New FLM Ultralight Tripod for 8x10 and smaller

[Ari]

I'm currently using an 8.5-pound field camera (8x10) and I have some heavy lenses, between 2 and 4.5 pounds.
I've been trying to find the smallest (thinnest tube) and lightest tripod that can be reliably used with my 8x10 for when I take my gear on a walk or bicycle ride.
With the input of one of our forum members here, I've enlisted the services of the FLM factory to make a new tripod - in very small quantities at first.
This will test if it's a viable solution not just for our purposes, but if it could be an ultralight solution for any photographer.

The new tripod is the CP22-M2.
This means that the carbon tubes are 22mm in diameter, and it's a 2-section tripod.
The CP22-M2 will be 55.12" tall when fully extended, and 33.85" tall when folded.

While I wait for the new tripod, I've been doing my testing with the CP22-S4, which also uses 22mm tubes at the top, but is a 4-section tripod. I use a 38mm ball head with the tripod for my testing.
The 4-section should be slightly less stable overall than a 2-section, but that remains to be seen given that each leg section is longer on the M2.
Still, if a lot of the vibration comes from those skinny leg sections at the bottom of the tripod, then this could prove a winner.
The 2-section will certainly be easier to open and close quickly.

Nonetheless, I've had good success thus far with my 8x10 and regular-sized lenses (210 Plasmat, 300mm Tessar), and it's been successful with a Fuji GX680 system as well.
So I look forward to trying the new 2-section ultralight.

Price will be $299.00 USD, including shipping to US and Canada. Contact me and I'll send you some images of it next week when it comes in.
Thanks

[Peter De Smidt]

That sounds like a great option, Ari! Please send me some pictures when you get them.

[Ari]

Will do, Peter. Thanks!

[Tin Can]

Agree

[Steve Goldstein]

Ari, do you know how much does the CP22-M2 weighs by itself?

[Ari]

Not yet, Steve. I'll have the exact figures late next week when the tripod arrives.
The current CP22-S4 weighs 1.94 pounds, or 881g, so I'd expect the M2 to be in that neighborhood.
Fewer leg grips, but longer carbon tubes.
My fingers are crossed that we chose the right tube diameter for this.

[fuegocito]

Wow, I would be very curious, at 22mm that is thinner than a typical 2 series Gitzo, and with two sections only, I wonder if flex might become an issue.

[Ari]

I wonder, too, but the leg section length was capped at ~32 inches, so flex must become a factor at around 40 inches (my guess).

[Ari]

The tripod is in, just arrived today, and it's available for purchase. I have 8 of them available.

https://www.flmcanada.com/product/flm-cp22-m2-ii-tripod/

I'll put it through its paces in the next few days, see what it can do and report back here of course.

[Ari]

I'll be starting today with some work using the new CP22-M2 tripod.
All relevant photos will be put here: https://www.flickr.com/gp/zsari/K1PDP5
I've paired it with a basic CB-38F ball head with an old QRP-70 clamp.

Going to the woods later with a 10" Petzval lens, a 300mm Fuji in a Copal 3 shutter and a small-ish 210mm Rodenstock. I'll see what I can see.

So far, I've only put my camera and lens on the tripod and worked it a bit, trying to get a feel for how it balances and supports my gear.
I have to say that it's a good improvement over the 4-section CP22 I've been using, which gave me zero cause for complaint.
Having only two sections per leg (vs 4) feels stronger, and is much faster to set up (duh), but the real test will be in the film.
So the Petzval, and some long exposures, should tell me what I need to know.
With no leg section extended, the camera is around waist-level for me.

[Ari]

Back from the forest. Burned three sheets with three different lenses, all shutter speeds between 1/2s and 1/25s.
I know I also sell this tripod, but I gotta say, it's working better than I'd hoped.
Very easy to carry for the 2 miles there and back, very quick to open and most important, very steady throughout.

More testing (and hiking) is needed, but I think that if this can handle 80-90% of my regular 8x10 work, it's a big winner.
Have a big beefy tripod for those critical times, or when working from the car, and use the CP22 for most of my regular work.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51147046231_6bbd4e8c28_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kVFYUF)

[interneg]

I've been hoping someone would dare to make a 2-section CF tripod for years - well done on getting FLM to give it a go! I take it that the initial batch will only be available from you & only for the North America region?

I'm now wondering if FLM would consider making the same sort of 2-section tripod on the 38mm leg profile.

[Tin Can]

Up

and...


I've been hoping someone would dare to make a 2-section CF tripod for years - well done on getting FLM to give it a go! I take it that the initial batch will only be available from you & only for the North America region?

I'm now wondering if FLM would consider making the same sort of 2-section tripod on the 38mm leg profile.

[Eric Woodbury]

Reading this, I can't wait to get mine. Expected here as soon as it clears customs. Never thought I'd be able to get a custom made tripod. Wow. What a treat. I'll post my review soon.

Thanks for all your help on this, Ari.

-ew-

[Ari]

I've been hoping someone would dare to make a 2-section CF tripod for years - well done on getting FLM to give it a go! I take it that the initial batch will only be available from you & only for the North America region?

I'm now wondering if FLM would consider making the same sort of 2-section tripod on the 38mm leg profile.

Thanks! If it does well, this tripod will be available in Europe in the not-too-distant future. You can also get one from me, but shipping to the UK will run about $95.00.
For years, I've been mulling a CP42-M2, even thicker tubes than a CP38. And for that, I think we'd have to keep the height and leg sections about the same as the CP22.


Reading this, I can't wait to get mine. Expected here as soon as it clears customs. Never thought I'd be able to get a custom made tripod. Wow. What a treat. I'll post my review soon.

Thanks for all your help on this, Ari.

-ew-

My pleasure, Eric. I'm very happy we could turn your need for a lightweight, rigid tripod into...an actual tripod!

[Drew Wiley]

Any kind of ballhead would be a non-starter for me. It's the blatant weak link in the whole setup. The mere fact you use one for a camera of that dimension makes me skeptical of any realistic assessment about the worthiness of the tripod itself, which should be objectively tested independently of the head, for its own sake.

[Ari]

Any kind of ballhead would be a non-starter for me. It's the blatant weak link in the whole setup. The mere fact you use one for a camera of that dimension makes me skeptical of any realistic assessment about the worthiness of the tripod itself, which should be objectively tested independently of the head, for its own sake.

No surprises here.
Moving along...

[William Whitaker]

Ari,
Is this something you plan to continue selling beyond the original 8?

[Ari]

Ari,
Is this something you plan to continue selling beyond the original 8?

Yes, Will, if enough people want it.

[Hugo Zhang]

I use a ries head with FLM Berlin 38 tripod with its bowl. It can handle my 11x14 camera.

[jim_jm]

Ari - This tripod looks like a great idea and something I'm definitely interested in. I won't be ready to buy for a few more months, but I've been thinking of getting a lighter tripod for my 8x10 for longer hikes and rougher trails. This one would just fit the bill and isn't crazy expensive like most of the other options out there. The FLM would be less than half the weight of what I have now, and the way I carry it this would make a big difference to me.
Thanks for the photos and road test!

[sharktooth]

Back from the forest. Burned three sheets with three different lenses, all shutter speeds between 1/2s and 1/25s.
I know I also sell this tripod, but I gotta say, it's working better than I'd hoped.
Very easy to carry for the 2 miles there and back, very quick to open and most important, very steady throughout.

More testing (and hiking) is needed, but I think that if this can handle 80-90% of my regular 8x10 work, it's a big winner.
Have a big beefy tripod for those critical times, or when working from the car, and use the CP22 for most of my regular work.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51147046231_6bbd4e8c28_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kVFYUF)

I like the idea of two section legs, since it's faster to set up. I'll often carry my tripod with legs partly extended for that same reason. Could you post some pictures with a normal sized adult in the frame so we can get a better idea of the working height in both one section and two section mode. That would be very helpful.

[Ari]

Yes! I'll post a photo of the tripod with a good frame of reference as soon as I can.
Hopefully I'll get around to making a video as well.
Thanks

[Ari]

I like the idea of two section legs, since it's faster to set up. I'll often carry my tripod with legs partly extended for that same reason. Could you post some pictures with a normal sized adult in the frame so we can get a better idea of the working height in both one section and two section mode. That would be very helpful.

Here you go, standing 5'8" tall:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51149950390_0514fd582d.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kVWSdo)
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51149072073_6ea4f1e131.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kVSn7Z)

At full extension, and using an 8x10/5x7/4x5/WLF, the tripod would be too tall for me. Especially if I add a head.
To shoot 8x10 at eye level, I'd have to lower the tripod about 4-5 inches.

[interneg]

Thanks! If it does well, this tripod will be available in Europe in the not-too-distant future. You can also get one from me, but shipping to the UK will run about $95.00.
For years, I've been mulling a CP42-M2, even thicker tubes than a CP38. And for that, I think we'd have to keep the height and leg sections about the same as the CP22.

The 42mm leg section one sounds very interesting - I've considered trying to find a Gitzo G1515 (or earlier variants), but the short 120cm/ 47" height has always rather dissuaded me. 130-140cm would be much more useful.

[Drew Wiley]

If the whole idea is to streamline things, for example, to carry on a bicycle, then the simple A to B path of sacrificing vertical collapsibility for sake of fewer leg sections makes perfect sense, and would be a very simple manufacturing tweak to ask for on an extant model. But just for sake of "what if" possibilities fodder, if the top itself was greater diameter, either by itself, or via the legs hinging off a perimeter "corolla-effect" rather than below, then, with very little or no weight gain, you'd achieve way more torque strength and torsion resistance (important on big flatbed camera applications), but inherently at the expense a bulkier top, harder to grip and carry without a sling. That would also be a little more to ask in terms of redesign, and I don't know if any patents would be in conflict. But it is a way to get significantly more bang for the buck, overall weight-wise. ... thinking yet another step ahead. But I already have something like that, and know how much it improves flatbed stability.

[Pieter]

First, I'm buying more Brett Weston books when I have no room for more books (or so I'm told by my wife). Now another tripod! When and how much, please?

[Drew Wiley]

A flatbed camera should operate reasonably well atop a stack of books. Thought about that one? And they are portable, and would at least be out of sight of the wife. (Sorry, Ari... I'll defer to sanity now)...

[Tin Can]

https://www.flmcanada.com/product/flm-cp38-l4-ii-tripod/

Since I am not a Mule and don't hike mountains anymore

Most likely, as I consider the above a feather at 4.9 lb and more useful for me, perhaps I don't need anything new

Soon I will set up my tripod forest and shoot a panorama........handheld

[sharktooth]

Thanks for the photos, Ari. That gives a much better perspective on the working heights.

It really seems to be a wonderful compromise between low weight, portability, and useful working height. The longer two section leg design is a real winner in my mind. I'd gladly trade off some compactness to have far fewer adjustment knobs/levers to do/undo with every setup.

[William Whitaker]

The 42mm leg section one sounds very interesting...

+1 Ari!

[Ari]

Thanks for all the feedback, much appreciated.
I'm going to try and get some video tomorrow of the new tripod in use. So far, it's proven to be a very good tripod under normal conditions.
The weight savings are tremendous, I didn't miss my CP38 tripod at all.
My only problem was not bringing the spikes along. The forest floor was soft, mossy and quite bouncy. But we made out just fine.

Next week I'm going to ask for a CP42 2-section prototype to be made. I've actually received quite a few emails today asking for just that.
So we'll explore it.

[Ari]

Thanks for the photos, Ari. That gives a much better perspective on the working heights.

It really seems to be a wonderful compromise between low weight, portability, and useful working height. The longer two section leg design is a real winner in my mind. I'd gladly trade off some compactness to have far fewer adjustment knobs/levers to do/undo with every setup.

You're welcome!
Agree on all points, it's quite stable for a thin-tubed tripod, and it's a real pleasure carrying it around, knowing it can handle my 8x10.
Fewer adjustments on the legs make for a more enjoyable time, and despite its folded length, I could strap it to my backpack and walk around with it.

[Tin Can]

Great!

1/2 ball too


Thanks for all the feedback, much appreciated.
I'm going to try and get some video tomorrow of the new tripod in use. So far, it's proven to be a very good tripod under normal conditions.
The weight savings are tremendous, I didn't miss my CP38 tripod at all.
My only problem was not bringing the spikes along. The forest floor was soft, mossy and quite bouncy. But we made out just fine.

Next week I'm going to ask for a CP42 2-section prototype to be made. I've actually received quite a few emails today asking for just that.
So we'll explore it.

[Ari]

1/2 ball too

Of course!
And I suspect the CP42-M2 will adopt one traditional feature of 100mm systematic tripods, that is, it will have an apex with an adjustable collar that can be tightened and loosened to adapt to various accessories.
This will make it easier to attach an accessory centre post if needed, or to use your own favourite 100mm half ball.

In speaking to another member today, who was asking about the CP22's stability with heavier cameras, I have something to add.
The second leg section on the CP22-M2 is 19mm, which is the same size tube as the last section of our CP30 tripods. The CP22's leg sections are longer, so there is a small amount of flex at full extension, but otherwise it's very stable.
I'd say it has a tiny bit more flex than a fully extended CP30-L4 II tripod, which is a 4-section tripod that reaches 68 inches tall.

Load matters, and so does the size and weight distribution.
For instance, my Fuji GX680 (10.25 lbs), with lens and film back, weighs more than my 8x10, but it feels a tad more stable on top of the CP22.
Its weight isn't spread out over such a large area, at two or more different points. It's mostly concentrated around the center of the tripod, keeping it quite stable.
Keep in mind this is all with a ball head. Stability would be further improved if I replaced the ball head with a small levelling head and QR clamp.

[Clive Russ]

CP42 2-section. YES! At last! Simple and stable.

... for everything from an 11x14 to a medium format camera, or even a telescope. A simple leveling head would be nice, but I would need 45º of tilt, so I suppose I would have to tolerate a ball head - a small sacrifice. Your carbon fiber legs make your version very easy to carry, instead of a massive (heavy), two strut per leg, vintage tripod.

Ari, you know I have been passionately requesting this for many years!

[Ari]

Thanks, Clive. I'm thrilled that we'll be bringing a large 2-section CF tripod to market.
This was your idea back in 2015, credit where credit is due!

[Ari]

Here is a very brief video shot by the guy whose picture I was taking.


Notice the rigidity of the camera, even with a ball head attached.
I shot four sheets of this guy, all at 1/8s.

Adjustments were quick and easy, tripod was very stable and reliable.
I'm more and more impressed with this tripod, and the 2-section concept, with each test run I perform.

EDIT: I heard from a couple of people that the video had a lot of green flickering on their screens. Mine looked fine, but I removed the video all the same.
I'll make another video soon, and I won't shoot it on the iPhone next time.
Thanks

[Ari]

Ok, I made a video for the CP22-M2, using my Fuji GX680 as the test load.
The GX680 weighs 10.5 pounds with 100mm lens and film back. It's about 2 pounds heavier than my 8x10 so I shot the video with the Fuji.
Comments welcome. Thanks!


https://youtu.be/IVGVGd1knOE

[Tin Can]

Ok, I made a video for the CP22-M2, using my Fuji GX680 as the test load.
The GX680 weighs 10.5 pounds with 100mm lens and film back. It's about 2 pounds heavier than my 8x10 so I shot the video with the Fuji.
Comments welcome. Thanks!


https://youtu.be/IVGVGd1knOE

Watched it twice

I think I saw film advance looking at the reflection on a front tube

Next time, spikes, grass, not that camera

Thank you!

[William Whitaker]

Very nice Ari! Thanks!

[Ari]

Thanks, Randy and Will.
I apologize for the picture quality. Turns out I had the camera's video set to a lo-res option.

[Ari]

Copied from another post, here's an update on the new tripod line, the Atlas Series.

Before we can make the 2-section tripod of our dreams, we had to make the more conventional 4-section version.
It's quite marvellous, I have the prototype here. It's 73 inches tall, weighs just under 6 pounds, and is 25" long folded.

The new series is called Atlas, and it will feature a top-notch apex system to serve both 100mm and 75mm standard bowl accessories (centre post, levelling ball, etc).
All Atlas tripods will use 42mm tube diameters.
Here's the new Atlas CP42-L4 (4 section):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51829596488_403ca31a8e_h.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/zsari/10fJ84)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51830204835_ceca160868_h.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/zsari/0Pb56s)

Retail price for Atlas CP42-L4 will be $1069.00 and available in mid-February.
It's available for pre-order at 10% off.

The 2-section tripod will be an Atlas Series tripod, and we're already at work on it. I think it may be a special-order item, but we'll see.
This 2-section Atlas needs a new rubber foot design, different from other FLM tripods, even different from the 4-section Atlas.
That's because the 42mm tube will be on the bottom, and the top section will be a thinner 38mm tube. A reverse tripod which will allow for leg adjustment at about 2.5-3 feet up.
The thicker 42mm tube doesn't have a rubber foot wide enough to support it, so we'll design a new foot for it, and use the same apex as other Atlas tripods.

[Neal Chaves]

That looks good. One of my most used tripods is a Benbo2 on which I shortened the center column. One end of the column has the factory 3/8" stud, the other end I modified with a mild steed sleeve to take a Chicago pan/tilt head. The large diameter at the bottom leg design permits use in muddy ground and even water. A bowl would give me more head choices. I don't like ball heads either. Two section tripods are fine for 8X10. I have used Reis, and Majestic extensively in the past. When these are available, I will buy one.

[Tin Can]

I may or not buy, funds vary in my life

The first new tripod I ever bought was also a BENBO 2

I really like the design, the waterproof lower legs are a must, but not LF

and for old folk, being able to adjust legs well above the swamp...

[Ari]

Thanks, gents. I'll make sure to keep you all updated.
We were just deliberating today whether to use a traditional leg diameter configuration (thickest on top, and so on down).
But we figured we have the chance to make something unique, and more user-friendly (I think), so we'll stick to the original concept: thicker tubes at the bottom.

[jeroldharter]

Tripod looks great... but the Wehman I miss.

[Ari]

Thanks, Jerold. I have big expectations for the upcoming tripod.
Wehmans are rare as hen's teeth these days, and wonderful cameras. I'm very happy with mine, though it hasn't seen much use in the last 5-6 months.

[Ari]

If you've been following the latest Covid news, yo'll know that China is going through a spike in infections.
This has caused several cities to go into lockdown, including Shenzhen, where our factory is located.
As a result, production has stopped for the time being.
This affects delivery dates of the CP42-L4 and CP42-L2 tripods, and the new QLB-80 clamp.
Sorry for the delay, folks. We'll be up and running as soon as possible.

[Tin Can]

Thanks Ari

[Ari]

Just wanted to update again. The factory is still closed but I'm in touch with my partner and he's still working with the engineer.
Some specs we're considering for the CP42-L2 Atlas, the 2-section tripod with 42mm tubes and a 100mm systematic apex:

Maximum height - 72" / 183cm
Folded height - 43" / 110cm

This folded length is what concerns us, in that people may not be willing, or able, to carry such a long folded tripod.
Weight will likely be around 5 pounds.

What do you all think? Is that ok?
We can always shorten the max height a little, and then get a shorter folded tripod.

[Tin Can]

Shorten

I prefer full height to be below center of GG

I am North American average, 69 to 70" (https://www.healthline.com/health/average-height-for-men)

[Ari]

Thanks, Randy.

Forgot to add these:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51972210582_cc9393eca5_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nbBawf)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51973501209_fb6df49165_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/zsari/6Q19mC)

[Ari]

Two important updates:

1. The factory has re-opened and is working in 3 shifts, 24 hours a day, to catch up with orders.
I hope that our existing orders of the CP42-L4 Atlas and QLB-80 will be done quickly now.
Those of you waiting for either (or both) of those items should get some good news by this time next week.

2. The new CP42-L2 Atlas has been re-configured to shorter maximum height.
Instead of 72" tall (183cm), it will now be 65 inches tall (165cm).
By the time a head and camera are added, it will easily reach 72 inches, so I don't think we had much to gain by building a 6-foot tripod.
Three immediate benefits: lighter, shorter folded length, and increased rigidity.

Win, win, win!

[Ari]

Here we are, one month since my last post, and I have some good news.
Sometime next week, likely by Monday, I'll receive a small first delivery of these items:
Atlas 42-L4 tripod
QLB-80 clamp

The Atlas tripods are still at a special intro price, and I encourage anyone to consider it, as stock will be limited.
As soon as I have one of my own, I'll make a short video for it.

The Center Column got a test copy in February. He hasn't published a full review yet, but has completed testing.
The Atlas 42-L4 is pretty high up in the rankings, at #4: https://thecentercolumn.com/rankings/systematic-tripod-rankings/

[G Benaim]

Curious how heavy the camera itself is? Is that a wehman?

[Tin Can]

Congratulations!

[Ari]

Curious how heavy the camera itself is? Is that a wehman?

Hi Gabriel.
Yes, it's a Wehman.
As tested, with the Ysarex 210 and a loaded film holder, it weighs 11.3 pounds or 5.15kg.

[Ari]

Congratulations!

Thank you!
This means the L2 is not far off, hopefully just a couple more weeks.

[G Benaim]

Hi Gabriel.
Yes, it's a Wehman.
As tested, with the Ysarex 210 and a loaded film holder, it weighs 11.3 pounds or 5.15kg.

OK, so that's just a couple of pounds under my KMV w lens, have you tried it w a longer lens, say a 19"?

[G Benaim]

I use a ries head with FLM Berlin 38 tripod with its bowl. It can handle my 11x14 camera.

Hi, Hugo, curious which Ries head you're using w the tripod, the j or the a250? Have you tried it w just the bowl? I'm currently using the Ries a250 head on an old Ries A tripod for my 810 KMV as well as a 717 F&S but would like something lighter for travelling. The Ries legs weigh 11 lbs, the head about 2 (which is pretty close to what the cameras weigh). How much does your current legs+bowl+head weigh? Thanks

[Ari]

OK, so that's just a couple of pounds under my KMV w lens, have you tried it w a longer lens, say a 19"?

I don't have longer lenses than a 12" Ektar, but I do have heavier lenses.
Here's the CP26-TM2 tripod with the Schneider 210 XL. Such a thin-tubed tripod does cause the camera to vibrate, but it's manageable if you really want to use a tripod that weighs under 2 pounds.
For everyday work I would definitely recommend going with something bigger. I do these tests mostly to see what I can get away with, but it isn't ideal for regular use.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51987636851_339f9bec7f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ncYedp)

[Ari]

For those who want to fully embrace the rigidity and stability offered by the Atlas tripods, we'll be offering kits with each Atlas tripod.
The HB-100 half ball, the CC-100 bowl adapter and the QLB-80 QR clamp will be available with the Atlas tripods at a discounted price.
This will allow you to use the tripod without a head, but still provide you with 15˚ of camera movement, enough for most LF applications.
The camera will have a QR plate mounted to it, and that attaches to the QLB-80 clamp, which is mounted atop the half-ball.
This gives you a low center of gravity and an almost direct camera-tripod connection.
It's the best, most stable tripod set-up I know of that still offers enough adjustment possibilities.

[Ari]

And here's what that kit would look like:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52054059276_4fb0b623c8_b.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/zsari/VTqb2s)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52054293179_438d1ff27d_b.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/zsari/6Kz4t0)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52053010362_84920edbd1_b.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/zsari/804kKv)

[Ari]

The following are now in stock:

Atlas 42-L4 tripod
CC-100 bowl adapter
QLB-80 clamp
HB-100 leveling ball



Thanks!

[Hugo Zhang]

Hi, Hugo, curious which Ries head you're using w the tripod, the j or the a250? Have you tried it w just the bowl? I'm currently using the Ries a250 head on an old Ries A tripod for my 810 KMV as well as a 717 F&S but would like something lighter for travelling. The Ries legs weigh 11 lbs, the head about 2 (which is pretty close to what the cameras weigh). How much does your current legs+bowl+head weigh? Thanks

G,

I use a J head with the bowl as it is smaller than A250. The Ries head adds some height to the FLM tripod which is nice. If I plan a long hike, I just take the Ries head off to reduce the weight.

[Ari]

We made a short video with the new Atlas 42-L4 tripod:


https://youtu.be/eOGYsF0W9eI

[Ari]

I just received the Atlas 42-L2 tripod. It's the most beautiful, amazing tripod I've ever laid eyes on. Truly a wonder among tripods. A freakin' 2-section tripod with 42mm tubes!
It weighs 5.4 pounds, but feels lighter.

Now, I want to solicit some opinions from anyone following this thread.

Originally, we planned to make this 2-section tripod 6 feet tall. Randy suggested a max height of 65 inches, and that's what this tripod is now.
But the folded height is just a bit under 40 inches.
I don't think most of us here shooting LF have a problem carrying such a long folded tripod since we usually pack up our gear before moving to a new location.
The tripod would be carried over one shoulder, typically.

But I'm also thinking of others who use smaller gear and tend to strap the tripod to a backpack (me included, when I'm shooting digital).
At nearly 40 inches, strapping this tripod to a backpack would make for a very unwieldy experience, not an easy balancing act when walking.

So my question is: do I reduce the folded length of the tripod a bit more?
I was thinking it should be 34-35 inches. Or should it be a little less?
What do you think?

Thanks

[Neal Chaves]

I just received the Atlas 42-L2 tripod. It's the most beautiful, amazing tripod I've ever laid eyes on. Truly a wonder among tripods. A freakin' 2-section tripod with 42mm tubes!
It weighs 5.4 pounds, but feels lighter.

Now, I want to solicit some opinions from anyone following this thread.

Originally, we planned to make this 2-section tripod 6 feet tall. Randy suggested a max height of 65 inches, and that's what this tripod is now.
But the folded height is just a bit under 40 inches.
I don't think most of us here shooting LF have a problem carrying such a long folded tripod since we usually pack up our gear before moving to a new location.
The tripod would be carried over one shoulder, typically.

But I'm also thinking of others who use smaller gear and tend to strap the tripod to a backpack (me included, when I'm shooting digital).
At nearly 40 inches, strapping this tripod to a backpack would make for a very unwieldy experience, not an easy balancing act when walking.

So my question is: do I reduce the folded length of the tripod a bit more?
I was thinking it should be 34-35 inches. Or should it be a little less?
What do you think?

Thanks

I think you would then want the original design as well . I don't think you would like the shorter one for most studio and urban work.

[Ari]

Thanks, Neal.
I was thinking we already have the 72"-tall Atlas 42-L4, so it would be better to have more of a height difference in these two tripods.
That way they'd serve different needs.
Believe me, the L2, as it is, is quite long when folded. A few inches shy of 4 feet long.

The L2 would likely attract more LF people, as well as anyone who takes things slow and considers their photos.
They would be more likely to use a very stable type of head, and a larger camera, both of which would add to the overall height by 7-12 inches (my guess).
So reducing the max height to 58-60 inches doesn't sound as drastic. And it gives those long-range hikers a tripod that's easier to carry.

[Peter De Smidt]

Ari, do the bottom of the legs have 3/16" threads for things like spikes?

One thing I'd like to see is accurate levels on the clamp visible from the sides. I know, I carry one of the plastic card levels, but it's be nice not to have to do that.

[Ari]

Peter,
Yes the legs have a 3/16" thread on the bottom. The tripod comes with spikes and rubber feet.
We had to develop a new rubber foot for this tripod since the thicker 42mm tube is on the bottom and it has the mounting thread for the feet.

The new QLB-80 clamp has both a side and top bubble level, here are photos of the new clamp: https://www.flmcanada.com/product/flm-qlb-80-clamp/

I'm going to bring down the height of the Atlas 42-L2, I find a tripod that folds down to 40 inches a bit much.
The new specs will be:
Max height - 58.22"
Folded length - 36.6"

I hope that sits well with anyone who is considering buying the L2. I prefer the shorter folded length and I don't think anyone using pro gear, digital or film, will miss the extra height.
I consulted a few friends and customers, all of whom are 5'10" to 6' tall.

The other option that was proposed to me would make it a bit too short to use, in my estimation: 53.3" max height and 33.9" folded length.

[Ari]

Slight correction to the above:

The L2 will be offered in both 65" tall and 58" tall versions for the time being.
After the 65" tripods are gone, we will only make the 58" version.

Thanks

[Sal Santamaura]

Not necessarily relevant to this immediate question/thread, but an input for the future.

There's a maximum extended height (all leg sections fully extended yoke height, no center column) that's not common in high quality CF tripods but very useful to me, namely 53 or 53-1/2 inches. I have a Gitzo GT-2532S with your FLM CB-48FT on it that works fine, however, more options would be nice. I don't care whether it has two or three section legs, but dislike four.

[Ari]

Thanks, Sal.

So far I've resisted offering 3-section tripods only because I wanted to keep folded length reasonable while offering taller tripods.
But they are being made for other markets, and they can be ordered on a one-off basis for no extra charge.

Your Gitzo looks like it uses ~26mm tubes. Using the CB-48 on such a thin-tubed tripod would make it a bit top-heavy and more prone to vibration.
You'd get better performance by matching that head with a 34mm-tube tripod. You could consider the CP34-S3 II:

Model - CP34-S3 II
Material - 10 layers Carbon, Aluminum
Number of Leg Segments - 3
Uppermost Tube Ø - 34mm
Max. Height - 136cm (53.5")
Min. Height - 11cm (4.3")
Packing Dimension - 60cm x Ø12cm (23.6" x 4.7")
Weight - 1.80kg (3.97 lbs)
Max. Load - 40kg (88 lbs)
Foot System - Rubber / Spike

I'd have to check with the factory, but price would be ~$660.00

There are 3-section versions of almost every tripod model we normally make in 4 sections. Just ask if you have some specs in mind.

[Peter De Smidt]

Those look like bull's eye levels, ones that have to be viewed from above. Is that incorrect? The problem with these is it's not always possible to get above the tripod to see them, especially a tall tripod. I often set up my camera at eye level or above. What I'd like is accurate levels that can be read from the side.

[Ari]

Those are indeed bull's eye levels on the clamp, Peter.
Top-mounted levels are more difficult to see if the camera is mounted high, but only those will show you if you're level.
I use the card level for critical leveling, and I haven't found a better solution yet for leveling my camera when it's at eye level or taller.

[Peter De Smidt]

Image 4 shows an alternative: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1510808-REG/arca_swiss_860102_l60_leveler_classic_tripod.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCFs6ojdvYtaDqmvNOMLce8vdMu22PvrTwoBCUgy8TPQEEpRlF3zJQxoCW74QAvD_BwE

[Ari]

Gotcha, thanks.

I wish I had gotten this kind of comment earlier in the design process, it's pretty late in the game to be adding this now.
Since the shorter version L2 tripods are still in production, I can ask about implementing such a level.
My guess is that drilling a slot in the existing apex will be too costly, but if done at the start, prior to CNC'ing the aluminum block, it might add nothing or very little to the cost.
So maybe on the next run of Atlas tripods, after we assess cost and time.

I have to add that these types of levels built into tripods and heads are mostly decorative. I include our own bubble levels built into the tripod. With FLM, they're calibrated and adjusted very deliberately, but they're still rough guides at best.
They can get you in the ballpark, but real leveling would have to be done with a proper accessory level as well as what you see on your ground glass/LCD monitor.

[Peter De Smidt]

No worries, Ari.

[Ari]

It's not a bad idea, Peter. It would be better-suited to the Atlas L4, which can reach 72" in height.
So having a visual check of the level when the tripod is above your head is a good idea.
Wish I'd thought of it or heard of it sooner. If implemented earlier in manufacturing, I doubt it would affect price all that much.

[Peter De Smidt]

Another option would be to have an accessory clamp/or spacer with accurate levels, one that could be added to most tripods. In your case, it could just be attached to the video bowl.....but only if they're accurate.....My Sinar's are, but only because I can adjust them to a reference.

[Ari]

Agreed, so I'll look into re-designing the clamps to have a side-mounted level.
Both the video bowl and all tripods have top-mounted bubble levels, maybe the bowl adapters can get a side level, but probably the easiest way is to adapt the clamps.