with anything over 3 pounds or 16 inches folded and I'd rather have the heaviest tripod for work close to home.

[rjmeyer314]

I agree with the notion of having different tripods, in my case for different large format cameras. For my 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Agfa view camera I use a tiny Graflex Crown #1, for my Calumet 400 4x5 monorail view camera (analog of the Kodak Master View 4x5) I like my Bogen 3051, for my Seneca Competitor 8x10 (very light) I can get away with the Bogen 3051, for a Calumet C1 8x10 I use a Majestic, and for my 11x14 Seneca Improved I use either a Saltzman, a Sandford and Davis Air Lift, or a Graflex Professional. I have picked up other tripods (and cameras) over the past 30+ years, but these are the ones that get the most use currently. I follow the rule that if my tripod makes me nervous with a particular camera I move to a bigger one.

[Bruce Watson]

A couple of years ago, when I got into LF, I asked the question and based on the responses, I bought a Bogen 3021/3047 for my Speed Graphic and GV-II. I've since used it with my Eastman 2-D (8x10) but didn't think it was quite big enough...

Why, exactly, not? What was the tripod *not* able to do that you thought it should?

If you can't answer that question the tripod in question is clearly big enough. It might actually be too big for your needs (overkill). But it's not too small.

What we need in a tripod is just enough material to get the job done. I use a tiny Gitzo 1227, yet I seldom have a problem putting the camera where I need it to be, and I've never have a problem with camera movement during exposure. I've made exposures out to 2 minutes or so, and I've made exposures in driving rain/wind. I've used it in mountain streams, on sandy beaches, in winter snow. No tripod related problems to report.

That said, a number of people have told me that my tripod looks as if it's too small, that the proportions aren't right with the camera. Their perceptions clearly don't match reality. What they see as too small is clearly just right.

I'm just sayin' that there can be a pretty big difference between need and want when it comes to tripods.

[Lee Hamiel]

Anyone remember the Ads for Bogen tripods that had Lester Bogen sitting on one of his tripods? With a plate of some sort I hope.

One of my favorites

[engl]

What we need in a tripod is just enough material to get the job done. I use a tiny Gitzo 1227, yet I seldom have a problem putting the camera where I need it to be, and I've never have a problem with camera movement during exposure. I've made exposures out to 2 minutes or so, and I've made exposures in driving rain/wind. I've used it in mountain streams, on sandy beaches, in winter snow. No tripod related problems to report.

That said, a number of people have told me that my tripod looks as if it's too small, that the proportions aren't right with the camera. Their perceptions clearly don't match reality. What they see as too small is clearly just right.


I wonder this as well, how many have had images negatively affected by an insufficient tripod? I'm not saying it is not happening, but I've been looking through a lot of forums since I'm looking for a new tripod, and it seems nobody is ever talking about how their images improve when upgrading the tripod. Instead, the advantage is mostly quantified as "grabbing the top and shaking it, the new one feels more rigid" or "shaking/tapping the legs, the new one is better". This, combined with what you describe, "the old one looked too small" seems to be common reasons for an upgrade.

Around new year I was taking some photos in Tokyo. I found one night shot from a pedestrian overpass that was unfortunately disturbed by a cable hanging in front of the overpass. I have a Benro A258-M8 tripod I paid 110$ for, Chinese, aluminium, 4 pounds, 65 inches full height. There was a fair bit of wind (flags hanging in the photo are plenty blurred) and the overpass itself was not rock solid. I needed a 2 minute exposure, with the tripod at full height (including center column, which I usually don't use). The gear put on this surely insufficient tripod weighs 10 pounds (MPP Mk7 + Manfrotto 3047 + Nikon 65/4), 250% of the tripod weight.

If I believed half of the things claimed about tripods, I'd expect an image so badly blurred I'd be unsure where it was taken. Below I have attached a 100% crop of the image at 2000DPI, scanned with a consumer V700 (the full image is not post-processed yet but it will be available soon on my Flickr, http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/ ).

I'm not oblivious to the need of rigid support, I just wonder if requirements are not often exaggerated.

[Paul_C]

I'm not oblivious to the need of rigid support, I just wonder if requirements are not often exaggerated.

Maybe, but erring on the side of more-than-I-need rather than less seems sensible. I've never been annoyed by having too stable of a tripod.

[engl]

Yes, I do not disagree. Especially those shooting from their car or in a studio should "err" far on the safe side.

But buying an overkill tripod means buying a heavy tripod, which matters for those carrying it a lot. The heavier the gear, the shorter the trail chosen. In romantic theory the devoted photographer would do everything for the best shot, in practice there are few Sinar P2 8x10s on Majestic tripods/geared heads going up mountains.

Many photographers also do not have unlimited budgets, film/development or an airplane ticket to somewhere beautiful might be a better use of money than the latest Gitzo that they have been convinced is the only tripod under 2kg that will not result in a blurry mess.

Anyway, I only have my own observations from my cheap Benro and impressions from forums to go by, so I'm not going to pretend to be an authority on the subject. I'd like to hear more from those that have actually had tripods that proved insufficiently rigid when looking at the result.

[Dan Fromm]

I wonder this as well, how many have had images negatively affected by an insufficient tripod? I'm not saying it is not happening, but I've been looking through a lot of forums since I'm looking for a new tripod, and it seems nobody is ever talking about how their images improve when upgrading the tripod.

<snip>

I'm not oblivious to the need of rigid support, I just wonder if requirements are not often exaggerated.
Engl, I had horrible problems getting acceptable image quality with my Questar 700 when I supported it and a Nikon (several models) on a Bogen 3021(Manfrotto 055)/3047 (Manfrotto 029). The Q700 is a 700/8 (probably T/11) mirror lens made by Questar, best known for superb but expensive small reflecting telescopes. I suspected the problem was support, not the lens, because when I tried the lens out with flash at 1:4 (its close focusing distance) it gave shots on KM that couldn't be told from shots of the same subject at the same magnification taken with a 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor AIS at f/8.

One of my friends had two (2!) Q700s so I borrowed them and did a shoot out. Made sure that the head was very securely attached to the leg set and the quick release securely attached to the lens(es). Focused carefully, used the self-timer trick to minimize vibrations caused by the camera body. Short answer, my Q700 is fine, one of the borrowed ones is, the other borrowed one isn't quite as fine.

The problem turned out to be the 3021 tripod. It vibrates quite freely in torsion because the bearing surfaces between the leg sections are too short.

I replaced the 3021 with a Berlebach 8023 and now get much better shots with my Q700 when I focus it well. Berlebach tripods have much longer bearing surfaces between the leg sections than any of the metal or carbon fiber tripods I've looked at.

The 3021's lack of torsional stiffness was a problem only with long lenses.

Heads can be a problem too. I'm in the process of getting a "Baby Bertha," a long lens SLR that consists of a 2x3 Graflex RB Series B attached to a 2x3 Cambo SC, to work well enough. When I first assembled it, it was obvious that my 3047 head couldn't bear the weight. It flexed visibly, panning was very stiff. I replaced the 3047 with a 3039 (Manfrotto 229); that solved the head problem.

The 3047's limited capacity wasn't a problem with my Nikons, my 2x3 Graphics, my 2x3 tandem Graphic, or the Cambo used sensibly. But Baby Bertha is too heavy for it.

I had two relatively extreme situations. Long lens, very heavy camera. When my 900/10 Apo Saphir and its crutch come back from the machine shop the Bertha will give me both in one large clumsy package.

It may be time for me to get a good surveyor's tripod. I'm not willing to extend my 8043's lowest section with the Bertha on it. Fortunately, with the legs' middle sections extended and the legs spread wide (white marks on the leg stops) the RB is at just the right height for easy viewing.

To answer your question, yes indeed some tripods and heads aren't good enough for all uses. I took my 3021 and 3047 beyond their limits, had to upgrade. The upgrades worked.

Cheers,

Dan

[BrianShaw]

Anyone remember the Ads for Bogen tripods that had Lester Bogen sitting on one of his tripods? With a plate of some sort I hope.

That was the convincing arguement to get me to buy the 3051 way back when. I'm a sucker for those kind of ads.

I had just the opposite reaction, though, when the Mercedes salesman opened the door of the car I was about to buy and stood on the arm rest to demonstrate how tough a Mercedes door hinge is.

I still have that tripod and the 3047 head and use them whenever I feel I can muster up the strength to carry it.

[engl]

Thank you for sharing your experiences. I did not mean to sound like I'm saying "any tripod will support anything".

It seems that even with your fairly basic Manfrotto/Bogen setup, you had to push it very far before you ran into issues. 700mm is longer than 4x5 and 8x10 users mostly use, it is even longer than what most ULF shooters use. With small negatives the sharpness requirements are typically higher. Probably worse, the mirror lens and small 135-format body have a lot less inertia than a large format setup, or a 135-format setup with a non-mirror lens. On smaller formats, hand-holding a 500mm mirror lens is a lot more difficult than hand-holding a heavier plain 500mm tele.

The "Baby Bertha" you describe sounds like a very interesting setup, what are you going to use it for? I'm not going to argue that such a beast with a 900mm lens is going to need something exceptional to support it :)

[Dan Fromm]

engl, my little Q700 with a Nikon attached to it weighs more than a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic with any reasonable lens attached to it. The Q700 alone weighs more than 4 pounds. It isn't like those cheapie 500/8 mirror lenses that I think you have in mind. There's a little information about it here: http://www.cameraquest.com/questar.htm and here http://www.company7.com/questar/index.html

I'm not sure what I'm going to use Baby for. My tandem Graphic works with lenses up to 480 mm and I have a 480 for it. I've haven't yet found a situation near home that's needed the 480. Have found a few in Florida where the 480 was too short.

The shortest lens that will work on Baby is around 250 mm. I hope to find situations where an SLR's advantages over standard view camera are worth the trouble. I think I've solved the worst of Baby's problems (many sources of unsteadiness) . All being well I should be able to try to shoot some Snow Geese in February. If the 900 hasn't come back by then, there's the 610, 480, ... , down to 250 if it makes sense.

I'm going to have to change the way I look at things and also what I typically shoot to use the 900. I have a few local situations to try it on. Time to learn some more, eh?

[engl]

Without doubt the view camera format affects how I look at things and I'd fully expect the "Baby Bertha" with a 900mm lens to require a different mindset, resulting in different images. Best of luck :)

As for the Q700, yes, that thing looks considerably more substantial than I was expecting, having used a "cheapie" Sigma 600/8. Still, its a 700mm lens, tiny negative and less mass than all but the lightest 4x5 cameras alone.

[Bob Kerner]

I have the 1227 legs referred to in Bruce's earlier post. They've served well underneath 35mm cameras for years but they don't inspire confidence under a 4x5. Camera manipulation, particularly insertion and removal of film holders causes them to shake (not a big deal) and sometimes even causes the entire tripod to move. I know enough to let the tripod be still for a few moments before shooting, but when the legs move and cause the need to re-compose, that's annoying.

So I wouldn't say I've had shots ruined, but I do believe LF work warrants beefier legs than you'd put under a nikon with short lens because there's move manipulation of the camera and you need a sturdy platform.

I think most AV equipment is over-hyped, including sticks and heads. But I also believe you get what you pay for.

[Bill Burk]

Hi engl,
I think I can answer your question about how light you can go.

I use a Gitzo G1027. Most of the time it is sufficient for my lightweight rangefinder LF.

But I have had at least one shot ruined by steady wind. I could see the camera was shaking and even though I tried to time my shot to minimum shake, the wind never really let up and my shot of Sally Keyes Lakes just isn't sharp enough to print.

http://www.beefalobill.com/imgs/_MG_8232.JPG

Next time I will hang something heavy on the hook to increase stability.