Formula for a Universal Tripod

[Steve Hamley]

The problem with "light" as in 2 pounds, is that you have this (normally) 12-14 pound thing sitting atop a 2 pound thing, and guess what? It's very, very top heavy. As in falling over on slopes, in wind, etc. You don't have this issue with a fly rod.

IMO you need some semblance of balance between tripod and camera weight for the combination to work well under field conditions.

So if you want a very light tripod, you need and extremely light 8x10, like the Wehman or Phillips. Also, you can get by with less tripod if you don't use very long lenses. A tripod that will barely work for an 8x10 with a 240mm lens may not work well with a 480mm or 600mm lens.

Cheers, Steve

[Gem Singer]

There needs to be a balance between the weight of the camera and the weight of the tripod.

That's why many light weight tripods include a hook on the bottom of the center upright that is designed to attach a weighted object like a camera bag, etc. in order to lower the center of gravity.

When i see a fellow photog. using a spider-legged tripod along with a heavy-weight LF camera, I wonder what he hopes to gain by reducing the weight of his tripod and therefore weakening it's strength.

Bamboo is light in weight, but prone to breakage. I broke two expensive bamboo flyrods before i learned that lesson.

Bamboo is not the material of choice for making fishing rods, or tripods.

[emo supremo]

Hey fellow gearnuts, the next time you are all together do me a favot and duct tape your coffee cups to your respective tripods and let us now which models make the surface jitter more. I wonder what nutty threadtitle we could give that multinational project.

I'm enjoying this discussion. Has anyone ever don testing on their tripods by putting a cup of water on the legs, the center post, etc. and observed how vibration is handled or damped by the different weight tripods. Is massive better? Is material better? Is three vs four legs better?

In the middle ages all they had was stone. They built magnificent cathedrals. But Notre Dam (flying buttresses) show the limitations of that material. Cast iron became available in the 19th century. Look at the effect (sky scrapers). The Trade Center-building style is yet another manifestation of what happens when one part of science rubs up against an unrelated discipline...they give out Nobel awards for that type of stuff.

BTW: I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) wood is still a contender here for the 'best' tripod leg material for dampening vibration.

So does "massive" translate into less vibration or does material science win the award for better stability?

PS, please don't say, "buy the tripod"... I hang my head in shame because I "solved" my problem by throwing money at it, kinda like what governments do. But I'm going to get down to the bottom of this.

[Archphoto]

I don't think there is an universal tripod and not even a formula for it as each camera has diferent requirements.
A tripod designed for a Sinar P2 8x10, like I have, a Gitzo Studex Performance, is great from 6x6 upto the Sinar, but is severe overkill for a 35mm.

In electronics and electrical systems there is a rule that you take that power supply that will do for the maximum given task, even if the power requierments are sometimes lower.

With back-problems go for a 8x10 that is light in weight yet stable, so you can choose a "light weight" tripod for 6x6 upto 8x10.

I went that way and now I can use 35mm, 6x7 (RB) and a Shen Hao (4x5) on my Mandrotto 055DBX with 410 geared head.

Peter

[weasel]

I have never done the cup of water test, but have taped a laser pointer to camera/tripod combos to see how much it bounces around on the wall

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Typically, more mass--not less-- is helpful to overcoming camera vibration. Too, anyone coming from a fishing background may also be challenged to understand how CF so quickly became the lightweight tripod alternative. From a manufacturing perspective, CF is stiff, cheap, and ubiquitous. But from an engineering standpoint it's famous not for its vibration-dampening properties but precisely the opposite-- the transmission of first-order vibrations. CF also tends to fail catastrophically after a hard knock.

My aluminum 3221 Bogen legs are 20 years old and quite battered-- all the lever locks have been replaced twice, as has the hub. No doubt I'd smash a CF tripod in a matter of weeks or months with the treatment it gets lashed to my pack and banging against rocks when I'm scrambling over, around, and under them hereabouts.

Wood makes infinitely more sense than either aluminum or CF, particularly when photographing storms that may drop bolts of lightning. Sticking with composites, I'd like to see something made of Spectra (which is stiff like CF but similar to many varieties of wood, is vibration-absorbing).

[John T]

If you have an iPod Touch or iPhone, there is a free app called iSeismometer. A .99 app called Seismometer has more adjustments Works great to show how long it takes tripods to stop vibrating with the camera in position-something I wouldn't do with the water method.

[erie patsellis]

By far the best tripod I have ever used in my studio is my 9' Cambo UST stand, however I'd hate to have to schlep it anywhere, ever rolling it around the studio is a chore. I have a couple of older Gitzos (A studex and tele-studex) that go everywhere with me, but light isn't the first word that comes to mind. I had a Baco tripod once (similar to the Ries) that was wonderful, light, stable, and with the tilt head, did everything I needed for my 8x10 B&J Commercial. I'd second (or third, fourth) the Ries reccomendation, or take a look at the Berlebach tripods, I've heard some good things about those as well, and you eliminate the need for a tripod head as well.