Tripod question

[ignatiusjk]

I've seen photographers using those old heavy wooden tripods for 4x5 cameras. My question is this. Do you think you will get a sharper image with the old wooden style tripod or a Bogan Manfrotto. I use the Bogan and it seems to be fine but I would like to try one of old woodys just to see if their is a difference. Anybody have any info on the subject? I can't imagine lugging around one of those heavy woodys.

[Kirk Gittings]

There are flimsy wooden tripods and some flimsy Bogen/Manfrottos. There are also B/Ms that would hold a howitzer steady. There are dozens of Manfrotto models, which one are you talking about and what format are you using?

[ignatiusjk]

Bogan Manfrotto 190D/0G23 is written on the leg. Have you ever used a "good" woody and found a difference?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ries tripods are very solid, more than Berlebach and Wolf I'd say. I haven't seen a Gandolfi wooden tripod, but they made them, and perhaps still do. There are also some older wooden cine tripods that are probably pretty good, but I haven't tried them myself. I think Mitchell made a wooden tripod.

[Kirk Gittings]

Bogan Manfrotto 190D/0G23 is written on the leg. Have you ever used a "good" woody and found a difference?

AND what format are you using? It makes a difference whether you use a woody or a modern carbon fiber.

[ignatiusjk]

4x5 Wista field view

[lenser]

I've read that wooden tripods will dampen vibrations while metal ones will transmit them. Sounds accurate. I suspect carbon fiber would also dampen. Wood certainly looks good with a wooden field camera, but I like rubber feet, and most wooden tripods have naked spikes.

[John Kasaian]

Nice camera! :)

As a practical matter I don't see much difference in stability between a good heavy wood tripod and a good heavy metal tripod. I haven't had any experience with carbon fiber though (nearly all my stuff is bought well used and carbon fiber hasn't yet trickeled down to my strata on the photo food chain ;) )

[Kirk Gittings]

It depends on the design. I've had lightweight wood tripods and early carbon fiber ones too that would carry vibrations rather than dampen them. Most recent CF tripods are very good. For a 4x5 field tripod I am currently using a carbon fiber Manfrotto 055 MF3, which is half the weight and twice a s rigid as anything I have owned previously and it kills vibration almost instantly.

[John Kasaian]

I've read that wooden tripods will dampen vibrations while metal ones will transmit them. Sounds accurate. I suspect carbon fiber would also dampen. Wood certainly looks good with a wooden field camera, but I like rubber feet, and most wooden tripods have naked spikes.

Ries have rubber and spikes. All you have to do is reverse the lower parts.

[phaedrus]

Went from a Gitzo 1227 (I know, not the Manfrotto you're asking about, and admittedly marginal for 4x5) to a wood tripod and found the wood tripod steadier. The head makes a whole lot of difference, too. I'm now using a gitzo low profile magnesium head without quick release plate and can now use the same wood tripod one format larger, in 8x10.
Rubber feet are a bad idea in my opinion. On rocky ground the whole tripod swings on them. Though, if you're setting up on a hardwood floor, they might be mandatory.

[Turner Reich]

You haven't seen Jim's walnut tripod!:D

[lenser]

It just occurred to me that a wooden tripod would be infinitely preferable in a thunderstorm.

Tim

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I just saw this post. My Walnut tripod was designed after from a post on the SK Grimes site by Dick Streff. It is a camlock tripod. I just upgraded it with the Ries design Tri-lock system. I have the Howitzer coming tomorrow! No, really it is rock solid. Even more sow now with the tri-lock system I did. The legs lock in place now and I can sit my skinny 135lbs. a.. on it with no problem. It weights about 10 lbs. with the Majestic head. I use it for my 11x14 and 8x20. I think it could handle more. Over kill for 4x5!

Jim

[Daniel_Buck]

I don't know if wood is better or not, I do enjoy using a wood tripod though. It's probably a psychological thing, but I love my ries :-)

[Brian Ellis]

A heavy wood tripod is good in windy conditions and for firewood after you realize that you're passing up photographic opportunities because you don't want to lug your heavy tripod any distance.

[Charlie Strack]

Wooden tripods do not suck the heat out of your hands on cold days. Aluminum ones do.

Charlie

[Wilbur Wong]

No questions at all in my mind, my favorite tripod of all time is a Ries. As for other considerations, I have also hung a 4 x 5 on a tiltall, and I am currently using a Gitzo 2227 carbon fiber with a Linhof ball head to make things much easier on my back ($$$$).

There isn't any perfect tripod, period. Wood is indeed better, in general the heavier the tripod the better. If you can carry it, I say go for it!

[Peter De Smidt]

I don't think we can generalize successfully on this topic. What matters is the resonant frequency and dampening of the whole system. Some large, heave and stiff support systems don't work well with specific heads and cameras. For instance, I once tried my 35mm camera on a very heavy tripod. Tapping the camera would produce a very obvious "ringing" style vibration. Not good. That tripod and head, though, was rock solid with a huge 8x10 monorail.

If you are photographing where there's soft ground, surveyor tripod style feet sunk deeply into the ground can really dampen any vibrations. I used to have a zone vi wooden tripod, and when those huge feet were stepped down, that was one stable tripod.

[cyrus]

I've read that wooden tripods will dampen vibrations while metal ones will transmit them. Sounds accurate. I suspect carbon fiber would also dampen. Wood certainly looks good with a wooden field camera, but I like rubber feet, and most wooden tripods have naked spikes.

I'[ve heard that too -- and it seems like a load of bs to me., frankly.

As long as it holds your camera still, and you can manage the weight etc of the tripod itself, the material is irrelevant. Carbon fiber is lighter, wood is not. etc etc. but there's no inherent benefit to wood that will make a difference in the photos created by the camera placed on top of the wooden tripod.

[CG]

I'[ve heard that too -- and it seems like a load of bs to me., frankly.

As long as it holds your camera still, and you can manage the weight etc of the tripod itself, the material is irrelevant. Carbon fiber is lighter, wood is not. etc etc. but there's no inherent benefit to wood that will make a difference in the photos created by the camera placed on top of the wooden tripod.

Actually some materials are more perfectly elastic and will vibrate or "ring" for a longer period, and other materials tend to dampen vibration and vibrate for a shorter period. Think a bronze bell vs a lead bell ...

I don't know the specs for wood vs aluminum vs carbon ... but it is a credible theory at least. It would be interesting to see a good experiment to see if the idea really pans out.

C

[Toyon]

I'd prefer to use a bronze tripod - like the Greeks used. Schliemann found two at Troy, but alas, they are now lost to history.

[Peter De Smidt]

Remember it's not only the material that matters but the construction. I was once at a Calumet equipment fair. They had their carbon fiber tripods out. I rapped on one of the legs and noticed significant vibrations. One of the reps asked what I thought, and I said there was too much vibration, much more than my Gitzo aluminum model. He replied, "Carbon fiber dampens vibrations much more than aluminum." That may be true assuming fairly equal construction, but it doesn't mean that any tripod made out of carbon fiber will dampen vibrations better than an aluminum tripod. My Gitzo tele-studex was significantly heavier than the calumet tripod, and the gitzo had legs with a significantly greater diameter. The end result is that my Gitzo was better damped than the carbon fiber tripod at the cost of some weight and bulk, but also at a much lower price.

[weasel]

You know, this has got me thinking. I do a fair amount of woodworking, and use hand planes quite a bit. One of the things that make for a good hand plane is how well it controls "chatter" ( vibration) of the cutting blade. Lots of designs, lots of solutions, but none are perfect.
Mass has always been one solution, but the mass needs to be in the right place. I once made a wood bodied plane, and in an attempt to improve its' performance, I bored some holes through the body and filled it with lead shot, directly behind the blade bed.It did improve the cutting of the plane.
I wonder if the engineering trick with tripods would be to use lightweight materials wherever possible, but have strategically placed mass to stop vibration, and end up with the best of both worlds.