View Full Version : New Novoflex 4 leg tripod system at Photokina
Bob Salomon
3-Oct-2008, 07:13
Here is the press release for the Novoflex QuadroPod tripod system introduced at Photokina last week. This tripod system supports equipment up to 110 pounds.
We will show it at the PhotoPlus show in New York later this month.
The new definition of tripod technology
The QuadroPod® being introduced by Novoflex Präzisionstechnik GmbH at photokina is not only the world premiere of the first four-leg tripod, it is an unbeatable tripod in terms of its’ versatility.
The foundation of this system is a completely newly designed tripod column that – thanks to modular construction – can be equipped with different leg variations. Aluminium or carbon legs made with three or four extensions are available. Working heights from 7 cm (2.8“) up to 180 cm (70.9“) are possible with the current leg types. Moreover, additional leg types are under development, enabling working heights up to 230 cm (91“). In addition, the different leg versions can be combined with each other and supplemented with clamps, suction cups and screw-in accessories of the existing Novoflex program.
The tripod is available in three variations:
• without center column
• with center column
• variable leg model with adjustable leg angles from 3 x 120° to 4 x 90°
The variable model can optionally be used with three or four legs. The advantage of the fourth tripod leg is the enormous increase of stability. Thus, the carrying capacity is more than 50 kg (110 Lb). Especially in case of heavy lenses with long focal lengths,
the QuadroPod® demonstrates its quality. In contrast to the common three leg tripod where heavy equipment should always be set-up in the direction of one leg, the camera arrangement is irrelevant when using a four leg tripod. Nothing will bounce or tilt over, regardless, in which direction the camera is mounted. A further vital advantage is the tripod alignment in case of uneven ground. Using a three-leg tripod, the photographer had to adjust all legs; in case of the QuadroPod® just one leg is
adjusted: The fourth leg is simply pushed inwards, until solid contact with the ground is made - now the tripod is positioned stabily and securely in the required position.
In terms of transportability this innovative design shows its advantages. As the legs can be separated from the tripod column, the individual parts can be stowed comfortably and space-savingly. This is an essential advantage in case of air travel or hiking. Furthermore, the photographer can decide before their job, which equipment and leg types are required. In case of walking or hill tours the tripod legs can be replaced with the Novoflex hiking sticks to further reduce the carrying weight.
Moreover, the tripod column has three tapped holes for the attachment of mounting accessories for flashes, reflectors, flags or other accessories. One example of the extraordinary tripod design: In order to create a shadeless illumination in case of
makro or portrait shootings, two flashes can be positioned at the right and left of the camera by means of flexible mounting arms. Used as a standard, mini, auto or clamping tripod, the application range for the QuadroPod® is as many as the requirements or as the job definitions in the field of photography.
Consequently the QuadroPod® created by Novoflex is an unsurpassed tripod system.
The Novoflex QuadroPod® is expected to be available by the end of 2008.
it isn't even april fools day!
too funny. thanks for the laugh.
Jim Noel
3-Oct-2008, 10:31
If it is a quadropod, it is not a tripod.
Bob Salomon
3-Oct-2008, 10:53
If it is a quadropod, it is not a tripod.
One version can be used with either three or four legs The other two versions are four legs only. The variable version has a control that lets you set the angle of two of the legs so they are either 90° or 120°.
So two are true Quadropods and one can be either a tripod or a Quadropod.
you mean this is not a joke????? Seriously?
I mean, don't they realize that the whole beauty of a tripod is that three legs are always in the same plane? A three legged stool never has a short leg. A four legged stool almost always does. This really is too funny.
sun of sand
3-Oct-2008, 20:53
and doubles a se:O swing?
gotta get an assistant
David A. Goldfarb
4-Oct-2008, 04:21
But can the suspended model sell more tri/quadropods than Lester Bogen?
At first I thought this was a good idea, but I'm not so sure upon more thought.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080811165417AA2WRur
Any three points define a plane. A tripod, allowed to settle (unless the center column gets in the way) will always have all 3 legs in contact with the ground, hence no wobble. Because 3 points define a plane.
This is not the case with a 4-legged quadropod.
Bob Salomon
4-Jun-2009, 11:44
At first I thought this was a good idea, but I'm not so sure upon more thought.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080811165417AA2WRur
Any three points define a plane. A tripod, allowed to settle (unless the center column gets in the way) will always have all 3 legs in contact with the ground, hence no wobble. Because 3 points define a plane.
This is not the case with a 4-legged quadropod.
Each leg is hinged at the top so all four legs will always be in contact with the ground. You would have a valid point if there wasn't a hinge joint at the top of the leg so the leg can pivot. Not only does each leg pivot at the top like any other tripod and each leg is also adjustable for angle.
Thanks for that clarification.
So if I understand correctly, because each leg is hinged, it'll always be in contact with the ground; and there's a way to lock each leg at any angle? That would be very nice.
Each leg is hinged at the top so all four legs will always be in contact with the ground. You would have a valid point if there wasn't a hinge joint at the top of the leg so the leg can pivot. Not only does each leg pivot at the top like any other tripod and each leg is also adjustable for angle.
Bob, the point is that it is a whole lot easier to get three legs to sit in a plane than four. In fact, three legs are automatically in the same plane - always. This is basic geometry. Even with hinges, it would take great effort to get all four legs to be in the same plane - which is a necessary condition for the platform to NOT wobble. If you sell any of these, I can almost guarantee the majority of the users will be dissatisfied - unless they like wobbly stools.
yet another example of an absurd product design coming from some marketing genius.
Bob, the point is that it is a whole lot easier to get three legs to sit in a plane than four. In fact, three legs are automatically in the same plane - always. This is basic geometry. Even with hinges, it would take great effort to get all four legs to be in the same plane - which is a necessary condition for the platform to NOT wobble. If you sell any of these, I can almost guarantee the majority of the users will be dissatisfied - unless they like wobbly stools.
yet another example of an absurd product design coming from some marketing genius.
To be fair, IF the hinge on the legs is relatively "loose", then you can just position the pod at the height you want and let the legs drop to the ground.
Bob Salomon
4-Jun-2009, 12:40
Bob, the point is that it is a whole lot easier to get three legs to sit in a plane than four. In fact, three legs are automatically in the same plane - always. This is basic geometry. Even with hinges, it would take great effort to get all four legs to be in the same plane - which is a necessary condition for the platform to NOT wobble. If you sell any of these, I can almost guarantee the majority of the users will be dissatisfied - unless they like wobbly stools.
yet another example of an absurd product design coming from some marketing genius.
Brad,
If you haven't seen it and haven't tried it you can't know how easy or slow it is to set up or how versatile or how limited it is. The first step is to actually educate yourself about it and then comment. Since the first shipments of the Quadropod only arrived in the USA two weeks ago you obviously have never seen or handled a production version.
It was designed, btw, by nature photographers, not marketing people.
Bob Salomon
4-Jun-2009, 12:46
Thanks for that clarification.
So if I understand correctly, because each leg is hinged, it'll always be in contact with the ground; and there's a way to lock each leg at any angle? That would be very nice.
The leg angles are adjusted the same way as most other tripods. A three position push/pull stop at the top of the leg. The maximum leg spread of each leg is limited to one of three positions by the adjustable stop. Each leg (at least the full size legs) is calibrated on the bottom sections so it is very quick to set all the legs to the same length, if desired. The Hiking Pole legs are not calibrated, neither are the short table-top legs.
an be done with some tripods with spiders or strut supports between the leg and the column of the tripod but is not available on most tripods, if any, with the 3 position leg angle adjustments.
But if your question is can the leg angle be locked at any angle? No, that can be done on some tripods with center struts ar a spider between the legs but I am not aware of any tripod with the 3-position leg angle adjustment that also has continuously adjustable locking angles.
Brad,
If you haven't seen it and haven't tried it you can't know how easy or slow it is to set up or how versatile or how limited it is. The first step is to actually educate yourself about it and then comment. Since the first shipments of the Quadropod only arrived in the USA two weeks ago you obviously have never seen or handled a production version.
It was designed, btw, by nature photographers, not marketing people.
...designed by nature photographers....who communicated their "design" to the marketing department which then convinced the upper management and the financial wizards that the company really must put this new, innovative product into production!
Sorry Bob, I've been an engineer for twenty years...I know all to well how these things really work.
on your suggestion that I should "educating myself"...tell you what, may I suggest that you pick up a few high school math textbooks and do the same.
I realize this is your job...to market this thing....and I have to hand it to you for standing tough but....I kinda feel bad for you because the whole concept (of a four legged camera support) is really quite absurd. I honestly thought it must be a joke or something. The four legged camera support has some very basic mathematics working against it. Three legs will always be in the same plane...(this is basic math) and thus will always be stable. The problem with four legs is that at any given moment in time, three of them will be in one plane (by definition) and the fourth....well...very likely will not be. Then a moment later, three other legs will be in a different plan and the fourth will not...see the problem? This is why a four legged table on a tile floor always, always, ALWAYS has a wad of napkins or a stack of matchbooks under one of the legs and the damned thing still wobbles. All four legs must be in the same plane for the thing to be stable. With a the three legged tripod, once the three legs touch solid ground, the tripod is stable. PERIOD. This is dictated by simple math (above). With four legs, you'll get three legs on the ground, and the thing will be stable (again, basic math tells us it has to be) and then, you have to diddle with the fourth leg and try to get it to be in the same plane already defined by the first three legs. If you fail to get the fourth leg in the exact same plane described by the other three...the platform is not stable...it wobbles!
And, I'm not even going to go into why the four legged thing weighs more than a three legged thing with equal load carrying capacity....I really am sorry....it is just way, way too funny.
Bob Salomon
4-Jun-2009, 17:04
Brad, the nature shooters own Novoflex. And forget what you "know" when something new comes out it can be very different from what you know. And the Quadropod is very different in operation, support, lack of vibration and versatility then any tripod you have ever used or even seen. There simply is no 5 to 6.5lb tripod that can support 110+ lbs and not have that dead spot where a heavy lens or camera can simply fall over because the legs are 120° apart rather then 90°.
First learn and handle the Quadropod then issue your comments from hands on experience, not from theory.
.
jeroldharter
4-Jun-2009, 17:22
...
First learn and handle the Quadropod then issue your comments from hands on experience, not from theory.
.
I wish I could see one. I must say I am skeptical for the reasons cited. But Novoflex makes quality gear so anytime something new comes out I think it is great and would be eager to see one.
Paul Metcalf
4-Jun-2009, 18:42
BradS-
Actually, if your kitchen table had adjustable legs (length, angle), you could eliminate that wobble on your tile floor without the need of a matchbook or napkin.
A quadpod out in nature on uneven surfaces can be made to work by just adjusting the fourth leg (as stated it says to lower/swing down until it makes contact with the ground). So, depending on the severity of the ground slope a four legged 'pod could be made quite stable. The benefit would be if you had heavy offset lenses (e.g. 600mm F4 for 35mm) then if all four legs are somewhat splayed out symmetrically you wouldn't create a tip-over situation so easily when panning. But "somewhat" is the operative word, if you're on very uneven terrain and the legs end up being splayed out in very uneven fashion, you probably would still end up with a possible tip-over situation at some panned position (and a three legged 'pod would also be susceptible to tip-over). Canon and Nikon both overcame this issue (a long time ago) with their big professional lens by including an attachment collar along the barrel of the lens that pretty much balances the camera body/lens combo. All of the large format cameras I've used have a means to pretty much balance the camera over the tripod, but there are probably some ultra large formats the make this more of a challenge.
I guess we'll see how well this does, I can't imagine this (four legs) hasn't been tried before.
Yea, I think that BradS is a little unfair to Bob Salomon. I've read a lot in these forms and always see helpful posts by him.
Because the 4-legged pod legs are adjustable, you can avoid the situation of having wobble. It will be more difficult to get the quadropod setup perfectly so that there is no wobble, because it isn't a given that all 4 points will be in a plane. With 3 legs, that's automatic - it just falls to he most stable position, and all 3 legs are in plane. So that's the cost of 4 legs. The benefit is that the weight-support is more distributed, and as others have said, it is less likely to tip over due to balancing issues. Added stability.
In that weight class, it will support the most weight. Supporting 110 lbs is incredibly impressive for a 5-6 pound "quad-pod". Even the wooden Berlebachs don't support that much weight.
BradS-
Actually, if your kitchen table had adjustable legs (length, angle), you could eliminate that wobble on your tile floor without the need of a matchbook or napkin.
...and if the table had three legs, it wouldn't wobble (period). The point is, of course, that you would have to invest extra effort to eliminate the wobble in the four legged table. And, the three legs on the three legged table don't even need to be adjustable (in either length or angle). They only need be "pretty close" to the same length...
The four legged table is inherently less stable than the three legged table - this is an indisputable fact...it is basic physics...marketing claims cannot change the laws of nature.
Yea, I think that BradS is a little unfair to Bob Salomon. I've read a lot in these forms and always see helpful posts by him.
Because the 4-legged pod legs are adjustable, you can avoid the situation of having wobble. It will be more difficult to get the quadropod setup perfectly so that there is no wobble, because it isn't a given that all 4 points will be in a plane. With 3 legs, that's automatic - it just falls to he most stable position, and all 3 legs are in plane. So that's the cost of 4 legs. The benefit is that the weight-support is more distributed, and as others have said, it is less likely to tip over due to balancing issues. Added stability. .
Well, I don't feel like I have been unfair to Bob. Actually, on the contrary, I am being up-front and honest with him and the company. I am sticking my neck out to give him valid feedback about the product (for free!). Feedback that I am sure that he and the company will have to deal with. Any engineer who looks at this new product announcement is likely to have this same perception - that a four legged camera support is laughably absurd. Further to the point of offering my opinion, in my 20 year career as an engineer, I have always seen feedback from customers and potential customers - both positive and negative - as a gift. It isn't always easy to take but, if sincerely and honestly offered, it is always valued. At one big company where I used to work we would even fly consumers in a target demographic to so called "focus groups". Put them up in hotels and give them lunch and dinner...just to get their opinion of new design ideas. As a marketing professional, I am certain that Bob also understands the value of consumer feedback - both positive and negative and though he may be a bit exasperated with me, I doubt very much that he has taken any offense. It is certainly not my intention to be offensive. Besides, one does not advance to the position he is in without a much thicker skin than that.
Anyway, I think I agree with the rest of your observations...up to the last sentence...a four legged platform/table/chair/camera support (whatever) simply cannot be more stable than three legs. The best it can do is be as stable as three legs...That is not opinion, it is just plain and simple physics. Any mechanical engineer can easily verify this (actually, it could be a test question for the first year of college physics).
Brad, the nature shooters own Novoflex.....First learn and handle the Quadropod then issue your comments from hands on experience, not from theory.
Bob,
I am willing to do a hands on evaluation of the product. I will also submit a written review to the articles section. I can also have several of my peers review the product. One of my colleagues at work has the biggest Manfrotto tripod I have ever seen under his desk. I am sure he'd be interested. I have a Berlebach 8043 as well as several Bogen/Manfrotto tripods and heads. I can compare and contrast these with the new quadropod. I can even have some of the Mechanical engineers at work subject these various pods to quantitative evaluations.
Please PM or email me with arrangements.
For what it is worth, the Berlebach 8043 is in my opinion, hands down, the best tripod available in the US for 4x5. I really wish you guys would import the 7043 too though. Fantastic product. Thanks.
Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2009, 03:33
Bob,
I am willing to do a hands on evaluation of the product. I will also submit a written review to the articles section. I can also have several of my peers review the product. One of my colleagues at work has the biggest Manfrotto tripod I have ever seen under his desk. I am sure he'd be interested. I have a Berlebach 8043 as well as several Bogen/Manfrotto tripods and heads. I can compare and contrast these with the new quadropod. I can even have some of the Mechanical engineers at work subject these various pods to quantitative evaluations.
Please PM or email me with arrangements.
For what it is worth, the Berlebach 8043 is in my opinion, hands down, the best tripod available in the US for 4x5. I really wish you guys would import the 7043 too though. Fantastic product. Thanks.
You would go to your local camera store and make all arrangements through your local dealer. Otherwise you would have to pay us the full list price for the system while it is in your possession since we do not have business relationships with non-dealers.
Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2009, 03:41
" At one big company where I used to work we would even fly consumers in a target demographic to so called "focus groups". Put them up in hotels and give them lunch and dinner...just to get their opinion of new design ideas."
Novoflex had a much easier way to do this. They put several in their Photokina booth, we showed them at Photo Plus in NY, we showed them at the Photo Show in San Diego and at Mac World, We showed them at PMA and this week they are at the Precision Camera Show in Austin. They have been shown at both B&H and Adorama as well to dealers like Samy's, Gasser, Cameras West and Bear Images.
There have been several opportunities for you to have seen it. There are also several German language reviews by the German Photo Press on it with full hands on reporting. It is two different locations in the current July issue of Shutterbug as short non hands-on reviews. So we and Novoflex have received lots of feedback on the Quadropd.
BradS,
I can see your point about feedback, as well as about what engineers will think.
I understand that's the case if the legs weren't adjustable, but they are. As they are, it seems to me like the benefit of he system is that because the weight-support is at 90- rather than 120-degree angles, the thing is less likely to tip over due to an off-balanced setup being stuck on top of it. And the associated cost is that it will take more maneuvering to setup all the legs in perfect plane, which happens automatically with 3 legs.
Donald Miller
5-Jun-2009, 07:44
Contrary to marketing hype, the strongest and most stable form is a triangle. The tripod actually comprises four triangles (including the ground footprint) each triangle is interconnected and intersupportive. There is no way in physics that a four legged contraption can be stronger and more stable than a triangle. Now if you want to repeal the laws of gravity that would be something really noteworthy.
Best regards,
Donald Miller
Donald Miller
5-Jun-2009, 07:57
BradS,
I can see your point about feedback, as well as about what engineers will think.
I understand that's the case if the legs weren't adjustable, but they are. As they are, it seems to me like the benefit of he system is that because the weight-support is at 90- rather than 120-degree angles, the thing is less likely to tip over due to an off-balanced setup being stuck on top of it. And the associated cost is that it will take more maneuvering to setup all the legs in perfect plane, which happens automatically with 3 legs.
This matter of angles that has been bantied about is actually a misnomer that has been propogated and blindly accepted by some. The 90 degree angles spoken of do nothing...repeat absolutely nothing to enhance stability. The actual angles that make a difference in structural stability are the angles at which the legs leaving the upper platform intersect the ground. The inclined angle is what is required for both strength and stability.
If one were to more closely examine the 90 degree angle theory that seems to be noteworthy at first glance you would come to the conclusion that you would have four legs leaving the upper platform at 90 degrees to the ground plane and thus the legs could not be spread further than the spacing at the upper platform...that would be the most unstable device that one could imagine...sort of a four legged monopod...
best regards
Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2009, 08:09
This matter of angles that has been bantied about is actually a misnomer that has been propogated and blindly accepted by some. The 90 degree angles spoken of do nothing...repeat absolutely nothing to enhance stability. The actual angles that make a difference in structural stability are the angles at which the legs leaving the upper platform intersect the ground. The inclined angle is what is required for both strength and stability.
If one were to more closely examine the 90 degree angle theory that seems to be noteworthy at first glance you would come to the conclusion that you would have four legs leaving the upper platform at 90 degrees to the ground plane and thus the legs could not be spread further than the spacing at the upper platform...that would be the most unstable device that one could imagine...sort of a four legged monopod...
best regards
Donald, 120° and 90° refer to their positioning in a circle around the platform of the tripod. A 3 legged tripod has 3 legs 120° apart. This leaves a large range where a lens could be positioned to and the tripod would not have a leg underneath the lens to maintain stability and a heavy camera/lens combination can easily topple over when a leg is not pointed in the same direction as the lens. Yes that could be eliminated by hanging a sand bag to stabilize the tripod and lower its' center of gravity.
The Quadropod has the legs distributed every 90° around the top plate so regardless of where that heavy lens/camera are pointed there is a leg near or under it so the camera/lens could no longer topple over. Even without that counterweight added above.
120° and 90° are not referring to the angles at which the legs are positioned when the unit is set up on the ground. That is commonly called the leg spread angle and usually are set to 15/20° to 30/45° to almost 90°. 90° in this case would give you the lowest camera height and 15 to 20° the maximum height for that particular tripod.
To be absolutely clear. The 90° and 120° referred to are the distribution of the legs around the tripod top plate not the angle of the legs to the top plate.
Donald Miller
5-Jun-2009, 08:26
Donald, 120° and 90° refer to their positioning in a circle around the platform of the tripod. A 3 legged tripod has 3 legs 120° apart. This leaves a large range where a lens could be positioned to and the tripod would not have a leg underneath the lens to maintain stability and a heavy camera/lens combination can easily topple over when a leg is not pointed in the same direction as the lens. Yes that could be eliminated by hanging a sand bag to stabilize the tripod and lower its' center of gravity.
The Quadropod has the legs distributed every 90° around the top plate so regardless of where that heavy lens/camera are pointed there is a leg near or under it so the camera/lens could no longer topple over. Even without that counterweight added above.
120° and 90° are not referring to the angles at which the legs are positioned when the unit is set up on the ground. That is commonly called the leg spread angle and usually are set to 15/20° to 30/45° to almost 90°. 90° in this case would give you the lowest camera height and 15 to 20° the maximum height for that particular tripod.
To be absolutely clear. The 90° and 120° referred to are the distribution of the legs around the tripod top plate not the angle of the legs to the top plate.
I understood this but I wanted to point out the falacy of the 90 degree angle. What you seem to have failed to comprehend is that it is not the leg under a lens that provides the support in the tripodal structure. It is the support of each of the structural members as a whole and complete cohesive structure. Each of the legs of a tripod provide two of the sides to three triangles with the ground plane itself making up the third side and also the fourth triangle itself. In your quad pod contraption you can not have anything other than rectangular/multiangular forms and they are generally recognized as being inherently unstable when compared to a triangular form.
Taking your worst case scenario, the only way that a triangular stucture made up by a tripod could become unstable is if the structural design limits of the load capacity of one of the leg forms is exceeded or if the leg angles (spread angles) are of an inadequate spread. Nothing in a quad pod contraption alleviates those conditions. All that it does is bring another problem to the mix...that being arranging the legs so that you don't have an unstable platform at the ground level. By the way at the various hands on shows you mentioned, how many saw this device set up on anything other than a level floor? The last time I was aware neither Samys nor B and H had rocky unlevel floors in their showrooms.
Best regards,
Donald Miller
Colin Graham
5-Jun-2009, 08:35
I wonder why there aren't more three legged dogs? :D
Anyway, I think I agree with the rest of your observations...up to the last sentence...a four legged platform/table/chair/camera support (whatever) simply cannot be more stable than three legs. The best it can do is be as stable as three legs...That is not opinion, it is just plain and simple physics. Any mechanical engineer can easily verify this (actually, it could be a test question for the first year of college physics).
While those students are working up their free body diagrams, have them consider the overturning moment. If the vector representing gravitational pull on the camera setup falls outside the triangle represented by the tips in the ground, the whole thing will overturn. For nature photographers with a small and light tripod, but with a monster doubled 600mm f/I-can't-afford-it lens mounted out of balance, this could be an issue, particularly on a slope. With four legs, that vector has farther to go--a square fills up a circle better than a triangle because it has more and shorter chords.
Given that leg tips will seat into the ground, I think it's fair to say that not all tips will be equally loaded when there are four of them, because of the difficulty in getting four points to be in one plane (assuming the ground represents a plane, which is rarely does). But the more heavily loaded leg (and, as you say, there will always be one) will just seat a little farther. The problem you mention is most likely with hard tips on a hard surface. Even then, resting it on four legs and allowing the wobbly leg to settle down before locking it in place will take up that slack, and allow the flexibility of the system to distribute the load. Most of us would increase that flexibility (as well as adding some damping) by using rubber tips in that situation.
All systems are flexible, especially long, slender structures.
I think I could see how it would work to solve a narrow but very real range of problems, such as mounting a view camera on its side, to the side of the head, which a given situation may require. With four legs instead of three, keeping the overturning moment under control would be easier.
If one is going to argue something on engineering terms, one should consider how the design may have accommodated the problem mentioned, or at least how it responds to the requirements of the design. That's actually required by the canon of ethics for engineers (in every state I'm aware of) before publicly challenging an engineer's work, isn't it?
(Bob ought to send me one as a gift for coming to his aid, heh, heh. Oops--that would be a conflict of interest--doggone that canon stuff.)
Rick "a registered professional engineer in four states" Denney
Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2009, 09:16
I understood this but I wanted to point out the falacy of the 90 degree angle. What you seem to have failed to comprehend is that it is not the leg under a lens that provides the support in the tripodal structure. It is the support of each of the structural members as a whole and complete cohesive structure. Each of the legs of a tripod provide two of the sides to three triangles with the ground plane itself making up the third side and also the fourth triangle itself. In your quad pod contraption you can not have anything other than rectangular/multiangular forms and they are generally recognized as being inherently unstable when compared to a triangular form.
Taking your worst case scenario, the only way that a triangular stucture made up by a tripod could become unstable is if the structural design limits of the load capacity of one of the leg forms is exceeded or if the leg angles (spread angles) are of an inadequate spread. Nothing in a quad pod contraption alleviates those conditions. All that it does is bring another problem to the mix...that being arranging the legs so that you don't have an unstable platform at the ground level. By the way at the various hands on shows you mentioned, how many saw this device set up on anything other than a level floor? The last time I was aware neither Samys nor B and H had rocky unlevel floors in their showrooms.
Best regards,
Donald Miller
No, but we sell sandbags that can easily be put under legs at shows as well as on tripods to make them more stable.
The fact is that the area of maximum stability is very simply illustrated in the Quadropod brochure and the difference in the area of maximum stability between a three legged tripod and a 4 legged Quadropod, assuming equal length legs, is compared side by side. If you like I can mail you the brochure or you can download it from the Novoflex web site. However Novoflex does not have their English site up yet so one of the brochures is only in German. http://www.novoflex.com/de/produkte/stativ--und-haltesysteme/quadropod/quadropod-broschueren/
We do have that one in English that we can mail. The second brochure on the web site is bilingual so you should have no problem understanding it but it does not illustrate the support area added by the 4th leg. The one we can mail or the one only in German does illustrate that aspect of the Quadropod.
Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2009, 09:25
While those students are working up their free body diagrams, have them consider the overturning moment. If the vector representing gravitational pull on the camera setup falls outside the triangle represented by the tips in the ground, the whole thing will overturn. For nature photographers with a small and light tripod, but with a monster doubled 600mm f/I-can't-afford-it lens mounted out of balance, this could be an issue, particularly on a slope. With four legs, that vector has farther to go--a square fills up a circle better than a triangle because it has more and shorter chords.
Given that leg tips will seat into the ground, I think it's fair to say that not all tips will be equally loaded when there are four of them, because of the difficulty in getting four points to be in one plane (assuming the ground represents a plane, which is rarely does). But the more heavily loaded leg (and, as you say, there will always be one) will just seat a little farther. The problem you mention is most likely with hard tips on a hard surface. Even then, resting it on four legs and allowing the wobbly leg to settle down before locking it in place will take up that slack, and allow the flexibility of the system to distribute the load. Most of us would increase that flexibility (as well as adding some damping) by using rubber tips in that situation.
All systems are flexible, especially long, slender structures.
I think I could see how it would work to solve a narrow but very real range of problems, such as mounting a view camera on its side, to the side of the head, which a given situation may require. With four legs instead of three, keeping the overturning moment under control would be easier.
If one is going to argue something on engineering terms, one should consider how the design may have accommodated the problem mentioned, or at least how it responds to the requirements of the design. That's actually required by the canon of ethics for engineers (in every state I'm aware of) before publicly challenging an engineer's work, isn't it?
(Bob ought to send me one as a gift for coming to his aid, heh, heh. Oops--that would be a conflict of interest--doggone that canon stuff.)
Rick "a registered professional engineer in four states" Denney
Rick,
I am still trying to get them to send me one. And I have been playing with it since last September!
But yes, you have explained what the diagram in the Novoflex brochure clearly illustrates regarding the tipping point.
It seems strange that "experts" in a field are always willing to pre-judge what something new can do before having had experience, regardless how brief, their exposure may have been to it.
There are many things that do things that physics says they can't do. For instance the Stealth planes are not supposed to fly!
But thanks anyway for the explanation.
kev curry
5-Jun-2009, 11:07
I wonder why there aren't more three legged dogs? :D
Sorry...I think I just pissed myself!
Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2009, 11:23
Van,
Your comments are accepted but they are the comments of someone who has not seen what the Quadropod can do.
First look at the requests from people looking for a heavier or lighter or stronger or taller or a table-top tripod. The Quadropod does all of these by just changing legs. Not by replacing the entire tripod. Want a car window mount? The Quadropod does that too. Want to mount a professional size camera onto a car so you can shoot film while moving? The Quadropod does that. Want to carry a strong support where you can't or don't want to set up a tripod or a monopod? The Quadropod accessories can do that. Want a monopod? Each leg is a monopod when used by itself. Want to go really, really, low to the ground with a camera offset to photograph a small object? The Quadropd can do that without spreading legs or reversing the column. Want to pack a full size tripod that can support 110+ pounds in a standard 21" carry-on suitcase? The Quadropod can do that. Want a chestpod? The Quadropod can do that. Want to position a camera on a tripod as close to a wall as possible while maintaing full stability? The Quadropod can be set up within about half the space of a tripod to a wall or window or shelves by using two full size legs and two short legs. Want to use a tripod with two off camera flashes in the field? The Quadropod does that with out adding additional stands. And a reflector or product holding clamp can still be added so it becomes a one piece studio set-up! Want to do some surveillance photography from inside a car or truck? Hands-free? The Quadropod can do that. And let you shoot out of any window - front, left, right or rear.
So yes, they did some market research and came up with a system that would replace a small, light tripod, a big heavy tripod, a table-top tripod, a monopod, a chest-pod and still offer features that any tripod you currently own does not and will not and can not offer.
In short, they re-invented the tripod. If you read German you might want to check out some of the German photo magazines which have all done hands-on tests with this system.
I wonder why there aren't more three legged dogs? :D
I wonder why more nature photographers don't use a dog for a camera support....? :)
After all...
four legs are more stable than three (marketing)
most dogs have four legs (Darwin)
four legged dogs can carry themselves to the photographer's favorite spot
certain breeds of four legged dogs are particularly adept at finding the subject matter of nature photographers.
dogs have the ability to automatically adapt to dynamically changing terrain
So, logically, we must conclude that a common domestic K-9 of suitable size, strength and stamina would make a much better camera support for nature photographers than a plain vanilla tripod....especially in an earthquake.
Colin Graham
5-Jun-2009, 13:29
I wonder why more nature photographers don't use a dog for a camera support....? :)
Hell, I'll try anything at least once. Before heckling it obsessively, that is.
Hell, I'll try anything at least once. Before heckling it obsessively, that is.
Quite right. Point taken. Thanks. :)
There are many things that do things that physics says they can't do. For instance the Stealth planes are not supposed to fly!
It's not the physics that is wrong. It's our understanding of it. We focus on one set of rules and forget to consider other rules. All the rules are compatible with each other, but sometimes our understanding of them is not.
I have no idea whether this tripod will be useful or whether dealing with the fourth leg would be annoying enough to make solving the overturning moment problem a non-issue. I've never had a tripod overturn, even using a 500mm Takumar which is longer and heavier than any of the modern 500 and 600mm lenses. And I can spread out my 3036 legs enough to position my Cambo to one side of the center column rather than above it, with no concern for overturning.
But I have had a leg kicked out from under a tripod, sending that a camera to its death (it was an old Pentax that cracked through the body from corner to corner, right across the film rails). Three legs are easier to stabilize, but all three legs are essential to that stability. With four legs, the loss of one will allow it to tip, but perhaps slowly enough to allow a saving grab.
So, one clear need in 35 years of photography--nope, I probably wouldn't buy it for myself. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful for some.
Rick "a strong proponent of requirements-led design" Denney
Kerry L. Thalmann
5-Jun-2009, 14:09
In short, they re-invented the tripod.
No they absolutely did not. They "invented" the quadrapod.
By definition (http://www.yourdictionary.com/tripod), a tripod has three legs - and a bicycle has two wheels. Calling a tricycle a bicycle one does not make it one. Nor does calling something with four legs a tripod make it one either.
I've stayed out of the colorful and entertaining 4-leg vs. 3-leg debate, but I refuse to stand by idly while the meaning of a perfectly good word like tripod is corrupted by the marketing department. No matter what your position is on the benefits of 4 legs vs. 3, can we at least use the proper and accepted terminology when discussing this issue. You incorrectly referred to the quadrapod as a tripod in the title of this thread and continue to do so. There is no such thing as a 4-legged tripod. I beseech thee, please stop propagating this unecessary and unholy bastardization of the good word tripod.
So, if four legs are better than three, why stop there? What's next, the pentapod? How about the hexapod? You could claim it's twice as good as the tripod. You could even design the hexapod to be reconfigurable to use as two tripods. That way the photographer would have the choice of using it as a single hexapod or dual tripods.
And why stop at 6 legs separated by 60 degrees. Why not 360 legs separated by 1 degree each? Why not market a block of solid aluminum and call it the infinipod (an infinite number of legs separated by zero degrees)?
Of course, at some point the whole thing becomes rather silly. Me thinks we've already reached that point.
Kerry
Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2009, 15:09
Kerry,
Did you know that copy stands per GSA were listed under tripods?
Properly these are all camera supports. The terminology depends on the accepted use in most areas of photography. Every member of the press that has seen the Quadropod at a show has remarked that it is a "four leg tripod". It is the use, not the design that makes it referred to as a tripod.
And the Quadropod V can be set up with 3 legs at 120° apart or 4 legs at 90° apart. So what would you call that? Since it is both.
Donald Miller
5-Jun-2009, 15:44
The GSA doesn't know "come here" from "sickum"...anybody that would pay four fortunes for a damned ballpein hammer is highly suspect in my opinion.
I would not consider buying the quadropod over a tripod for several reasons.
1) 4 legs take more time to extend and lock than 3.
2) 3 legs are far easier to provide a stable base on an uneven surface than 4 legs
3) 4 legs make the diameter of the 'pod wider
4) 4 legs make it more likely that a leg might be in the way or get kicked while working
5) a fourth leg is an additional surface that can catch the wind and vibrate
6) 3 legs don't wobble, 4 legs can wobble unless the lengths are set very accurately to prevent that, and that takes extra time
I appreciate the effort to produce a new product and an attempt to improve existing technology, but I don't see how a fourth leg helps. Still I wish Novoflex and HP the best of luck with the product.
Kerry L. Thalmann
6-Jun-2009, 19:16
Did you know that copy stands per GSA were listed under tripods?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Properly these are all camera supports. The terminology depends on the accepted use in most areas of photography. Every member of the press that has seen the Quadropod at a show has remarked that it is a "four leg tripod". It is the use, not the design that makes it referred to as a tripod.
I would think it would be your job to correct the members of the press that were incorrectly calling the quadropod a tripod - not propagating the incorrect use of the term as you did in the title of this thread. If this is indeed a new category of product, wouldn't calling it by the correct name help differentiate it from the thousands of tripods (you know, the kind with three legs) already on the market?
And the Quadropod V can be set up with 3 legs at 120° apart or 4 legs at 90° apart. So what would you call that? Since it is both.
I'd call it confusing. For the life of me, I can't figure out the intended market for this product. It sure seems like a solution in search of a problem. As others have pointed out, setting up a support with 4 legs will be easiest and fastest on a perfectly level floor - as in a studio. Yet, one of the supposed benefits of 4 legs over three is less chance for tipping. Studios aren't exactly windy environments. So, I don't see the benefit of the 4th leg in the studio setting where studio stands with heavily weighted bases and heavy tripods on dollies are commonly used.
As others have correctly pointed out, setting up a 4 legged support on uneven ground (i.e. outdoors) can be problematic. At the very least, it will take more time than setting up a tripod - which by its very nature will not wobble on uneven ground. As a nature photographer, I am always concerned about the weight I have to carry on my back. A 4 legged support will be 33% (on average) heavier than a comparable 3 legged tripod. Why would I want to carry around something that is both heavier and takes longer to set up?
Photographers have been using tripods for over 150 years without the need for a 4th leg. What has changed in within the last year that suddenly makes a 4th leg desirable? Surveyors continue to use tripods to support their sensitive equipment. If there was a benefit to a 4th leg, I think they would have switched en masse to quadrapods decades ago - yet they haven't.
Kerry
Bob Salomon
7-Jun-2009, 02:04
It is not easy making a good tripod, first prove to me you can make a good 3 leg tripod.
You have had Photokina, Photo East, MacWorld, PhotoWest, The Precision Camera Show, That Samy's Show, NANPA shows to have seen it. One is currently in N. CA being shown to dealers by our rep and one is now in Texas being shown to dealers down there. They have been demoed at B&H demo days as well as Adorama's and W.B. Hunts Show and the Camera Wholesalers show.
Any of these venues would have let you see and handle a Quadropod. They are just now being shipped to the first dealers that ordered them.
They are not being hidden from you. Simply go to a show and play with one. Or talk to your local camera store about having one sent in for you to play with.,
Bob Salomon
7-Jun-2009, 11:07
No I did not miss your point. You missed mine. Go get your hands on one, then comment.
As for Novoflex. They have been making professional quality camera equipment for decades under their name and also as parts for Rollei, Leica, Hasselblad and Arriflex, among others. They proved their manufacturing quality decades ago. In fact, if you shoot with Hasselblad, Rollei, Leica or Arrii there is an excellent chance that you are shooting with a Novoflex manufactured accessory.
Colin Graham
7-Jun-2009, 11:20
Hmmm. I can think of a few applications where a fourth leg would come in handy. :>
No seriously, I've up tight against a bluff or cliff wall on a ledge, setting up and had to kick one leg off the wall due to room limitations. Would have nice to have an extra leg to stabilize it better. Or setting up on beach logs, boulder fields, etc, anywhere where the elevation changes dramatically and you can't collapse the third leg enough and you're restricted how you can rotate the legs. I'm not sure a fourth leg is an overall perfect solution, but I've actually been in a situation or two where I wished I had an extra point to distribute load. Could be my tin hat is getting warm, who knows.
Anyway. Bob- I admire your patience.
Is all this passion about an unseen product normal? If a product is boneheaded, nobody will buy it, and they'll stop making it. Problem solved. People can laugh and point when it happens. If it seems boneheaded but turns out not to be, there are probably people who won't use it just because they refuse to believe it could not be anything but boneheaded. Maybe they punish only themselves. And there may be others who thought it was boneheaded but end up being persuaded, and then their passionate words might be recalled with some regret. If it meets requirements a given person does not have, then they shouldn't buy it, but that doesn't mean the next person won't have those requirements. That's what markets are about. We are free to choose.
I personally don't see a need in my own work for this product, though I can think of a time it two it might have helped avert a problem. And truth to tell much of the products Bob represents are out of my price range, at least when new. But there sure seems to be a lot of designing going on without thinking through the requirements, and a lot of commentary on a design without seeing it in person. Maybe there's some fundamental point people are missing.
As to Novoflex being a newcomer to the camera-support biz, so what? That doesn't make any of the above untrue. The product will succeed or fail on its own merits. Most of the products I design as an engineer have never been built before and will never be built just like that again. But they all fulfill their design requirements.
Rick "reserving judgment until seeing an example" Denney
This Novaflex I believe is around $1000, I think people want to get opinions when they pay that much.
No doubt. But as I review the opinions of users on any given product, first-hand opinions are the ones that get my attention.
Rick "not in the market for a $1000 camera support of any configuration" Denney
Novaflex is a no-body in the tripod business, the product and concept isn't proven, years of heavy testing by pros is non-existant. So if your spending a lot for a tripod, which would you buy....Gitzo or Novaflex, 3 or 4 legs? You're forgetting logic, common sense, and voice of experience by others in here (which you imply are worthless compared to my mothers "first hand" opinion after seeing the product in person). I don't need to see a Gitzo to decide I am getting a top quality product.
I do need to see a Gitzo. The last one I inspected rang like a bell when I thumped it. The Bogen legs I bought did not. There was a difference in the damping of the fitments, apparently. I have avoided Gitzo aluminum tripod legs because of that inspection I made many years ago.
I suppose there are two ways of evaluating something: One by experience and another by inspection. As an engineer, I'm compelled to the latter, for the simple reason that most constructed projects are built in single examples and experience may not apply. I can inspect a camera support and know if it's strong enough. I can set it up and thump it with my thumbnail and know if it rings. I can set it up, break it down, set it up, and break it down about three times, and know if it will be a pain in the posterior to use in the field. I can inspect the manner in which the hinges and locks are made and make a pretty reasonable assessment of their durability. I can inspect the design and know whether it will provide flexibility in use. For example, I know that the adjustable center braces on my Bogen 3036 legs will make it easier to plumb the center column than the fixed-length center braces on my 3040 legs, and I know that having the center braces will add a truss to the design making it more stiff than not having them, for the same overall weight, especially when the legs are splayed out wide and therefore loaded in bending rather than compression.
The only thing I cannot assess by inspection is the quality of the material itself. That matters when considering a no-name brand from you-know-where, but I figure Novoflex knows better than to use pot-metal for the top casting. But that doesn't require any faith to believe.
Experience does count. So, forgive me for being forward, but why don't you tell us the experience you have had with Novoflex camera supports? There had to have been a first use of Gitzo, or Ries, or Berlebach, or Manfrotto/Bogen, or any of the quality makers. Were those first users idiots for trying something not tested by the experience of others? Maybe. But perhaps they were able to assess the quality of the item by inspection.
Once I am actually able to inspect the Novoflex, I might be right there with you and I reserve that possibility. Maybe my inspection will indeed reveal that it's just a silly product stem to stern. I'm just not going to insist that it's obvious based on a few words in an Internet forum, or on the perceived inexperience of Novoflex in the camera support field. And, at $1000, it's indeed expensive and it will have to perform amazingly in those inspections to attract much market--a market that will not likely include me no matter what just because of the price.
Rick "thinking faith shouldn't be necessary to evaluate this tripod" Denney
Rakesh Malik
9-Jun-2009, 09:15
Sorry Bob, I've been an engineer for twenty years...I know all to well how these things really work.
Ah yes, the good old authority ploy... followed up by:
The problem with four legs is that at any given moment in time, three of them will be in one plane (by definition) and the fourth....well...very likely will not be.
Which ignores the blindingly obvious difference between a table or chair and a tripod: on a tripod, you can adjust the angle and length of the 4th leg.
Another huge but not quite so glaringly obvious difference is that particularly outdoors, it's quite common to be placing the tripod on a surface or set of surfaces that aren't even close to level, so I end up adjusting the lengths and angles of each leg independently anyway in order to get the tripod to a somewhat level state.
Whether or not the quadrupod will turn out to be a gimmick or a benefit I can't say, but seriously it should be very obvious that the chair analogy doesn't apply here in any way, provided that you remember a little bit about your basic geometry.
Rakesh Malik
9-Jun-2009, 09:33
It weighs 16.5lbs, but sinks well in snow and leaves...and holds anything.
What is it with this silly obsession with heavy tripods? Why would anyone in their right mind want such a heavy beast?
The movie industry has a different requirements -- they have entire crews and trucks to lug around all that gear. Who in their right mind is ever going to hump a 16 pound tripod up a thousand-foot-per-mile ascent?
I'm already carrying 30 pounds of survival gear before adding the camera, I can weight down any tripod that's sturdy enough. So why would it beneficial to have a heavy tripod, again?
What if the ground is softer under one of the legs, and the soil shifts as you push the film holder into the camera? With 3 legs they all compress to a solid footing, but with 4 legs if one of the legs gives way in soft soil then you just lost your equilibrium
I don't see how having 4 legs vs 3 changes the issue of soft ground under a leg... you're going to have to watch out for that either way.
When I buy a tripod, I want quality, proven durability under professional use, dependable, joints that last forever and not loosen up. Gitzo has proven itself...Novaflex in comparison with other mfrs in the tripod business is a nobody. They are hoping they have an edge in this game by introducing a 4th leg which I would never buy.
I want proven quality also. I don't know much about Novoflex tripods, but the company does seem to have a pretty reputation overall.
I want quality, not more legs. How much experience does Novaflex really have in making high end tripods?
Since I haven't actually seen one of these quadrupods in person, and hence haven't tried it out, this is only hypothetical: what if quality happened to come with more legs? It's a 5-pound tripod (which is still more weight than I want, to be honest -- I'm eying one of Feisol's 2.2 pounders) that supports over 100 pounds sounds to me like something that people using 600mm+ lenses and 8x10 or bigger cameras might actually be very interested in, if only for the load to weight ratio.
They are not a major player in the tripod business. Sounds too much like the electric knife, some of us use it....but I prefer the old fashion way.
I recall a lot of people saying that about compact discs, surround sound, and the internet.
Whether or not the quadrupod is a good product remains to be seen.
Rakesh Malik
9-Jun-2009, 09:44
Is all this passion about an unseen product normal? If a product is boneheaded, nobody will buy it, and they'll stop making it. Problem solved.
Rick "reserving judgment until seeing an example" Denney
Hear, hear.
Bob Salomon
9-Jun-2009, 10:36
16.5 lbs isn't really "heavy" A Linhof Heavy Duty Pro tripod with the Large Geared Center Column weighs 24.1 pounds! Add the Profi III ball head with 90mm base to it and you are at 28 pounds. Or add the Profi III pan head instead and you reach 31.5 pounds!
dsphotog
9-Jun-2009, 13:55
A Quadropod has got to be more worthwhile than the Octomom!
Rakesh Malik
9-Jun-2009, 16:10
Rakesh, you can be all set up, then you push the film holder into the camera, then a minute shift occurs on one leg.
I'm not claiming that an extra leg would cure this, but I've run into this sort of thing with tripods, too. Soft ground is soft ground.
A tripod would compensate automatically
I don't see how that could possibly be the case, although I'm still on the fence about how much an extra leg will help.
Maris Rusis
9-Jun-2009, 16:55
At last a solution to a vexing problem! Next time some body wants to charge me for a "tripod permit" or some security guard waves his arms and yells "Hey, no tripods allowed!" all I need is that four legged beast.
Now I can reply "Tripod? What tripod? Man, can't you count? Four legs aint no tripod"! This way I win every time. Unless I'm working a particularly tough neighborhood. In which case the ambulance crew might be phoning ahead to the local emergency department trying to explain that they are bringing in a photographer and he has a "quadrupod" up where?
Rakesh Malik
11-Jun-2009, 13:41
Hi Rakesh,
I think you missed my point. Soft ground is soft ground as you say. But a 3 pod on flat soil will distribute pressure evenly. With a 4 pod, you must apply the right pressure to the 4th leg yourself, not enough or too much (hard to set)....and you lose the benefits of perfect equilibrium.
I didn't miss your point, I just disagreed with it.
The market will tell.
I agree there.
I'm happy with my tripods, good for life, and I got by with 3 legs for a very long time without trouble and one less leg is less weight and faster to set up. My 16.5 lb tripod I doubt will blow over in a 50mph wind, especially with legs "spread" further apart to next level (that is the key, not a 4th leg).
I've been doing mostly fine with 3 legs myself. I had a few mishaps, one resulting in sending my Ebony back to Japan for repair, but weighting the tripod or widening the leg spread would most likely have been enough to prevent that (live and learn, eh?). So I'm also not in the market for one of the quadrupods, not because I think it's a gimmick (I'm on the fence on that), but because it's too heavy and expensive for my tastes. But then, I'm planning doing several trips this summer that include camping and trails that involve 1000-foot-per-mile elevation gains... which is why my eyes are on a 2-pound Feisol and a Toho Shimo. :)
Jim Graves
11-Jun-2009, 22:59
It is INCREDIBLE to me that so many people can express such strong opinions about the worth of a design they have not tested. That's the kind of attitude that supports the continuation of the Flat Earth Society.
Jim Graves
11-Jun-2009, 23:00
I wonder why there aren't more three legged dogs?
There are quite a few ... and 90% of them are named "Tripod."
dsphotog
11-Jun-2009, 23:18
There are quite a few ... and 90% of them are named "Tripod."
I know of a 3 legged cat..... His name was.....Tri-paw.
Colin Graham
12-Jun-2009, 06:19
There are quite a few ... and 90% of them are named "Tripod."
Clearly I need to get out and meet more three legged dogs!
Wait...how does that work exactly? Do they walk up and offer a paw and introduce themselves? Could be awkward. ;)
It is INCREDIBLE to me that so many people can express such strong opinions about the worth of a design they have not tested. That's the kind of attitude that supports the continuation of the Flat Earth Society.
"Before you can synthesize, you must analyze.. -- Milton E. Hamilton
an engineer who could not analyze a design on paper would not be an engineer. One need NOT have the thing in ones hands to be able to do an engineering evaluation of the design and the marketing claims. This is especially true of something as simple as a multi-legged camera support.
Do you think that a Civil Engineer has to build and test the bridge before they could make an evaluation of its strength, etc...???
The argument that one need have a hands on with this thing before pointing out that the marketing claims are exaggerated is simply non-sense.
Perhaps, if the marketing hype had been toned down a little bit, if the claims had been a little less ridiculous (the claim that it is much more stable than a tripod is laughably absurd), the product would not have been subjected to such ridicule..
It is INCREDIBLE to me that so many people can express such strong opinions about the worth of a design they have not tested. That's the kind of attitude that supports the continuation of the Flat Earth Society.
Not true! the attitude in play is different.
Every member of the Flat Earth Society has experienced standing on "the earth", and so have tested it is some aspect.
What we are seeing here is more of a belief system or "faith" in the absence of any exposure, beyond imagination.:o
Regards
Bill
Kerry L. Thalmann
12-Jun-2009, 10:36
It is INCREDIBLE to me that so many people can express such strong opinions about the worth of a design they have not tested. That's the kind of attitude that supports the continuation of the Flat Earth Society.
But Jim, if the Earth was indeed, totally and completely flat, a 4-legged "tripod" might actually make sense.
Kerry
rdenney
12-Jun-2009, 12:05
[Do you think that a Civil Engineer has to build and test the bridge before they could make an evaluation of its strength, etc...???
No, but he does have to have more than a verbal description of it from an post on an Internet forum.
I can inspect the design of an item as effectively as inspecting a specimen, but the design must include: A clear description of the application on which the design is based, the requirements of the design to support that application, and the calculations of the design that respond to those requirements. The final validation of the design, which is indeed done after construction, is to confirm that the application is indeed supported. These are validation and verification processes, about when forests are felled to write the books engineers study.
After all, even a bridge has more requirements than just not falling down.
Rick "a civil engineer" Denney
No, but he does have to have more than a verbal description of it from an post on an Internet forum.
I can inspect the design of an item as effectively as inspecting a specimen, but the design must include: A clear description of the application on which the design is based, the requirements of the design to support that application, and the calculations of the design that respond to those requirements. The final validation of the design, which is indeed done after construction, is to confirm that the application is indeed supported. These are validation and verification processes, about when forests are felled to write the books engineers study.
After all, even a bridge has more requirements than just not falling down.
Rick "a civil engineer" Denney
Are you able to analyze the specific claim that the four legged camera support is more stable than the three legged support? Are you able to make some reasonable assumptions and use standard definitions and methods to evaluate this claim? Or must we take this claim as fact because it was uttered?
Or, how about this....design a tripod. Now, add a leg to your design of exactly the same design as the other three...analyze the stability of both designs. What conclusion do you come to?
If you do the stability analysis, please post you analysis here...and let the defense rest.
rdenney
12-Jun-2009, 22:19
Are you able to analyze the specific claim that the four legged camera support is more stable than the three legged support?
This is not a court case. There is no defense. You are on the defensive, or trying to put others on the defensive, but that's all.
I can see where a four-legged camera support would be useful in some applications (which is NOT the same thing as claiming the product is well-executed, a good value, or anything else that would require that I evaluate the product directly). On a soft surface, the legs sink into the dirt. As I said in my previous analysis, which I suppose you have forgotten, there will always be one leg loaded more or less than the other three with a four leg system. But that doesn't mean that the support will rock, it just means that leg has to deflect enough (or the dirt on which is sits) to absorb any potential movement.
The stated requirement was not that it prevented rocking, nor did I see a claim that it solved a problem with rocking. The claim was that it would not tip over as easily as three legs. You are basing your statement on the notion that three legs always define a plane, while four legs may not. You have not shown that this is actually demanded by the design conditions, and I submit that it is not. There are two things required of a camera support:
1. It has to keep the camera from falling to the ground, and
2. It must keep the camera still.
To fulfill the first requriement, the support has to prevent the camera from overbalancing the support and tipping over.
Tipping will occur with the sum vector of gravitational forces on the camera and support fall outside the polygon formed by where the legs meet the ground. A two-legged support with sharp feet always tips because it's nearly impossible to keep that vector exactly in line with the two feet. Stated another way, if a plumb bob from the center of gravity of the camera and support points outside the area enclosed by the feet, the tripod will tip over.
So, one way to prevent tipping is to keep the center of gravity inside the polygon formed by the feet. One can't always spread the feet, and in any case doing so puts the legs more in bending and therefore makes them less stiff. A four-legged support will prevent tipping with a narrower stance and more upright legs, because the closest tipping points are further away with a square than with a triangle.
The distance from the center of the polygon to its closest point (or tipping point) is the apothem. If you load a tripod off-balance, you know from experience that it's more likely to tip when the heavy side crosses the middle of a line between the feet, and one way to stabilize it is to rotate the heavy portion to line up with a foot. That narrower dimension is the apothem.
The apothem of a polygon is:
r cos (pi/n)
where r is the radius of the circle containing the points where the feet touch the ground, and n is the number of sides (feet). An equilateral triangle has an apothem one-half of the radius of the circle described by the feet. A square has an apothem 71% of that radius.
If the off-balance can be described by the distance from the center of gravity to the center of the circle, that distance has to go (.71/.5)=1.42 times as far to reach the nearest tipping point. That's the basis for the claim that it is more stable--it is harder to get a support with four legs to tip than a support with three legs, given the same stance. That is why most tables have four legs, even if they rock, because if you lean on the edge of a table with three legs, it's easy to find yourself on the floor with the table on its side beside you. You can also use a narrower stance with the same tipping distance, which will load the legs more in compression and less in bending.
If you put a four-legged table on a sandy beach, it won't rock. The reason is that the more heavily loaded leg (and there will always be one, even with three legs) will sink further into the sand until they all reach equilibrium. A camera support intended for use outdoors that has sharp feet will allow that sort of equilibrium even with four legs. A four-legged support intended for use indoors would need soft enough feet to allow that equilibrium, and fine enough controls of the attitude of the legs to get it close enough so that the rubber feet could do their thing.
I think it would be a lot easier outdoors on natural ground (except rock) using sharp feet. Remember who Bob said wanted this support: Nature photographers. These are the guys that use fairly light cameras with very heavy and long lenses and slender, light tripods.
To sum up, I don't think it's a stupid concept on the face of it as you have characterized. I don't think one can reject the design out of hand knowing no more than the one fact that it has four legs instead of three. Your insistence that four legs will always rock assumes (effectively) infinitely hard feet, an (effectively) infinitely hard surface, and the inability to make fine adjustments on the legs easily. With the compliance that all structures have, all it takes is the ability to adjust the legs finely enough so that the remaining tendency to rock is absorbed by the compliance of the system. With all due respect, you are assuming much more than I am.
By the way, stating on a public forum that an engineered product is poorly engineered, without having conducted a proper analysis of the design of the product, is a violation of engineering ethics in the states in which I'm registered.
Rick "thinking people who claim engineering expertise ought to act like engineers" Denney
Rakesh Malik
13-Jun-2009, 08:23
To sum up, I don't think it's a stupid concept on the face of it as you have characterized. I don't think one can reject the design out of hand knowing no more than the one fact that it has four legs instead of three. Your insistence that four legs will always rock assumes (effectively) infinitely hard feet, an (effectively) infinitely hard surface, and the inability to make fine adjustments on the legs easily.
It's interesting to note that pretty much everyone who has claimed that the quadrupod won't work has also made the often implicit assumption that it's going to behave exactly like a chair or table -- where the legs angles are fixed.
I agree about the "reinventing the tripod" business; that's clearly false, since it's not a tripod... but that's just marketing mumbo-jumbo. It won't matter much if the quadrupod falls short in the field.
A few people keep harping the idea that Novoflex is a relative newcomer (though they can't even spell Novoflex), and completely ignore the fact that all companies are newcomers at some point. Not having a reputation doesn't make them bad. Or good, for that matter. I'm sure someone will try out the quadrupod and see how well it holds up in the field, and then we'll get to see some actual feedback about things like build quality.
Rick "thinking people who claim engineering expertise ought to act like engineers" Denney
Well said.
1. It has to keep the camera from falling to the ground, and
2. It must keep the camera still.
To fulfill the first requriement, the support has to prevent the camera from overbalancing the support and tipping over.
Rick,
you have twice addressed point #1 and I agree, four legs, properly adjusted on soft ground are less likely to tip over than three. However, you have not addressed point #2 which is precisely the point of contention.
A condition for stability is that the points defined by the leg tips all be in the same plane....and, I guess that the plane be tangent to the ground at those same points. Notice that this does not require the ground to be a plane!
Now, with four points arbitrarily positioned in space, any three will define a plane and the fourth may or may not be in that same plane. Thus, a tripod is ideal in terms of stability. Let us assume that the fourth point is "close" to being in the same plane. In this case, the platform will rock with small perturbations in the load forces applied. A strong wind, inserting a film holder for example. Your prior analysis applies here except we're not considering tipping over just shifting from one equilibrium state to another nearby state (in configuration space). In another case, suppose that all four points are perfectly co-planar and that all for points are tangent to the ground...but that the ground is unstable...in this case, a small perturbation in the support again gives rise to instability.
By the way, stating on a public forum that an engineered product is poorly engineered, without having conducted a proper analysis of the design of the product, is a violation of engineering ethics in the states in which I'm registered.
Rick "thinking people who claim engineering expertise ought to act like engineers" Denney
You have twice publicly accused me of ethics violations and this time followed it up with a back handed insult obviously directed to me. I have not as you say, stated that the product was poorly designed. Nor have I ever said it failed to meet the design requirements. Nor have I disparaged the design engineer nor any other person. The main point of my argument is and has been focused entirely upon the marketing claims. Please re-read my posts carefully and see if you do not agree.
What does the canon of ethics for professional engineers say about making personal attacks and accusations against another in a public forum? The first time you did it, I dismissed it. This is the second. If you wish to so accuse me then, please do it through the proper channels and according to the proper procedure. Even if you do not wish to do so, may I suggest that you refrain from the use of personal attacks as part of your argument. It is dishonorable and makes you look bad to people who can see what is going on.
While insults and personal attacks may strengthen your argument in the eyes of the un-educated, such tactics generally weaken your argument in the minds of more intelligent readers.
rdenney
13-Jun-2009, 15:34
A condition for stability is that the points defined by the leg tips all be in the same plane....and, I guess that the plane be tangent to the ground at those same points. Notice that this does not require the ground to be a plane!
1. Any support that is out of balance (the CG is not over the centroid of the feet positions) will load the legs differently. Yet many supports are stable and don't wobble even though loaded unequally. Clearly, then, equal loading is not necessary to prevent wobble. (I'm not saying that you are saying this--I'm just laying out some thinking.)
2. All structural systems deflect. That means that they are all compliant--the bits all deform (without damage, we hope) in response to a load. There is no material I know of that shows zero strain when under stress.
3. Natural ground does not form a plane at the scale relevant to this discussion.
4. If all the feet are in contact with the ground and carrying a load, the support will not wobble freely, though it may deform as load and balance varies.
5. But if the load does not shift, the stress on each component will not change, and therefore neither will the strain.
6. There are some transient loads on a camera, such as wind. Their effect will always be movement in the system. The requirement is to keep that movement below the circles of confusion at the image plane, just as we apply when considering, say, depth of field.
7. Thus, on a calm day, if all legs are in contact with the ground, there will be no movement, no matter how variously those legs are loaded.
8. On a windy day, the system will move, but this is as true with tripods and with supports of any number of legs above two.
9. The tricky bit is making sure all legs are in contact with the ground. And I think this is where you have hung your hat.
10. But (and this is the hook my hat is hanging on), since there is compliance in the system, all that is required to make sure all legs are in contact with the ground is sufficient adjustability so that the fourth leg can be made to touch the ground and carry a load within the range of the system compliance. I don't think this is all that hard to do, conceptually. I have nothing to say about execution, not having seen the product.
If you will note, I have stated only what I find in the ethics laws, and left it for you and others to examine your own statements. I have made no accusations, nor have I attempted to call into question any particular statement. I consider it defining a boundary, as I see it, and leaving it for each person using his engineering credentials to analyze the product to decide for themselves where they are in relation to that boundary. In a court, statements made by someone claiming to be an engineer that could be shown to have caused financial harm to a product maker without making a proper analysis, could be subject to a complaint. Highly unlikely, of course, but it does happen--just read the engineering board newsletters.
(Obviously, I am not accusing you of ethics violations. To do so, I would have to connect your specific behavior with a specific ethics clause, which I have not done. Think of it as, "Be careful, in some states that could construed as..." which is not in any way an accusation, nor do I mean you any animosity at all. As to what others think, or whether it strengthens or weakens an argument--that is not my concern. Most others who are still reading this should decide to evaluate the product for themselves, which is exactly my recommendation)
Rick "very careful about language when signing as an engineer" Denney
Rakesh Malik
15-Jun-2009, 11:42
A condition for stability is that the points defined by the leg tips all be in the same plane....
No, the leg TOPS must be in the same plane, which is assured by the rigidity of the tripod base. Since the legs can be adjusted independently, both in terms of length and angle, the planar argument is a canard.
I suspect that the quadrupod will take more work to set up than a tripod (because it's an extra leg), but I have yet to see any valid argument to support the assertion that it won't be as stable as a tripod.
I frequently set up my tripod with the base at an odd angle, and the legs splayed out at odd angles and uneven lengths, and use the ballhead to level the camera if I need it level. If any of the arguments for why a quadrupod wouldn't be as stable as a tripod had any merit, I wouldn't have been able to get sharp shots with my tripod set up that awkwardly, yet it hasn't been a problem even with the 4x5.
I am going to defer to Rick's excellent analysis above and agree with him that each individual needs to perform his own evaluation and draw his own conclusions.
rdenney
16-Jun-2009, 12:04
We have been getting razor sharp images from tripods using 35mm up to 20x24 cameras for a very long time. All you need is to open your wallet. The problem with tripods is not having 3 or 4 legs, the real problem is finding one that doesn't become loose, and is able to stay tight for 20 years of pro use. You can mount it in concrete, but if the components are loose, you have junk.
Amen. You don't see me offering my Bogen 3036 legs for sale, and I have two sets, both of which have seen extensive service over at least that long a period. Both are a bit rattly, actually, but they still hold cameras still. The lockable and adjustable center column brace on each leg is particularly useful for increasing stiffness.
But they are heavy suckers.
Here's a scenario to consider: I once wanted to get my Cambo lower to the ground than I could with the 3036 legs and the 3047 head, which sits very tall. So, I tilted the tripod head over to one side, which put the entire camera to one side of the center column. I had to spread the legs just about to full spread to keep it from tipping over, especially when pushing and pulling film holders. I could have greatly decreased its tendency to tip with a fourth leg. The full spread also loads the legs in bending to a greater extent than compression, and approximately round or square legs (of whatever material) will always be more flexible in bending than in compression.
Execution is, of course, everything. I cannot conceive, however, of how I would be able to comment on execution without having actually handled the product or made an inspection of how it was designed.
I agree without reservation that a four-leg support can hardly help but be more fiddly.
I am not defending the product--I've never even seen a picture of it. But the concept of the design is not as silly nor as unworkable as some have assumed it to be, assuming the execution is good enough to satisfy the requirements that derive from that concept. And for a thousand bucks, the execution had better be flawless, of course.
My local camera store (Ace Photo in Virginia) has one on order, or so Moe tells me. If I happen by while it's there, I will play with it some and comment further.
Rick "who can't afford it no matter what" Denney
Bob Salomon
16-Jun-2009, 12:28
Rick,
Stop by there on Thursday. We are shipping his order today or tomorrow. He ordered it with center column and with the aluminum legs. The center column version is heavier then the non-center column B version by 0.44 lbs (200 g) and the legs will be heavier then their carbon counterpart by 1 lb.
rdenney
16-Jun-2009, 14:16
But when we all go one day all digital, with a very light dslr, how many of us will need a 4 pod?
A 600mm f/4 lens still has to have a front barrel diameter of 150mm, at least effectively. And since format is the primary determinant of basic quality, I see the trend going to more digital in larger formats, not less. I don't think my Canon 5D is particularly smaller or lighter than my F-1.
Looking at the weight of the tripod that Bob is describing, my suspicion is that this is not an approach to make the monsters we use more stable, but rather a way to make much smaller and lighter tripods stable enough to use with big honking lenses. I'll try to go see one this week and report back.
Rick "not thinking Novoflex even intends this as any other than a niche product" Denney
Rakesh Malik
16-Jun-2009, 14:44
collars design/materials (that can withstand rotational forces and will not loosen with heavy pro use, bushings used to maintain tightness leg width and wall thickness to reduce vibration, 3 or 4 extensions per leg, and most important is weight).These other variables could mean one crappy 4 pod by Novaflex.
All else aside, how do you know whether or not this thing's built well? Have you seen one in person? What do you think of Induro and Feisol? How about Chamonix? Not long ago, they were all newcomers, but by your logic, no one should consider one because they're new, and everyone should just get a Gitzo.
In spite of that, Feisol and Chamonix at least get lots of recomendations here since they turned out to be quality products... and Novoflex isn't exactly a new company, they've been around even if they haven't been making tripods, and their reputation is pretty good.
If this new quadrupod isn't built like a tank, at a kilobuck it would probably be more than just a flop, so I'm betting that Novoflex put some effort into quality on this one. I'm sure they know a little something about the competition...
As to whether or not the extra leg will be useful, I'll wait for the field reports. I may be open-minded, but I'm not sold on the extra leg, either.
Rakesh Malik
17-Jun-2009, 11:38
Well, at $1000 for the Novaflex, that puts you into the high end market for tripods, so I brought up Gitzo. Now Induro, Feisol....these are 1/3 the cost. Chamonix is also a nice camera for the under $1000 range....but it is not high end, it is not a Linhof or Ebony or Horseman or Toyo or Sinar or Alpa or Sylvestri or Fotoman.
The cost, whether it's high end or low end, isn't the point. The point is that you're trying to claim that the Novoflex quadrupod is a crappy product because it's from a company new to making camera supports.
The fact that Induro and Feisol aren't as expensive as Gitzo doesn't change anything; not long ago, they were both newbies and therefore unknown quantities, and now they get recommended pretty frequently because it turned out that their products are quite good. Nowhere did I compare either one to Gitzo.
Again the comment comes up "have you seen one"? Please, read previous comments on that.
It sounds like you should take that advice instead, since it sounds like you're trying to put words in my mouth.
Rakesh Malik
18-Jun-2009, 09:11
I didn't say a Novaflex is a crappy product....I said until you consider all the other variables that make up a good tripod
Actually, you did. I happen to agree that until we see it we have no way of knowing for sure whether or not it's any good, and that the extra leg isn't going to matter if it's not, but I also didn't claim that it would be a great product, only that Novoflex has made other good products.
have you seen a Gitzo, better yet....do you own a gitzo or two?
Just one.
"The Induro gets recommended pretty frequently " ...sure, sure in that price range. No one expects it to compare with a linhof or gitzo.
I didn't say otherwise... but that doesn't change the fact that not long ago, Induro was completely unheard of, and yet now is a fairly well established brand based on quality.
No one gets it right the first time, and while gitzo is celebrating its 90th year, do you really believe Novaflex can get it right in YEAR ONE??? Some things take years of pro use to show its weak points, requiring constant refinements. But, no one is stopping you from spending your hard earned money.
You really should learn to read more carefully. I haven't been trying to convince anyone to buy one of these new toys, and I also pointed out that it isn't for me.
It sounds like you're just getting desperate to back your own arguments, rather than simply accepting that the only logical thing to do here is to wait and see.
I also think that given the price point, that quadrupod had BETTER be VERY robust, because that price tag puts it in a position to compete directly with Gitzo, which is a high bar to live up to.
rdenney
20-Jun-2009, 16:17
First Look at Novoflex Quadrupod C3.
Firstly--I don't know if there are different sizes. I only looked at one size. This one wasn't a tripod with the option of a fourth leg--the design of this required all four legs.
Short answer: Beautifully made, but I think unsuited for large format. It is suited for the guy who owns a Leica M8.2 just because it's a Leica, and that guy probably won't regret the purchase (or subject the thing to the same abuse many of us might).
The legs come in a separate box, and screw very precisely into the head using a 1/4-20 thread. Thus, with a flat plate to act as a washer, each leg could be used as a high-quality monopod. The locks are twist locks, and I had to crank them down quite tightly not to slip when I leaned on the tripod. The middle section is calibrated for height every inch or two.
The center column is too light for large-format cameras, and is a friction fit. There is a hook on the bottom for a bag (or a pretty girl).
The leg mounts have about four positions, and only four positions. They cannot be locked to a specific angle. There are no center braces. Thus, to maintain the contact of all four legs on the ground, the feet must lock into the ground surface reliably. The feet are spikes with screw-out rubber feet, ala Manfrotto. I think the four leg design will be quite reasonable on natural ground with the spikes, and subject to slippage and rocking on hard, smooth surfaces. The only way to adjust the leg position against one of the angle stops on the central casting is by adjusting the height, and I found it rather fiddly.
The quality of the finish and the machine work is jewel-like, and as pretty as any camera support I've ever seen. Gitzo and Manfrotto are just workaday by comparison.
The aluminum legs are no more stiff than the medium-weight aluminum legs of Induro or Manfrotto legs, and less stiff than Gitzo legs of the same size. Wooden and carbon composite legs of the same weight are stiffer and with better damping.
After looking at it for a while, I gingerly and with great caution put it all back in its boxes. The top and center column portion was priced in the middle 600's, and near as I could tell did not include the legs.
Conclusion: give me a set of Bogen 3021 legs and a cheapie Indian knockoff gimbal mount for a long lens on a small camera any day, and let me not worry about bouncing it down the driveway or in the trunk of the car. Or bigger legs and a Bogen 410 geared head for large format with the same lack of concern for dings and chips in the paint. I'd be scared of scratching this stuff--it's just too pretty.
But there will be folks who will queue up to buy it, I'm sure. And for what they get, it is no doubt beautifully made.
Rick "who admittedly swims at the other end of the pool" Denney
praftman
2-Jun-2010, 12:06
Dear Bob,
I joined this forum specifically to get in touch with you. I've made several attempts to get in touch with Novoflex, but so far no dice.
In Googling, this is basically the only feedback-oriented English-language reference online. I'm sure many people find this hoping for the same answers...So much that I would copy-paste this into a new posting so that it is not lost in the ranting pages prior (not your fault of course).
Here is an example email I sent, with all my relevant questions:
Dear To Whom It May Concern,
I do not speak German, but:
(A) Will begin classes in one month
(B) May visit you at Photokina
(C) Either way will be in your great country within this year
Until then, my apologies for this English letter, which I have tried to make plain.
I am a new photographer building my first studio. I want to purchase almost everything you make. I have many questions about your quadropod:
1. The QB_V has both silver metal buttons adjescant the two angle-shifting legs, and a blue rotary dial encapsulated within the base. The description states that by pressing a button the angle may be changed--so I assume these metal knobs accomplish that--then what is the dial for? I assume releasing it again?
2. The QB_V seems to have the two shifting legs (under the 'bicycle saddle's seat') and optional fourth leg spaced apart from the single remaining leg (positioned under the 'bicycle saddle's horn')... basically they are off-centered from each-other. How does this affect the performance and balance? Also: In tripod-mode: They look to be possibly centered--are they? I can see them being 120 degrees apart, but maybe they're 110+125+125?
3. The pictures seem to show a ball-and-joint socket-style support structure shouldering each leg in the QB_C and QB_B, but the QB_V looks as though its legs are joined without this enforcement. Please explain any differences.
4. What material are the silver leg-joints fashioned out of? I assume Stainless-steel?
5. What are the individual weights of the quadropod components, particularly the legs?
6. What are the individual dimensional measurements?
7. What are the folded dimensions of the quadropod when assembled?
8. What is the folded length of the individual legs when separated from the base?
9. Are the legs anti-twist? Anything like G-lock?
10. How are the leg joints ratcheted, or held in-place? They look possibly to be the weak point in the structure.
11. How is vibration affected by the modular structure built of varied-material joints?
12. What are the vibration characteristics in general?
13. Is the foam-padding removable?
14. What is the construction of the CFibre?
15. I've never seen a tripod wherein the base sits completely atop (and even hangs over) the legs as opposed to centered between them with only mild overlap... how does this affect the apex, balance, rigidity, etc.?
16. How does the 'bicycle saddle' shape of the QB_V affect the same?
17. Is there anyway at all to mount a weight hook under any of your bases?
18. What force can the suction-cups withstand... individually? tripod-style? quadropod-style? This is perhaps my single greatest cause for concern as all professional s-cups that I've seen use a lever-plunger rather than a lip-seal, and these s-cups are either numerous (clusters of cups per leg) or generously proportioned (5-6 inches wide each). This very feature may be a deal-breaker for me if the tripod cannot really be used confidently on a moving vehicle.
19. Are any photos, or is any video footage, available of the quadropod beyond the handful of shots on your website?
20. Can we expect to see any more accessories (Gitzo-Explorer-type column especially)?
21. Most importantly of all: Your photos show the QB_V with fourth leg detached and the joint fitted with a short column with ballhead, used then as an inverted 'center-column'. This is, to me, the single most interesting aspect of the concept, and invites several questions:
22. Where is the short-column for sale? Nowhere can I find it.
23. Can any ballhead be used--or is this a Magic-Ball only accessory?
24. When using this 'center-column': can this leg-joint be positioned into any of it's three angles and support the weight of camera and lens without slippage? What weight can it maintain? In other words: Can it maintain an angle when being pulled downward (placing pressure on the backside of the joint) as opposed to being pushed downward (placing pressure on the topside of the joint)? Most tripod legs simply can't resist this type of force--aren't designed to--and this would mean the fourth-leg would operate as an inverted center-column, but not as a Gitzo-EX-type angular column.
Here are several more questions regarding your other equipment:
25. Does the Castel XQ have a 1/4" socket on the side for accessories as it appears in the picture, or is this an insert for a control knob, etc.?
26. Also, do you have a converter to alter the orientation of the QR clamp from perpendicular to in-line with the Castel?
27. What is the movement-per-rotation of the drive-knob for the Castel L and/or Castel XL?
28. What exactly is all this beautiful blue on your products? Is it always metal, or some plastic? Is it painted?
29. Is the MagicStudio Art Light a parallel-ray light like the FlashArt light?
30. Why do you no longer make the FlashART 400 Studio Light?
31. What weights are your various panoramic plates able to hold without slippage, if mounted in a vertical position?
32. In particular, is the Pro plate better for heavy-gear, or simply advantageous for its varied degree settings? It does look like the clamp is a good deal longer...but perhaps the internals do not aid, may even weaken, the braking system...?
33. I have heard the ClassicBall 5 is fantastic except for one thing: the panoramic plate slips when the support is not completely level. Has this been fixed? Why is the panning knob on the Classic 3 ribbed but left smooth on the Classic 5?
34. The claim of 'no shifting' when locking-down has been made by many ballhead manufacturers. Though slight, all have so far been shown to shift. What is the performance of the Classic Ball 5 (or 3) in measured terms?
35. The BalPro T/S is advertised with several contradictory statements:
36. Your site says the BalPro T/S will accommodate any 35mm lens, but then says 35mm requires the 80mm lens head. Does this mean any 35mm lens will work as a bellows but to use the T/S functions (requiring a larger circle) the 80mm head must be used?
37. Also, the 80mm head is said to be permanently mounted: does this mean two bellows would need to be purchased in order to use other lenses (that is, the "any 35mm lens" mentioned?).
Also various shops further complicate the lenshead choice, example: BHPhoto:
38. From the BalPro T/S "Features" we have"
Choice of lens heads
Novoflex offers three special lens heads (Componon S) by Schneider in Bad Kreuznach for the BALPRO 1 and BALPRO T/S bellows. These lens heads are flush-mounted permanently on the bellows:
* Componon S 80mm f/4.0 for 35mm format
* Componon S 100mm f/4.0 for 645 format
* Componon S 150mm f/4.0 for 6x6 format
But then we have this under the 80mm lenshead:
This 80mm f/4 APO-Digitar Lens offered by Novoflex is made by Schneider in Bad Kreuznach for the BALPRO 1 and BALPRO T/S bellows system. It comes supplied with the required adapter for the bellows system. With an image-circle diameter as large as 90mm, this lens is even compatible with medium format cameras.
As well as this under the 100mm lenshead:
This 100mm f/5.6 APO-Digitar Lens offered by Novoflex is made by Schneider in Bad Kreuznach for the BALPRO 1 and BALPRO T/S bellows system. It comes supplied with the required adapter for the bellows system. With an image-circle diameter as large as 100mm, this lens is compatible with medium format cameras, as well as with 35mm SLR cameras.
...So what does this all mean?
39. Can a Neiger 19 be converted to a Ball 19, or is the flash-mount permanent? Is a washer needed shouls it be possible?
40. Does a Ball 30 or Ball 40 have as much resistance to panning-slippage as a Ball 19P, or for that matter, a Classic Ball 3 or 5?
41. Can the 19 pan at all? If so: How great is the difference, if any, between the 19 and the 19P, regarding its ability to lock onto a panned angle without slippage?
42. Is a Ball 30 (or even 40) practical as a substitute for a Ball 19 in any or all of the various quadropod combinations you show on your site, and on publicity-shots elsewhere? Examples would include leg-joints, accessory-holders, etc.
43. Can the flash-holder mount of the Neiger be equipped onto other ballheads (example Ball 30 or 40)?
In closing let me say that I plan to do a thorough review (for your English-speaking customers) to post on YouTube and my eventual photo-blog. Unfortunately there is little-to-no information available in English, currently, about the products you produce. I have grown greatly enamored, appreciative and impressed with what you build, and so I want to change things and spread the word about your great product!
Yours, Brandon
praftman
2-Jun-2010, 12:23
BTW, Van Camper is wrong about the collar-locking area. The Quadropod has a much wider and larger base than the Gitzo he shows, so the perceived distances are deceiving. Additionally, the base itself has a considerable thickness, whereas the Gitzo is a fraction of an inch and needs the continued collar. Lastly, the underbelly of the Quadropod does indeed have an extended collar--I was unable to find a photo of the center-column version that shows it well--though some show portions of it--but this is the basic base which has an almost identical underbelly so-it-seems:
http://www.stativfreak.de/GALERIES/4BEIN/NF/QPJL/4_nf_qp_35_jl.htm
Note that the base/collar combination of the Q-pod looks to be cut from a solid-block of aluminum... definitely a step-up from the Gitzo in so far as supporting the tensioning structure--but what the Q-pod uses to tension the column I've found no source on. Maybe Bob S. could help here? Question #44, then?
Bob Salomon
2-Jun-2010, 13:58
Brandon,
I will try to answer most of these tonight when I get home or tomorrow. But when you have this many questions a phone call from you would be more effective since the answers will raise more questions.
Our phone number is 800 735-4373 (it is a free call in the USA) we are open 9 to 5 EST and I will be on a trip from Fri. to Tues.
If you are in Canada you have to pay for the call. 973 808-9010 and just ask for Bob.
You can also download the Quadropod brochure with many of the answers from our ftp site:
Our ftp site is:
Account: ftp@hpmarketingcorp.com
Address: ftps://ftp.hpmarketingcorp.com
Password: hpmarketing
praftman
2-Jun-2010, 15:10
I myself will be on a trip shortly. Calling before you leave may prove difficult, so hopefully whatever you type (which will benefit many others as well) will be sufficient. Either way, we'll get in touch when we return from our respective voyages.
Thank you in every way for the quick reply, and any and all efforts you submit!
-Brandon. Err, praftman... whatever my avatar is.
Bob Salomon
3-Jun-2010, 07:37
Brandon,
There is a limit of 10,000 characters per posting so the answers need to be done in different posts.
1. The QB_V has both silver metal buttons adjescant the two angle-shifting legs, and a blue rotary dial encapsulated within the base. The description states that by pressing a button the angle may be changed--so I assume these metal knobs accomplish that--then what is the dial for? I assume releasing it again?
The leg angles, 3 legs at 120° or 4 legs at 90° are varied by pushing the button. There is no rotary dial on the QPV that is where the center column hole would be on the QPC.
2. The QB_V seems to have the two shifting legs (under the 'bicycle saddle's seat') and optional fourth leg spaced apart from the single remaining leg (positioned under the 'bicycle saddle's horn')... basically they are off-centered from each-other. How does this affect the performance and balance? Also: In tripod-mode: They look to be possibly centered--are they? I can see them being 120 degrees apart, but maybe they're 110+125+125?
See above answer. The QPV can be used as either a tripod or a Quadropod. When used as a tripod the fourth leg mopunt can be used to mount the short post MS REPRO VL to hold the camera. You would also need a head, of course.
3. The pictures seem to show a ball-and-joint socket-style support structure shouldering each leg in the QB_C and QB_B, but the QB_V looks as though its legs are joined without this enforcement. Please explain any differences.
The top plate of the Quadropods have a 15mm wide by 17mm long solid aluminum projection machined out of the same block as the rest of the top plate. Bolted to these are the leg attachment holders which are also each machined from solid aluminum. The legs screw into each of these. The screws on the leg have a long aluminum stud with a shoulder that goes into the hole on the bottom of the leg mounts. The weight on each leg then bears on that shoulder.
4. What material are the silver leg-joints fashioned out of? I assume Stainless-steel?
Yes
5. What are the individual weights of the quadropod components, particularly the legs?
6. What are the individual dimensional measurements?
See the brochures either that you download from the Novoflex web site or that are on our ftp site in yesterdays post.
7. What are the folded dimensions of the quadropod when assembled?
With 3 or 4 section legs or Walking Stick legs or Table Top legs? With center column version or without> Again, this is in the brochure.
8. What is the folded length of the individual legs when separated from the base?
Depends on which of the above legs but the brochure gives the specs.
9. Are the legs anti-twist? Anything like G-lock?
Yes. No. Just anti-twist on each section.
10. How are the leg joints ratcheted, or held in-place? They look possibly to be the weak point in the structure.
They have a lever lock that locks the legs in to notches machind across the 15mm width of the leg attachment points. The notch is 1/10" deep.
Bob Salomon
3-Jun-2010, 08:01
11. How is vibration affected by the modular structure built of varied-material joints?
It isn't all tripods are made from multiple types of material. But very, very few - if any others - are made from machined parts rater then castings or forgings (Giottos VGR series).
12. What are the vibration characteristics in general?
Much less then any tripod within twice to three times the weight of a Quadropod.
13. Is the foam-padding removable?
What foam padding? There is no foam.
14. What is the construction of the CFibre?
It is carbon fiber tubes with metal and rubber locks and a metal fitting to attach to the top plate.
15. I've never seen a tripod wherein the base sits completely atop (and even hangs over) the legs as opposed to centered between them with only mild overlap... how does this affect the apex, balance, rigidity, etc.?
The Quadropd has 50% greater contact area then a tripod and is far more stable with no tipping point like a tripod has. There is no effect on performance due to the top plate design.
16. How does the 'bicycle saddle' shape of the QB_V affect the same?
Why would it?
17. Is there anyway at all to mount a weight hook under any of your bases?
Yes. The QPC has a hook for a weight. On the others you can easily use the straps on a Giottos sand bag to hang a weight.
18. What force can the suction-cups withstand... individually?
10 lbs vertically or horizontally on a smooth, flat surface like glass or metal.
tripod-style? quadropod-style?
About 20 pounds
This is perhaps my single greatest cause for concern as all professional s-cups that I've seen use a lever-plunger rather than a lip-seal, and these s-cups are either numerous (clusters of cups per leg) or generously proportioned (5-6 inches wide each). This very feature may be a deal-breaker for me if the tripod cannot really be used confidently on a moving vehicle.
That isn't how you would use it. In the brochure you will see the Quadropod with short legs and no legs sunction cupped to the window with the bottom two legs and clamped to the top of the window with the other two legs. There is also an illustration of it suction cupped to the window with two legs and clamped to the rails on the roof with two legs. The clamps are the Uniklem 26 or 42 from Novoflex. Nothing would dislodge either of these short of physically breaking the window.
19. Are any photos, or is any video footage, available of the quadropod beyond the handful of shots on your website?
The brochures, and lots of images on our ftp site.
20. Can we expect to see any more accessories (Gitzo-Explorer-type column especially)?
Probably but Novoflex does not announce product that is yet to be introduced.
Bob Salomon
3-Jun-2010, 08:24
21. Most importantly of all: Your photos show the QB_V with fourth leg detached and the joint fitted with a short column with ballhead, used then as an inverted 'center-column'. This is, to me, the single most interesting aspect of the concept, and invites several questions:
22. Where is the short-column for sale? Nowhere can I find it.
That was answered above. You can buy it from any of our dealers.
23. Can any ballhead be used--or is this a Magic-Ball only accessory?
Absolutely
24. When using this 'center-column': can this leg-joint be positioned into any of it's three angles and support the weight of camera and lens without slippage? What weight can it maintain? In other words: Can it maintain an angle when being pulled downward (placing pressure on the backside of the joint) as opposed to being pushed downward (placing pressure on the topside of the joint)? Most tripod legs simply can't resist this type of force--aren't designed to--and this would mean the fourth-leg would operate as an inverted center-column, but not as a Gitzo-EX-type angular column.
Of course it can. This isn't a tripod.
Here are several more questions regarding your other equipment:
25. Does the Castel XQ have a 1/4" socket on the side for accessories as it appears in the picture, or is this an insert for a control knob, etc.?
It is a hole that doesn't support ar attach anything. Just a hole.
26. Also, do you have a converter to alter the orientation of the QR clamp from perpendicular to in-line with the Castel?
We have L brackets.
27. What is the movement-per-rotation of the drive-knob for the Castel L and/or Castel XL?
Why?
28. What exactly is all this beautiful blue on your products? Is it always metal, or some plastic? Is it painted?
Anodized metal.
29. Is the MagicStudio Art Light a parallel-ray light like the FlashArt light?
No and it also is not available in the USA as it will not operate on 120V. The MagicStudio Art Light is manufactured for Novoflex by Kaiser-fototechnik and you would have to use their version in the USA which is 110V and is HF.
30. Why do you no longer make the FlashART 400 Studio Light?
No one bought it
31. What weights are your various panoramic plates able to hold without slippage, if mounted in a vertical position?
No known weight limit when you properly tighten them with an allen key.
32. In particular, is the Pro plate better for heavy-gear, or simply advantageous for its varied degree settings? It does look like the clamp is a good deal longer...but perhaps the internals do not aid, may even weaken, the braking system...?
It is for VR work primarily.
33. I have heard the ClassicBall 5 is fantastic except for one thing: the panoramic plate slips when the support is not completely level. Has this been fixed? Why is the panning knob on the Classic 3 ribbed but left smooth on the Classic 5?
No it does not slip and none have been reported to us as slipping. And the knob is knulled on both not smooth or ribbed.
34. The claim of 'no shifting' when locking-down has been made by many ballhead manufacturers. Though slight, all have so far been shown to shift. What is the performance of the Classic Ball 5 (or 3) in measured terms?
All Novovlex ball heads from the largest to the smallest exhibit less then 1/2mm of shift due to Novoflex's construction technique of locking the entire housing down around the ball over 360°.
35. The BalPro T/S is advertised with several contradictory statements:
36. Your site says the BalPro T/S will accommodate any 35mm lens, but then says 35mm requires the 80mm lens head. Does this mean any 35mm lens will work as a bellows but to use the T/S functions (requiring a larger circle) the 80mm head must be used?
You can mount virtually any lens from a 35mm film or DSLR camera or from most medium format cameras to the Balpro system. Just depends on the adapter. The back page of each Balpro bellows sheet (from the Novoflex web site or our ftp site) lists all possible adapters. No contradictory statement at all. All will mount. However, they will only work at macro ranges. If you want to work at infinity you will need a Novoflex lens.
37. Also, the 80mm head is said to be permanently mounted: does this mean two bellows would need to be purchased in order to use other lenses (that is, the "any 35mm lens" mentioned?).
All of the Novoflex lenses are permanently mouted to their lens adapter board. The adapters are interchangeable with all of the other adapters for the Balens.
Also various shops further complicate the lenshead choice, example: BHPhoto:
38. From the BalPro T/S "Features" we have"
Choice of lens heads
Novoflex offers three special lens heads (Componon S) by Schneider in Bad Kreuznach for the BALPRO 1 and BALPRO T/S bellows. These lens heads are flush-mounted permanently on the bellows:
* Componon S 80mm f/4.0 for 35mm format
* Componon S 100mm f/4.0 for 645 format
* Componon S 150mm f/4.0 for 6x6 format
But then we have this under the 80mm lenshead:
This 80mm f/4 APO-Digitar Lens offered by Novoflex is made by Schneider in Bad Kreuznach for the BALPRO 1 and BALPRO T/S bellows system. It comes supplied with the required adapter for the bellows system. With an image-circle diameter as large as 90mm, this lens is even compatible with medium format cameras.
As well as this under the 100mm lenshead:
This 100mm f/5.6 APO-Digitar Lens offered by Novoflex is made by Schneider in Bad Kreuznach for the BALPRO 1 and BALPRO T/S bellows system. It comes supplied with the required adapter for the bellows system. With an image-circle diameter as large as 100mm, this lens is compatible with medium format cameras, as well as with 35mm SLR cameras.
...So what does this all mean?
Never trust a dealers web site as product changes.
39. Can a Neiger 19 be converted to a Ball 19, or is the flash-mount permanent? Is a washer needed shouls it be possible?
No but the flash shoe just unscrews and leaves you with a 1/4-20 male thread. The shoe is also a Kaiser product.
40. Does a Ball 30 or Ball 40 have as much resistance to panning-slippage as a Ball 19P, or for that matter, a Classic Ball 3 or 5?
The Classic Balls have tension control as do the Magic Ball and the MB 50. The others do not, so the locking knob can be used to apply tension if desired.
41. Can the 19 pan at all? If so: How great is the difference, if any, between the 19 and the 19P, regarding its ability to lock onto a panned angle without slippage?
Ye, loosen the lock and the head rotates and the ball moves. On the P the pan is also via a seperate lock.
42. Is a Ball 30 (or even 40) practical as a substitute for a Ball 19 in any or all of the various quadropod combinations you show on your site, and on publicity-shots elsewhere? Examples would include leg-joints, accessory-holders, etc.
If you need more support - yes.
43. Can the flash-holder mount of the Neiger be equipped onto other ballheads (example Ball 30 or 40)?
Yes. It is just one of the Kaiser flash shoes. There are several from Kaiser, metal or plastic, and all have a 1/4-20 female threaded hole.
Bob Salomon
3-Jun-2010, 13:20
"Note that the base/collar combination of the Q-pod looks to be cut from a solid-block of aluminum... definitely a step-up from the Gitzo in so far as supporting the tensioning structure--but what the Q-pod uses to tension the column "
Correct. It is one solid piece machined from aluminum. The column is locked by a knob that tightens a ring of material inside the hole that the column moves in. The material is the full depth of the hole.
Also, when one buys a Quadropod, they get the top plate of their choice and either four 3 section or four 4 section legs in their choice of aluminum or carbon fiber. When one buys the set they also get the four table-top legs and the adapter to convert one of the three or four section legs into a monopod.
The $1000.00 price is not quite right. Most units sold were the basic top plate with out a column and the 3 section aluminum legs. This setup would retail at most dealers for $798.00 and includes the table-top legs as well as the monopod adapter. If it is the center column top plate the price would increase by $81.00. 4 section aluminum legs would add $48.00.
If you buy the carbon legs (which weigh about one pound less then the same set of 4 aluminum legs) then the price will go above $1000.00 (well above).
And one last point, when the QPC top plate (center column version) is bought it comes with both the long and the short center columns.
praftman
3-Jun-2010, 16:19
Dear Bob,
Firstly, thank you for the time you’ve invested. Already the HPMarketting link you sent greatly helped in answering many of my questions. (for anyone reading this—the link is actually ftp://ftp.hpmarketingcorp.com …that is, no ‘s’ after the first “ftp”. )
That said, here are the follow-up concerns: (Note* F= Follow-up)
1F. Here is a link to photos of the QP_V, wherein a blue rotary dial can clearly be seen. If this is indeed a button with the appearance of a dial, then what are the silver metal ‘buttons’ under the base? Pin-locks perhaps? Otherwise I assume the silver buttons to be the ‘button’ you speak of, and the blue dials to be… ?
http://www.stativfreak.de/GALERIES/4BEIN/NF/QPV/index.htm
Note: perhaps the photo-site I link to is handling a early version of the QP_V, but these pictures are consistent with all other published pictures and not unique, so apparently then no pictures are available of the final iteration, or else these photos are to be trusted.
2F. The question concerns not the quadropod/tripod status, but the off-centered-ness of the fourth leg under the ‘saddle horn’. Using the photo-link above, there are several shots where this is self-evident. Also NF’s own literature shows overhead diagrams where the layout is obviously off-centered and the angles seem questionable—though possibly right—it’s close (like I said: maybe 110x125x125).
3F. I’ve been typing “QB_V” when I mean “QP_V” …sorry if that caused any confusion, but: Clearly the shoulder is there on the QP_B and QP_C, a solid piece with the base, and adds support…all things that I stated. What is asked is why this is not the case for the QP_V, and with what affect?
5F-8F. To anyone reading this: the brochures do not contain this info (they only reveal min and max height of assembled tripod, and total weight of assembled tripod) and the retailers post contradictory info. However the datasheet—which for some reason I cannot successfully download but was able to view in-browser, does show what I apparently missed. These, for all here, are those details:
ftp://ftp.hpmarketingcorp.com/NOVOFLEX/Novoflex%20product%20sheets/QuadroPod.pdf
…just look at page #6.
13F. As the stainless-steel leg-caps end, there begins a black, larger diameter area that has the appearance of foam leg-wraps. Is this another material? It is not the color of texture or thickness of the carbon fibre further down. It is present in every photo I have seen to date of every type of full-length leg sold for the quadropod (ie., 3 or 4 section, aluminum or CF). Again, the linked site shows good photos of this.
14F. My apologies for vagueness. Here I am asking for the construction of the carbon fibre barrel itself. Ie., cross-layering, etc. …?
15F. What is this 50% greater contact area you speak of? If the fourth leg, surely that is 33% greater?
16F. Because the heaviest point of the tripod is this machined base, and its weight is clearly off-center. That said, I’m no engineer and perhaps this is minimally important.
18F. If I understand you correctly, the individual units will hold 10lbs, but when accounted together, with the weight and resistance of each counter-unit, they act as a platform able to hold 20lbs? If not, then perhaps they reach up to 40lbs? Either way, even 40lbs does not seem strong enough to remain on a relatively fast-moving vehicle when inertia is taken into account, or a slow-moving vehicle when wind-resistance—which vertical mounting takes the full brunt of (no help from gravity)—is considered. Do I grasp this correctly? …Also, there is only one clamp used to grip the minivan-railing in the pictures I’ve seen—but your point is taken—two clamps might be used leaving the suction cups to merely stabilize the load. That said, this would preclude low shots (like classic behind-the tire-well shots) unless my grasp is in error regarding the suction strength as mentioned.
21F. Since I cannot find this “MS REPRO VL” listed anywhere but your ftp site, and for that matter other items are missing (example: QP RED M10) I’m concerned with the general availability of product. IS there much wait for these and other items, and when ordered are they reliably shipped?
24F. I just want to be clear here what I am asking: If my Q-pod is set-up, and I grab a leg and try to collapse it inward, to another angle setting, it will (A) not let me unless I unlock it and (B) do this with the same strength that it resists being pulled outward. I say this because the product description suggests placing three legs down, then swinging the fourth leg into position. Also, enigmatically, here is a YouTube video where the legs seem to swing freely both inward and outward as he adjusts first one, then another quadropod:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Hezy8dBzQ
praftman
3-Jun-2010, 16:20
25F. It appears the Castel XQ does have a socket for accessories (3/8” instead of ¼”) after all: It’s on the lower-platform, as photographed (page 1—the photo I had seen leaving me to believe this was the case) and described (page 2—the missing info your ftp site thankfully provided) here:
ftp://ftp.hpmarketingcorp.com/NOVOFLEX/Novolex%20instructions/Castel%20instructions/Castel_Q-XQ_ENG.pdf
*It also appears (on the photo on page two) that the clamp utilizes a bronze/brass/copper ledge?!
26F. Are these L-brackets counter-orientation? A normal L-bracket would not solve the problem. Novoflex does sale dual-dovetail camera plates that would fix this, but I’d like to keep my current RRS camera plates.
*Speaking of which—I’ve repeatedly been informed that NF plates will not work on RRS clamps, but have uncertainty about the obverse: it seems RRS plates WILL work on NF clamps, then? If so: How is the fit?
27F. The movement-per-rotation of the drive-knob is the measurement of the fine-tuning which the focus-rail is capable of. The whole point of such a rail is for macro—and some rails move finer than others. For example the previous generation rack-and-pinion RRS focus-rail has been described as ‘unusable’ whereas the current worm-gear RRS focus-rail is top-knotch and moves only 1.25mm per full rotation of the screw. I cannot say this enough—there is absolutely no point to purchasing a fine-drive focus-rail such as this unless one is concerned with these small motions. Otherwise any nodal-slide, panorama-rail or multi-use camera bar would work fine. I want to do DOF-stacking involving insects, and need to know how close to micrometer staging this is capable of working. Are there people just buying these things to take photos of roses? Sure. But I’d wonder if they aren’t just purchasing entirely the wrong product—and spending money for fine-motion capabilities they never use. Don’t know/ Haven’t photographed any flowers. But I know my uses do require knowing the degree of tuning.
31F. That’s confusing. RRS, for example, sites that its PCL-1 panning clamp is rated to hold 15lbs in the vertical position. How can there be no limit?
35F. This is the only non-forum review I’ve found in English, regarding the Classic Ball 5:
http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?page_id=837
Though he praises the ballhead, at the end he confesses he has stopped using it, one reason he sites is pan-creep.
Regarding the knob surface—all photos appear to show a ribbed (you call it “knulled” I’m assuming) knob on the CB3 but a smooth surface on the CB5. If this has been corrected, or if the texture is to fine for the photos to reveal (what would be the use then?) then at the very least Novoflex needs to revamp their product-photos, as this has been a concern for every person with which I’ve discussed the CB5.
34F. So if I’m understanding you correctly, the shift is more or less standardized across their range, not proportional. IOW: I can expect approx a 1/2mm shift for a B19 and a CB5 both, and as such the larger ball is in actuality dramatically less shifted per its size?
36F: Okay, I can see where I could have figured that out, and yet: should I have had to? I’ve spent literally twenty hours hunting for Novoflex info and clarifications. If it’s not outright contradictory, it’s certainly not clear. I appreciate your clarification, and so please suggest to Novoflex that they publish such basic clarifications; Mentioning that these lenses are capable of infinity focus is not the same as explicitly citing this as their raison d’etre, the same as stating that no other lenses can, and not the same as explaining that other lenses are limited exclusively to macro. I’m new at this—do they not want new enthusiasts? I’ll say more: even the various parts necessary are confusing. EOS-PRO versus PRO-EOS… Seriously? As a rep, you shouldn’t have to work so hard to make clear what NF muddled; It’s just bad marketing. I’m done ranting now. Still… NF is doing better at least than Arca-Swiss…
37F. So the Novoflex site which says “Permanently mounted to the bellows” should read “permanently mounted to the lensboard/bellows-adaptor”. Enormous error for anyone shopping their site: It’s good to know these lenses have a permanent attachment (can’t be used on other systems) and bad to claim they cannot come off the bellows—which is simply untrue and absolutely pivotal to the versatility of the bellows.
38F: Good advice regarding retailers, but Novoflex’s own site says:
“These three lens heads allow adjustment to infinity with all
cameras: 35 mm SLR cameras require the 80 mm lens head,
the Mamiya 645 the 100 mm lens head, and Hasselblads the
150 mm lens head. The setting for 35 mm cameras ranges from
infinity to 1.8x enlargement.”
…which keeps it unclear: Does this mean any of these three lenses can be mounted on a 35mm camera, but infinity-focus will work only with the 80mm lens? Or does this mean the 100mm and 150mm lenses will not work on a 35mm camera? If ‘yes’ to the former—are these lenses still viable for more than macro-work?
41F: Apologies for my vagueness. Here I’m asking about a built-in panning base feature. It seems you’re saying the base does not pan (but the ballhead does, of course) on the 19. Does the 19P then have a base that pans separately from the ballhead, or is the ballhead panning motion itself somehow locked (like a FLM ballhead might)?
42F. So the next question would be what weight can the flexible arm attachments (as opposed to the rigid rod-arms) support?
.......NEW:
44: Speaking of the tension-system for the center-column you say "ring of material" What, like a teflon webbing?
45: I can't find a mentioning of a long vs. short center column in your online documents... ?
praftman
3-Jun-2010, 23:50
46. Another example of the need to read-between-the-lines on NF's site is this: Apparently, though they don't simply outright say it, the BalPro T/S functions only in parallel, meaning the Tilt and Shift functions cannot operate perpendicular to each-other. IOW the Tilt cannot turn up or down while the shift moves left and right, or vice-versa.
There's also the oddity that is the PROshift+... why add a shift-function to a shifting bellows? Even more shifting, perhaps? Again, reading between the lines... I assume the PROshift+ can be attached to allow the aforementioned lacking perpendicular action: While the Tilt function and the bellows-shifting may only operate in the same plane as the bellows-rail (turning away from the railing as a derailed-train {a unique pun} when tilting and shifting to either side of the rail like a passing-train when shifting) ...the PRO-shift can operate perpendicular to that plane (like an elevator for the camera--raising or lowering it above or below the level of the bellows-rail)... is this so? All the pictures of the proshift show motion left or right of the rail, but they do reveal the camera can be mounted in portrait-mode to the PROshift+.
47. I've read elsewhere that the BalPro T/S bellows is rain-proof. NF makes no mention of this on their site. It could be paper for all they say. So what is the material, construction and weather-resistance of the bellows unit? For that matter, the NF lenses--in being permanently mounted--are they weather sealed?
Bob Salomon
4-Jun-2010, 00:16
The rest of the question and answer will be done by Pune calls to make them the most efficient and the least intrusive to others. 800 735-4373. I will be back in the office Tuesday.
praftman
4-Jun-2010, 12:25
'Intrusive to others' is a strikingly odd thing to say... this is exactly the information for which this forum (in fact this very thread) is in-place. Surely we are not monopolizing the conversation by utilizing a post last updated a year ago. And surely anyone with the interest to have read through all the previous hypothetical questions, dead-ends and bickering is interested enough to continue now that real answers are being delivered.
Your answers benefit anyone and everyone interested in these products. Certainly I'll be posting whatever additional answers I receive (whether by phone, another source, or my continued investigation) here. As I've already said, this is about the only source for supplemental (to the NF site) English-language info on the web regarding the Novoflex products.
But regardless I look forward to speaking with you Tuesday, then.
Asher Kelman
21-Jan-2012, 09:36
Can we have an update? Who's using this system and what are the advantages to you? I wonder about raising the height of the tripod when a center column is not used as there's more work in adjusting 4 legs as opposed to 3. I'm interested in lack of vibration. If a 4th leg could quench that, it would be worth the extra trouble.
Asher
Leszek Vogt
17-Mar-2012, 19:59
Hmmm, 10 pages and so far I heard no stats as to the weight of this 4-legged support. The Novoflex link (in one of the posts) didn't show it either. Did I missed it ?...or they are keeping this info hush hush ?
Les
Bob Salomon
18-Mar-2012, 02:27
Depends on which leg set (carbon, aluminum, walking sticks or table top sticks or a combination of them). The carbon and the aluminum leg sets are avaiable in 3 and 4 section versions. It also depends on which top plate you get. One with or without a center column.
Basically a carbon set of 4 legs and a top base weighs 5.5 pounds and the aluminum leg set with the same top base is a pound heavier.
With the Walking Stick leg set about a pound lighter.
You can download specifications here:
http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/camera-support-systems/quadropod/quadropod-brochures/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.