Formula for a Universal Tripod

[emo supremo]

If carbon is so expensive and weight is such a premium issue one would have thought to make a universal tripod by making the legs detachable...you'd get the stability to put an 8x10 on a less-than-2-pound. Point is I'm interested in buying something very light on my surgically-fused spine yet continue shooting with the medium format up to 8x10. I don't want to spend over $1,000 on two separate tripods and will do it if I have to. And I definitely don't want to make a fool of myself by spending double on a make with a G in the name if the qualilty of another is equal (come on already, haven't physicists and engineers had enough time to solve the mundane complexities of tripods yet? time to move on to more interesting problems). For example, there is a make with an F in the name that is half that price but no head to head reviews. Wonder why not. Seriously, why not (please respond if you know of the url that I keep missing in my internet searches)

They say when everyone is agreeing no one is thinking so it bothers me when I walk into camera shops they point me toward that make (you all know which I'm talking about...the one with the goobledygook numbering system that is almost uniterpretable from year to year) and don't explain the diff between the Rolls and the Ford.

So, does anyone know if you can take a heavier, stable tripod, remove enough legs sections to make it packable and portable for backpack or travel and turn it into something you could prop on a rock/table top and still use effectivey for large format. (Hopefully this is a reversable process and preferably NOT done with a hacksaw)


Why didn't I think of that?

[Gem Singer]

Ries H600 wooden tripod.

[Bruce Watson]

If carbon is so expensive and weight is such a premium issue one would have thought to make a universal tripod by making the legs detachable...you'd get the stability to put an 8x10 on a less-than-2-pound. Point is I'm interested in buying something very light on my surgically-fused spine yet continue shooting with the medium format up to 8x10. I don't want to spend over $1,000 on two separate tripods and will do it if I have to. And I definitely don't want to make a fool of myself by spending double on a make with a G in the name if the qualilty of another is equal (come on already, haven't physicists and engineers had enough time to solve the mundane complexities of tripods yet? time to move on to more interesting problems).

It always amazes me that the vast majority of people seem to think that the other guy's job is easy. It doesn't seem to matter what the other job is, because they "know" that they have the hard job so the other guy's job must be easy. It's a variant of the old saw "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" maybe.

If you think you know enough that, for you, designing a tripod is a mundane task, I invite you to bring your wares to the market. If you can actually make a 2 lbm tripod that works for even the lightest 10x8 rig, the market will beat a path to your door. Get to work, show us all how it's done, and make a fortune doing it. It's a simple mundane task after all. How hard can it be?

[Walter Calahan]

" I don't want to spend over $1,000 on two separate tripods"

Help the economy, buy three tripods. Grin.

Me, I ended up buying multiple tripods to do specific jobs.

That said, my Ries tripod is very close to universal.

[emo supremo]

Dear Bruce, Well said, but I thought I just did that. If I could NOT introduce dampeners into the materials I would minimize those segments that amplify vibration. Since leg length on a tripod has an exponential (and inverse) effect on vibration shake is magnified at the vertex where film place and lens coexist. Second, (and probably unrelated) vibration is probably exacerbated by whatever resonance the structural composition has the capacity to set itself into; not unlike the Takoma bridge (I might have that name wrong) anecdote in which resonance had an irreversable and catastrophic failure.... can we agree that camera shake may be a partial manifestation of a resonance problem? I suppose the lack thereof might partly explain why carbon is preferred over aluminum. Partly. I didn't want to start a discussion over Young's modulus etc. nor defend a (my) crack pot idea but I do work with scientists and we are NOT liberals but very conservative in our thinking when evaluating thesis and manuscripts. "New" is dangerous in science. I think building a tripod is all about science. This is good for science because vibration and resonance and materials can be discussed in time proven ways (my intent of my comment) but I disagree (politely) with you: at some point a problem can be overanalyzed and that's the question I'm trying to come to grips with. Real versus Ideal. Unfortunately for me, BUYING a tripod has not had even a nodding aquaintance with science; this is why I'm struggling. This is definitely NOT the way the merits of tripods are discussed in the marketplace. If they were I would part with the money freely because I was convinced, not by puffing, but by accepted measures that a product was indeed 'better.'

My conservative method would be to mount a paper cup filled with water on the center post and measure/observe water surface vibration on the edge of highways, in the wind, on the story/floor above the HVAC system. Something like that for starters to see how short to make my legs. I'd also study the effect of pulse dampeners (those curious objects sticking out of competition bows from which arrows are shot). I'd like to try a fluid-dashpot model (not unlike the viscosity models we use describe semisolids and in fluid dynamics) to see how inexpensive 'shock absorbers' might benefit my tripod.

I am tired of trying to save a few bucks here on ebay and getting burnt with junky stuff and so was about to buy the 1541 IF it had any real advantage. I'd also support the good work of other companies if a heavier but more expensive was in order but there is that back surgery of mine to factor in. Do you know how the keywords that would help isolate where the required information is?

(BTW would you put a deardorf on a Gitzo 1541?)

[emo supremo]

You're a riot Walter... I can build a yurt to live in with my three tripods when my spouse sees how much I spent on them. (grins on this end as well) You are right of course and if and when I come to find where the tripods are reviewed (and hopefully in some kind of table that makes them comparable) it will be two or three separate acquisitions in the end. I'll look into the Ries. Emilio

[emo supremo]

Dear Gem, Have you ever seen tripod legs fashioned from bamboo?

[Eric Woodbury]

http://reallybigcameras.com/Feisol/Tripods

Feisol are very light quality tripods. I just got one and it is taller and lighter than my Gitzos. In a few years, I'll give you a head-to-head comparison, but for now I'd say it as good or better and certainly lighter.

[Gem Singer]

Emo,

Bamboo?

I once owned a fishing rod made of bamboo. However, have never heard of a tripod made of bamboo.

[emo supremo]

Spot on! In a spectacular leap of reverse engineering you perceive my thoughts. I too still have my split bamboo pole from Herter's and that's what got me thinking about it... you see the new ones are made from CARBON/GRAPHITE! I'm amazed to see you pull the fly fishing rod analogy into this...are you thinking over my shoulder?

[Steve Hamley]

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

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

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

Cheers, Steve

[Gem Singer]

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

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

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

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

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

[emo supremo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Archphoto]

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

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

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

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

Peter

[weasel]

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

[Ivan J. Eberle]

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

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

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

[John T]

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

[erie patsellis]

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