Some aluminum tripods ring like bells, other don't. I've seen crappy wooden tripods, and I've seen really good ones. The metal field cameras I've owned have been less susceptible to vibrations than the wooden field cameras I've owned, but my big wooden Century portrait camera is the sturdiest I have, and also the heaviest, bulkiest....
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Roger, although I agree with you, it has been found that woodpeckers don't tap on metal tripods - they go for the wood...Originally Posted by Roger Cole
Got nothin to do with me trying to be an expert. It's been the consensus is several
diverse trades for a long time. Ries hasn't been in business ever since the 1920's
for a reason; and people certainly knew how to fabricate steel and aluminum back
then too.
Sorry about all my typo double negatives - one gets the point. And those damn woodpeckers will tap on aluminum. I grew up in a redwood house with an aluminum roof
and it was certainly obviously from the sounds what those guys were working on. The
funniest ones would fly to the crest of the corrugated alum roof on the school gym
and see an uncaulked spot in the joint and drop an acorn in there. You'd hear it rattle
clear down the sides until it fell down onto the floor when you were playing basketball.
Here ya go, Drew:
“I totally agree with the notion that vibration and material composition are related.”
;^)
-----
In many, many (most?) cases, excellent technique trumps an expensive tripod.
If one’s objectives & set-up conditions call, say, only for more mass, a cheap tripod might be the best choice for the shot. Other shots might clearly benefit from expensive tripod materials & expensive tripod designs – (i.e., the other two chief variables) – with mass playing an insignificant role. [Source: personal field notes]
Oh I do miss waking up to the antics of those woodpeckers up in the hills. A lot of
buildings had metal roofs due to forest fire risk, but were otherwise built of decay
resistant cedar or redwood lumber. The woodpeckers were such a nuisance that the
local high school at one point had a guy on staff full-time walking around with a .22.
These were acorn woopeckers. Across the river the Lewis woodpeckers were even worse, and there was an abandoned cedar miner's cabin so peppered with holes that
it attracted postcard photographers from all over, until it finally fell completely apart.
And yeah, I've seen those damn birds eyeing my tripod too.
When I had my C-1 (green monster) I used it with a J-100 Ries. The J is for junior. Never even had to think about it. 'nuff said...
Wood is good !! Wood looks great. Wood insulates and isolates. Wood, like an AK never jams. Wood is like an old trusted friend -- never lets you down. When in the sticks I use sticks. In the city - you guessed, sticks. Some thoughts on wood tripods - go wood.
If you want the ultimate tripod, go for the Berlebach. Read this test if you want to actually see how a wooden tripod absorbs vibrations (it is in German, but the images of the laserpointer speak for themselves):
http://www.berlebach.de/anleitungen/49.pdf
I have a day job which largely consists of shooting holes in stuff like this. I don't read German but aside from the fact that this seens to be a manufacturers self-conducted report, the laser pointer chart for the Berlebach Report 2022 seems identical (or, even less prone to movement) to the Giotto MT 8170 which is a carbon fiber tripod. Anyway, there's a logical fallacy suggested in these charts, even if we assume that they show superior performance of wooden tripods: Because wooden tripods show tighter laser pointer charts is not necessary BECAUSE they're wooden. Correlation is not causation. What were the cirumstances of the tests? How many tests were done? On how many tripods? What was the variation between different copies of the same tripod model? What was the effect of weight differences? How far were the legs splayed? How are the tripod weights distributed (higher or lower?) etc etc. We'd need all that info to take these charts seriously.
Oh, and lets not forget the dampening effect of the rubber feet. All the tested tripods had the same rubber feet, right?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks