What Vibration Does A Wood Tripod Dampen And Why Does It Matter?

[Brian Ellis]

There have been several recent threads dealing with tripods and a number of people have said wood tripods are better than other materials because they "dampen vibrations." I'm unclear about two things: what "vibrations" are we talking about and assuming there is some vibration that wood tripods dampen better than other materials (e.g. carbon fiber), does it really matter?

With respect to #1, the only source of "vibration" I can think of would be from the shutter when it's tripped. So are people saying that opening and closing the shutter sets up a vibration that travels through the camera body and tripod head down into the tripod legs and then would travel back up through the tripod head and camera body to the lens, causing the lens to move during the exposure, unless a wood tripod is used? If not that then what?

With respect to #2, vibration from the shutter closing shouldn't affect the photograph since the photograph has already been made at that point. So presumably the only vibration we're talking about is caused by the shutter opening. If that's the case then I would think the shutter speed being used is relevant, i.e. if it's fast enough the vibration shouldn't matter and if it's slow enough the vibrations that other materials fail to dampen shouldn't affect the photograph because everything should have settled down for a large portion of the exposure. But unlike the situation with other sources of vibration (e.g. mirror movement in an slr camera), I never see shutter speed mentioned as a relevant factor when people talk about the "vibration dampening" benefits of a wood tripod.

I ask these questions because I've been a fan of carbon fiber tripods ever since they came on the market. But if wood tripods really do result in technically better photographs because of their "vibration dampening" qualities, I'd at least consider tolerating their weight. To be blunt and not meaning to offend anyone, I guess I'm asking whether those of you who have mentioned vibration dampening as a benefit in wood tripods know what you're talking about or is this just one of those old wives tales that get repeated so often they become accepted as truth without anyone ever testing them?

Thanks and sorry for the long question.

[Walter Calahan]

Think setting up a tripod along side a road with heavy truck traffic.

The shutter vibration is not the issue.

[Glenn Thoreson]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is if you have a shutter that can vibrate a wood field camera, don't try to sell it to me, please. I use tripods that I find at flea markets and under the bed. None are wood or carbon fiber. They all work just fine from what I can tell. Little cameras, big cameras, all seem happy with this arrangement. My vibration problem is with the operator, not the equipment. I have to use a long cable release because I can no longer hold still. I shoot for my own pleasure, though, so maybe it doesn't count.

[Gem Singer]

Good point Brian,

I have been using metal tripods (mostly aluminum) and an occasional wood tripod for sixty-three years.

I have never experienced a difference in the various materials' ability to dampen vibration in order to prevent blurring the image. Both seem equally as good.

I have seen vibrational effects when utilizing a set of tripod legs that were too weak or un-steady to support the weight of the camera, however.

[Merg Ross]

Other than marketing mumbo jumbo, a wooden tripod might have an advantage where wind and long exposures are involved. In theory, the vibrations would be shorter than with a metal tripod.

I believe wooden tripods are popular with birders and astronomers because of the shorter duration vibrations.

[Lynn Jones]

Hi Brian,

I'm not entirely sure that this is appropriate to large format although it is possible. I did a good deal of research on this while VP of Celestron some 38 or so years ago. I knew that the Celestron Schmidt Cassegrains were approaching theoretical maximum in resolutin, and perfection in color quality but I never got critically sharp photos, some times not even reasonably sharp.

A young astronomer friend of mine couldn't immediately afford an expensive tripod so he built one out of wooden boards. His Celestron 8 photos were needle sharp and mine were not (even though my telescope was chosen as the highest resolution made in several months - yes they do vary). My tripod was the most expensive aluminum heavy duty instrument positioning device made at the time costing nearly $400 then, it was absolutely ridgid. And that dear friends was the problem, the rigidity made it "ring like a bell" from the vibration primarily of the mirror and secondarily of the FP shutter. I was using a Canon FTB (?) which was as solid as a rock so I started shooting photos with the heavy tripod from 50mm, to 100mm, to 200mm, 400mm (occasionally a bit of a problem, 1 out of 5), 600mm( half of the photos were not critically sharp), 800mm (3/4thw were not critically sharp), 1,250mm and 2,000mm (uniformly unsharp). I borrowed a huge wooden motion picture tripod, the photos were mostly sharp.

Additional testing, using my hands wrapped around the tube of the long lenses and wrapped around as much of the camera as possible. These were mostly sharp except for the 8" 2,000mm which still left something to be desired. I found that shooting with the 400 through the 1,250 (5" telescope) with a monopod and with my hands touching as much of the tubes and the camera bodies as possible . gave me remarkable sharpness. I even had several exposures shooting earth moving equipment with Kodachrome 25, 1/30th of a second using a Canon on a 1,250mm Celestron with incredible sharpness.

The owner of Celestron, Tom Johnson created an aluminum and steel tripod based on my research that stressed in all directions and preserved absolutely "dead" lack of vibration. Sadly it is no longer made.

Typically, SLR's create vibration due primarily to the mirror slap but any thing else, such as factory floors and such as that could be a problem, especially with LF. Should this be your problem, there is very thick sponge material created for fine instruments in factories that you can use under your tripod to isolate it from the vibration.

Lynn

[jeongyun]

Once I attached a laser pointer on a DSLR and got the camera take picture of the laser point at a distance at a various shutter speeds.
I did that mainly to see the effect of mirror lock-up. I found mirror lockup did help at lower speeds anyway.

Also took pictures of the point right after gently tapping the tripod.

The tripod was made of aluminum.
I noticed high frequency vibration tends to last longish.
about 2-3 seconds. but that didn't affect image sharpness much.

Then I filled the bottom sections of the legs and the center column with news paper.
That certainly damped high frequency vibration much quicker.

Whether my little experiment was relevant to this topic is up to you..
Just my 2 cents.

[Gem Singer]

It's a theory, Merg.

Tripod manufacturers have been using it as a sales gimmick for years.

Has anyone actually tested it by means of scientific methods?

[mandoman7]

What about just putting your hand on the tripod? That's going to dampen movement more than the difference in tripod construction. I like the wood alternative for several reasons, but the part about greater motion absorption seems nebulous to me.

If the wind's blowing, you can't just stand idly by and assume your wooden tripod has got you covered.

[Drew Wiley]

Some shutters unquestionably set up vibrations. I've had a couple of #3 Compurs that
were horrible with metal cameras but tolerable with wooden cameras. If you had the
combination of a shutter like this and an aluminum tripod, you could actually place a
fingernail against a tripod leg and feel the vibration. And this did have an effect on image sharpness. The interlocked cellular structure of wood fibers is inherently better at dampening vibrations than metal, but this is also a function of mass and balance. Graphite is somewhat intermediate in characteristics. Whenever possible I use a Ries
wooden tripod. When weight and portability becomes a priority, I switch to graphite. Does it always matter? No. In general, view cameras are less a problem than medium format SLR's with their big mirrors. The key to specifics is always testing under real world circumstances. And there are different standards of sharpness. If you sometimes
make big enlargements onto Cibachrome like I do, and check out your prints themselves with a loupe, you tend to get very particular about method and notice things that might not be important to everyone. But it does inform one that not all
tripods and shutters are created equal.

[Bob Salomon]

It's a theory, Merg.

Tripod manufacturers have been using it as a sales gimmick for years.

Has anyone actually tested it by means of scientific methods?

Leica Photography Magazine (LFI) did a test in their December/January 2006 issue (1/2006) that took a laser pointer that was mounted to a Manfrotto 410 geared head which had a digital camera with the equivalent of a 1700mm lens mounted on the head. They then placed tripods on double layers of corrugated cardboard and pointed the set-up at graph paper with mm sectioning 6.5 meters away. They then induced vibration by dropping a pendulum and photograhing the laser dot with a 15 second time exposure. The recorded field was 8,5 x 13 cm. They could then measure the maximum horizontal and vertical oscillations in arc seconds.

They tested 8 tripods. A Berlebach Report 2022, Giottos MT 8170 (now discontinued) Berlebach Report 8023, Giottos MT 9160 (discontinued), Manfrotto 055ProB, Manfrotto 055MF3, Gitzo G1257LVL and a Gitzo G1198.

The tripods are listed above in the order of least vibrations according to the teat. The published article shows the laser dot images for each tripod tested and gives the deviation in arc seconds for each test.

If you would like to see the test Leica can probably supply back copies of that issue. It was an article titled "Sure Shot".

[Ivan J. Eberle]

I came to photography from a flyfishing, bicycling and R/C helicopter engineering background. While I'm not so old that I remember wooden bicycles, I can appreciate the difference in modulus between carbon fiber ("graphite") rods, fiberglass, and bamboo (err, I actually am old enough to have used a beryllium copper casting rod a time or two). CF clearly "telegraphs" more information (vibration) up the line to the angler.

That CF works for tripods at all is entirely due to its being extraordinarily stiff. Aluminum is so similarly stiff that it rings like a bell from the harmonics once disturbed. Drop an aluminum tube on the floor (or go to a Little League game) to hear for yourself. As I discovered with helicopters self-destructing in mid hover, either can develop catastrophic fractures (stress cracks) from such harmonics in a vibration prone environment. Spectra composite material would be more space age than either Al of CF as one of its properties is absorption of vibration.

Specifying "wood" is overly broad... Snakewood as used in violin bows would be a terrible choice for tripods, it's used in violin and cello bows for it's resonance. Bamboo is also hard as nails but light due to the voids it contains, never have seen a bamboo tripod. Ash, oak and maple would be somewhere in the middle and pine at the other end of the spectrum, along with balsa and cork.

As you say, you're unlikely to notice your leaf shutter vibration causing camera shake with LF, not at typical landscape f/stops and shutter speeds averaging a second or so. (Particularly with a wooden camera). Wind is much more of a bugaboo.

In my case, for more than 20 years before getting into LF photography, I'd used motordriven 35mm gear with long teles. In the days before image stabilization allowed the use of lighter CF tripods, sufficient mass was needed to overcome the inherent vibration amplification deficiencies of Al tripods. Since I tend to use the same tripods with all of my cameras and lenses, light CF or Al tripods just don't cut it for some of my needs.

FWIW, I've successfully substituted cork for rubber as the bedding material between the lens foot and Q/R plates on a lightweight motordriven camera and lens combo that was transmitting so much vibration as to not render sharp images between 1/8s-1/125s. In such case the popular notion of "mass coupling" only works if your camera isn't the source of the vibration or if your tripod absorbs it.

SLRs built since the late 80's tend not to have this problem for better mirror and shutter brakes. But a Speed Graphic might. Or a Super Speed with that 1/1000 shutter that is purported to go off like a shot. Certain MF SLRs are notoriously atrocious in this regard.

Though the cost might be prohibitive, I'd like see someone make a Spectra tripod.

[Vaughn]

With view camera use there are several user-caused vibrations. Pulling the darkslide, setting the f/stop, cocking the shutter, not keeping some slack in the cable release, etc. On my barrel lenses, removing the lens cap to make the exposure must be done carefully.

Non-user caused vibrations exist, such as gusts of wind, traffic, setting up in moving water (creeks), etc.

Most of the time it is just a matter of waiting for the vibrations to settle down, which just about any material a pod can be made from will eventually do. In general, wood seems to settle down the quickest...but there are other factors that come into play (just try a heavy camera on an extended center column!) I did a quick Google search for the scientifically studied effects of vibration dampening of different materials, but I'll let someone else wade thru all that info. I am sure it is there somewhere.

We have some old Bogen 3046 pods with 3047 heads for our Calumet Studio (rail) cameras. I feel they are vibration-pron due to the fact that the cameras on top of the heads are quite a bit above the apex formed by the tripod legs. So the geometry of the set-up plays a part, also.

I like my Ries -- it has taken abuse that would have damaged my old Gitzo 300 series (I had to do one leg replacement with the Gitzo), or shattered a carbon fiber leg. One can't baby a pod unless one stays on wimpy flat land and smooth trails. I have had to toss (as gently as possible) my pod ahead of me in places where it took two hands to climb. But I guess I am getting off of the vibration issue so I'll quit here.

Vaughn

[Bob Salomon]

What about just putting your hand on the tripod? That's going to dampen movement more than the difference in tripod construction. I like the wood alternative for several reasons, but the part about greater motion absorption seems nebulous to me.

If the wind's blowing, you can't just stand idly by and assume your wooden tripod has got you covered.

Rather then use your hand take a shot glass and half fill it and then place it on top of the tripod. Tap the leg gently and time how long it takes for the vibrations to stop. The vibrations will be seen as waves in the shot glass. To do this test you don't hit the leg. You just tap gently with your index finger. I usually do it on a lower leg as well as on an upper leg.

[tgtaylor]

It seems to me that putting a hand on the tripod will tend to make it vibrate. If you hold you hand out and look at it you will see small but perceptual vibrations which are caused by nerves, muscle contractions, blood flow, etc.

One of my cameras is a Pentax67II. Although an excellent camera that has found a loyal following among landscape photographers, shutter speeds at 1/30 second and slower have been designated as "the kiss of death" speeds due to the vibration produced by the movement of its large focal plane shutter.

When I first acquired this camera, I supported it on a Manfratto 3441 carbon fiber tripod and Gitzo 1275M ball head. Upon triggering an exposure with the cable release, I would notice a slight vibration or movement of the camera. I use the mirror lock-up function on 99.99% of my exposures. I have since switched to a Gitzo G1348 carbon fiber tripod and Arca Swiss Z1-sp ball head and observe zero movement or vibration of the camera during exposure,or on the resulting negative/print regardless of whether the mirror is locked up or not.

However if the ground under your feet is bouncing up and down, going left to right, then so will you and your camera regardless of what either of you are anchored on. Celestron and/or Meade make vibration reducing feet for telescope tripods that should also work on camera supports. But those feet are probably designed to reduce vibrations emanating primarily from the telescope (focusing, etc). Likewise a strong wind will tend to torque your equipment. My current tripod and ball head handles light to "moderate" wind well but I usually wait for the brief lull before triggering an exposure.

Thomas

[nathanm]

Weight is your friend, when shooting that is, not so much when you're humping it over the terrain. I've hung my 30lb. backpack from the center column on my Berlebach Report tripod, and that sucker ain't going anywhere. Levels REAL easy too! Most of the time I don't need to add any weight. In its stock configuration the tripod weighs twice what the camera does so it's all good. Perhaps carrying a light tripod and only photographing in locations where there are plenty of environmental rocks to use as ballast would be ideal.

[Archphoto]

This reminds me of a couple of shots I took years ago in Rotterdam, an underground restaurant in soft soil and lots of heavy trafic above.
The tripod, a heavy duty Gitzo Studex Performance did not help, the olny thing to do was to wait for the trafic to be quiet for a moment and make the shot wide open with 400 ASA color neg film on 4x5 inch.

No damping in my tripod would have made this shot easier.

Peter

[nathanm]

Rather then use your hand take a shot glass and half fill it and then place it on top of the tripod. Tap the leg gently and time how long it takes for the vibrations to stop. The vibrations will be seen as waves in the shot glass. To do this test you don't hit the leg. You just tap gently with your index finger. I usually do it on a lower leg as well as on an upper leg.
Then just for fun say, "Maybe it's the power trying to come back on!" If the vibrations aren't stopping quickly enough, drink the shot and try again. Repeat as necessary. Sooner or later you will realize that shooting a blurry picture is actually desirable, as it better represents your vision.

[toyotadesigner]

http://www.optiline.no/berlebach/images/stativtest_lfi1_2006.PDF

it says all you need to know. no additional comment necessary.

[Bob Salomon]

http://www.optiline.no/berlebach/images/stativtest_lfi1_2006.PDF

it says all you need to know. no additional comment necessary.

Link doesn't work for me.

[Vaughn]

http://www.optiline.no/berlebach/images/stativtest_lfi1_2006.PDF

it says all you need to know. no additional comment necessary.

Link worked for me (Firefox)...I do wish they had a Ries to test.

Vaughn

[Chauncey Walden]

Gem Singer, you can test the theory yourself. Set up a metal tripod and tap it with one finger. Then carefully approach the metal with a finger until you can feel it still vibrating. How long does it continue to vibrate? Try it with a wooden one. Anything that moves can set up a vibration. Ever hear power lines sing in the wind? They are vibrating. Graphite dampens better than metal. Basalt dampens better than graphite. Wood dampens best.

[toyotadesigner]

you can try this link:

http://www.optiline.no/index2.htm?berlebach/index.htm

and then click the first link the text: 'Les testen (2,5 MB pdf)...'

[Gem Singer]

Chauncey,

I repeat. Has any scientific laboratory actually performed side-by-side comparisons between wood and metal tripods (let's disregard carbon fiber, basalt, etc.)?

I would like to see the results of those comparison tests.

I realize that vibrations die out faster in a wooden tripod. However, after the vibrations stop, does that translate into a better material to use to support a relatively heavy LF camera? That's where I have my doubts.

Seems to me that other factors are more important than the duration of vibration.
I always hesitate a few seconds between pulling the dark slide and clicking the shutter. Plenty of time for the vibrations to die down.

What about tensile strength, size after folding, adjustability of leg length, weight, etc.,etc.?

[GPS]

I often asked the OP question myself. Only when I started to take pictures with long focal lengths from 600mm up to 1000mm, astronomy topics, mountains photography etc. could I see it clearly on the gg and on the pictures. Never mind the tripod vibrations - the camera vibrations was the problem ;-)
I took the simple measure - I started to use 2 tripods. The problem stopped. True, it is not always possible, on the other hand the longer the lens is, the better for the 2 tripods solution...

[lilmsmaggie]

[QUOTE=Ivan J. Eberle;461224]Specifying "wood" is overly broad... Snakewood as used in violin bows would be a terrible choice for tripods, it's used in violin and cello bows for it's resonance.

Uh ... I'm sorry but as both an amatuer string musician and astronomer I don't know of any violin, bass or cello bows that are made from "Snakewood."

The wood of choice for bow makers as well as string players is Pernambuco wood. I owned four cello bows and even the cheapest one was made from Pernambuco.

I've known several violin and bow makers, read the literature, etc. As far as I'm aware, Snakewood is not part of their vocabulary.

________________________________________________________________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils ... - Louis Hector Berlioz

[Bob Salomon]

Link worked for me (Firefox)...I do wish they had a Ries to test.

Vaughn

Guess it was put up for Safari. Worked in Firefox.

[lilmsmaggie]

Link doesn't work for me.

Try this link: http://www.berlebach.de/?sprache=english

I own a Berlebach Uni tripod. They're beautifully constructed. Personally, I wouldn't fret too much about wood versus carbon fiber, versus aluminum, etc. It's a personal choice just like everything else.

Obviously, weight is a factor in choosing a tripod. Stability is the "Key." There are vibrations in the ground, the air (think turbulence) even our bodies transmit vibrations. The longer the focal length, the more susceptible to vibrations.

Buy the best tripod for the job and your budget I say ... ;)

[Drew Wiley]

One very important analogy I should add: have you ever seen a real surveyor use anything other than a wooden tripod? Rarely. You might see a contractor using a survey-style aluminum tripod for setting a deck or something casual, but not for anything critical. Last year I was handling one of the lasers being used to reset the
Panama Canal locks. This kind of instrument is made for measurement in miles, and will
correct for the curvature of the earth. But it would be absolutely useless on a metal
tripod, or if any typical tripod head were used. The various high-end lasers and theodolites used in such applications do not have shutters or any other source of internal vibration. But wind and even walking on the ground produces vibrations which
can be amplified by metal. So what seems to be controversial in a thread like this one
is pretty much a settled fact in a trade which uses tripods daily with legal consequences. Often the tripods are coated with paint or fiberglass so might not look
like real wood, but in fact are. My own education involved geological mapping, and my
Father's first career was as a surveyor for major public works projects. This subject is
very old hat to me.

[Vaughn]

Chauncey,

I repeat. Has any scientific laboratory actually performed side-by-side comparisons between wood and metal tripods (let's disregard carbon fiber, basalt, etc.)?

I would like to see the results of those comparison tests.

I realize that vibrations die out faster in a wooden tripod. However, after the vibrations stop, does that translate into a better material to use to support a relatively heavy LF camera? That's where I have my doubts.

Seems to me that other factors are more important than the duration of vibration.
I always hesitate a few seconds between pulling the dark slide and clicking the shutter. Plenty of time for the vibrations to die down.

What about tensile strength, size after folding, adjustability of leg length, weight, etc.,etc.?

From your last paragraph, it seems you want a scientific study of preferences of the photographer -- not the tripods. While not scientific, but just observational and experience, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier...

"I like my Ries -- it has taken abuse that would have damaged my old Gitzo 300 series (I had to do one leg replacement with the Gitzo), or shattered a carbon fiber leg. One can't baby a pod unless one stays on wimpy flat land and smooth trails. I have had to toss (as gently as possible) my pod ahead of me in places where it took two hands to climb."

My wood tripod has provided far superior over-all performance (for me and the way I photograph) than any other pod of different material. The fact that its wood is better at reducing vibrations is an added benefit, not the main reason I bought it. I have fallen with the Gitzo aluminum pod and dented a leg...it no longer telescoped in and out. I have fallen many times with the wood Ries and it continues to operate at 100% of its original capacity. I can only assume that similar falls would shatter carbon fiber.

I have also carried a metal Majestic pod and head of similar weight and size as my Ries. Without a doubt, the Ries is much much nicer and easier to carry. The Ries has proven to be much easier to carry and operate in below freezing weather than both the metal Gitzo and Majestic.

My Ries has required much less maintence than my Gitzo Al pod, thought I do need to replace some screws that hold the leg tighteners before one falls off accidentily (though they operate perfectly with the missing screws.)

As a tall person, the 2-section legs of the Ries is perfect, except in their folded up length...which is a little long. The legs are very adaptable and lock down securely in just about all situations on flat and on very uneven ground. The fact they act and lock down independently helps with this a lot.

As I have said before the Ries also makes an excellent climber assist device for rough ground and I often use it as such. I usually carry it with the legs extended for better balance and easier carrying over my shoulder.

And lastly, if I came face-to-face with a hungry mountain lion (a relatively high possibility where I do most of my photograph), I'd rather defend myself with a Ries than a carbon fiber.

Vaughn

PS...on the tripod vibration test that is linked to here, the basalt pod did not perform well at all.

[Bob Salomon]

"have you ever seen a real surveyor use anything other than a wooden tripod?"
Yes they also use resin tripods. Quite expensive ones.

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting discussion. Back when, I used a Bogen 3021, which got very shaky, especially in torsion, as its leg locks wore. I came across a used K&E surveyor's tripod with wooden legs at an incredible price, so bought it, cleaned it up, and tried it. When struck the wretched thing rang, and still rings, like the proverbial bell. Must have been made of the wrong wood.

Eventually I got a Berlebach 8023, also at a good price, at a camera show. There was a large Zone VI at the same show, and at the same price. Was tempted to buy it too, didn't because of its weight. The Berlebach is just fine for me, with lenses up to 1400 mm. Its great strength is, IMO, the length of the leg locks' bearing surfaces; the leg sections just don't move relative to each other when the locks are tight. This isn't the case with most of the other tripods I've tried.

About what real serious surveyors use, while I was looking for a replacement for ol' flimsy, I shopped surveyors' tripods. I ran across some Topcon transits and tripods, IIRC the tripods were metal.

On the point of who uses what, back when I subscribed to American Cinematographer the tripods advertised there for use by "Hollywood" were all metal. This was before carbon fiber tripods were available; without checking I'm sure that these days the good Vinten (or is it Vintec nowadays?), Sachtler, ... tripods are all carbon fiber.

Maggie, try a Google search on pernambuco and snakewood. I just did and was very surprised to find that there are modern string bass, baroque violin family, and viol family bows in snakewood and that players' opinions on them vary greatly. From which I conclude that there are good and bad snakewood bows just as there are good and bad pernambuco bows. My own cello bow is pernambuco. I had no idea, found that some modern violin family bows have snakewood frogs.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ivan J. Eberle]

lilmsmaggie, my experience with fiddle and cello bows is solely limited to my friendship and conversations with one of my nearest neighbors, 89-year old Jack English, who lives at a walk-up cabin on his inholding off the grid 5 miles inside the Ventana Wilderness. He makes snakewood bows that sell for $3K-5K. He does amazing inlay work in gold but can no longer hair them himself with horsehair as his hands are so gnarled from gout. His son Dennis is a former state champion fiddle player who has also achieved some renown for his hairing of bows. So there's at least one bow maker using snakewood. No tripod makers I know of, a snakewood stick big enough for a bow is $150, just for the raw material.

[mandoman7]

Wow, I did the water glass test and stand corrected. Its amazing how much motion gets through my carbon fiber, even on concrete. Of course, I'm not going to be jumping up and down next to my tripod during future exposures, but still, I think I'll be giving a little more time to release the shutter after pulling the darkslide.

[paulr]

In NYC everything vibrtes all the time. Streets and sidewalks are hollow, trains go by above and below ground, traffic never stops. While it would have taken a magic tripod to damp the vibrations I've felt while photographing on suspension bridges, I've done well enough with simple wood.

I doubt anyone knows with scientific certainty that wood tripods (like my clunky old Zone VI) damp better than any metal tribpods. But it's probably relevent that surveyors tend to use wood.

Other things i like about wood tripods: they don't jam; they're more comfortable to handle in cold weather; they're generally more comfortable to sling over a shoulder; they can provide a lot of stability for not a whole lot of money.

The vibration advantage, assuming it exists at all, is icing on the cake.

[Vaughn]

Actually, Paul, my Ries operates better in Yosemite than in Humboldt -- the high humidity does make my pod legs a little sticky.

I have a friend who used an 8x10 in an old building due to be torn down. The whole building swayed with trucks passing by. But his long exposures were sharp...the camera and the building all moved as one!

Vaughn

[tgtaylor]

And lastly, if I came face-to-face with a hungry mountain lion (a relatively high possibility where I do most of my photograph), I'd rather defend myself with a Ries than a carbon fiber.

Vaughn


Well I wouldn't go that far.

One day, back in my teens, me and my hound dog Lucky were out hunting when Lucky caught sight of a skunk and started after him. I saw it coming and did my best to get Lucky away from the skunk but the skunk got him and me on the arm. We both went back to the house smelling like a skunk. Lucky smelled so bad that we decided to quarantine him in a small log cabin. He panicked and for well over an hour tried his level best to knock the door down: He would back-up as far as he could and then charge the door hitting it with all fours, over and over. Then it stopped and I became concerned that he had knocked himself out or something. So I go to the cabin and when I come up on it I hear a gawning sound. He had given up trying to knock the door down and now was on the way of chewing his way thru the logs. Seeing this I had no choice but let him out and for the next couple of days he wouldn't let me get more than a foot away: If I sat down to watch TV, he'd straddle my legs.

Now a full grown mountain lion would use that wooden tripod as an after dinner toothpick.

Thomas

[Vaughn]

Well, Thomas, recently an older couple got attacked by a mountain lion in the area I photograph in regularly. The lion had the old guy's head in its jaws and his wife started to stab the lion in the face and eyes with a ballpoint pen and eventually drove the lion off. Both survived.

Hopefully the Ries would be as effective as a pen. But I do need to sharpen up the spikes a bit -- they are quite dull from photographing on the Yosemite granite. I'll just hope the mountain lion has not recently tangled with a skunk...

Vaughn

[Struan Gray]

The reason you can't just say that wood tripods damp vibrations better than metal ones is that there are too many factors to take into account. If you made exactly the same tripod out of wood and metal then, yes, the wood one would damp vibrations faster. But nobody makes tripods like that, as even the cheapest of cheap knockoffs use designs appropriate to the mechanical characteristics of the material actually used.

Even if you did make such a pair of tripods, the wood one would resonate at a different frequency, and the question of which was better would largely revolve around how the resonance of the tripod legs matched (or didn't match) the resonances of the head and the camera itself.

For me, the biggest problem with LF cameras is that their large size amplifies small forces into large torques about the tripod head - this leads to vibrations of the whole camera around some part of the head. Larger formats and longer lenses make the problem worse. Often, the problem is that the mounting of the camera to the head, or the head to the crown of the tripod, is too compliant - metal to metal will win over cork or rubber mats every time here - but even with metal to metal contact the long lever arm can simply end up bending the structure of the head itself. I had to give up using my otherwise admirable B1 ballhead with LF when I realised that I was simply flexing the stem between the ball and the mounting platform.

For me, the biggest practical problem with cheap, lightweight or otherwise inadequate tripods is not vibration of the legs, but flop in the direction of static pointing - the way that the system sags as you lock down its position. Again, vibrations in these systems tend to be a flexing of the head, or the points where the legs attach to the crown.

All the baby surveyors I see learning how to survey in our University's architecture and geo-sciences schools use metal tripods. The Leitz surveying tools used to lay out our synchrotron ring to sub-micron accuracy were all on metal tripods too. I'm not saying that metal is the new wood, just that general prescriptions are best avoided.

I use a Gitzo CF, because it offers a lot of stiffness in a relatively lightweight package. If I were not trying to hike and bicycle with it so much I would probably have a bulkier, heavier tripod for even more stiffness, and then I would choose metal or wood because of the price. Were money no matter, one of the Sachtler CF news-gathering tripods would be lovely.

[russyoung]

As Vaughn so well summarized,
With view camera use there are several user-caused vibrations. Pulling the darkslide, setting the f/stop, cocking the shutter, not keeping some slack in the cable release, etc. On my barrel lenses, removing the lens cap to make the exposure must be done carefully.
Non-user caused vibrations exist, such as gusts of wind, traffic, setting up in moving water (creeks), etc.

I had a Bogen 3046 tripod for the studio... the one Lester Bogen sat on in the advertisements. It was strong, no doubt about that, and on the linoleum covered concrete floor and with a Sinar 4x5, and lenses of 90 to 180 mm, it performed pretty well. My movements were slow and deliberate. In the field with a Korona 5x7, in the windy deserts and mountains of New Mexico, the camera was in constant motion due to the reasons elaborated by Vaughn. Especially with a 300mm lens, the bellows were like a kite, catching every little air movement. The images were virtually never critically sharp.

By experimentation on the rare dead still days (usually within an hour of sunrise), I was able to trace most of the camera movement to insertion of the film holder and removal of the darkslide; it took almost 50 seconds for the harmonics to die. Further tests indicated the same time interval applied to wind issues and let me tell you, there are many times where you spend an hour and never have a solid minute without air movement in New Mexico landscapes. Refining these tests pointed to the high-tech cable release being a problem; went back to the old cloth covered releases and solved that.

A friend who was the photographer for the Museum of New Mexico offered to loan a wooden tripod. I took him up on the offer and all of the user-caused issues ceased; it deadened vibration within 10 seconds or less. Regarding air-induced vibration, it seemed to vibrate less in addition to dampening faster. I eventually bought a cinema tripod, a MILLER, and twenty plus years later, it is still my #1 choice for landscapes.

You mileage, of course, may vary.

Russ

[Mark Sampson]

This is fascinating. Just last week my ancient Gitzo Studex had a leg extension jam- it's stuck real good. I've been wondering about a new tripod; all three of mine are old & worn, and now this one's broken. Worth repairing? maybe. I'd thought of a new head for the Gitzo, the ball-head on it is really too small for 4x5, but now I have some real food for thought.

[Archphoto]

@Mark: try to loosen the leg with a pipe wrench and then tap it in carefully with the side a hammer.
After that you will have to remove that leg section, clean it and grease the bearing with some lithium based grease. I did that with my Gitzo Studex Performance years ago and never had any problems with it.

As for a replacement head: have a look at a Manfrotto geared head, the 410 is for the lighter 4x5's, the 405 for the heavier.
I use the 410 for my RB and Shen Hao HZX 45 IIA, works great !

Good luck,
Peter

[Bob Salomon]

Then there is this. Which is now coming to market. Vibration is reduced by 50% by the use of a 4th leg:

"A universal innovation:

The QuadroPod® introduced by Novoflex at Photokina marks the world premiere of the first four-leg tripod system as well as an unbeatable tripod in terms of itsʼ versatility.

The foundation of this system is a totally new design for a tripod collar that - thanks to itsʼ modular construction - can be equipped with different leg variations. Aluminum or carbon legs with 3 or 4 sections are available. Working heights from 2.8“ up to 70.9“ are possible with the current leg types. Moreover, additional leg types are under development, enabling working heights up to 91“. In addition, the different leg versions can be combined with each other and
supplemented with clips/clamps, suction and screw-in-items from the Novoflex program.

The QuadroPod® is available in three versions: without centre column, with centre column or variable model with adjustable leg support angles from three @ 120° to four @ 90°. The variable model can be used with either three or four legs. The advantage of the fourth tripod leg is an enormous increase in stability and reduction in vibration. Thus, the carrying capacity is more than 110 Lb! Especially in the case of heavy lenses with long focal lengths, the QuadroPod® demonstrates its advantages. In contrast to the conventional three leg tripod where heavy equipment must always be set-up in the direction of one leg, the camera positioning is irrelevant when using a four leg tripod. Nothing will bounce or tip over, regardless of the orientation of the camera.

A further vital advantage is the tripod alignment in the case of uneven surfaces. Using a three leg tripod, the photographer has to adjust each of the legs; with the QuadroPod® just one adjustment is necessary: The fourth leg is simply pushed inwards, until solid contact with the ground is made - now the tripod is positioned positively and securely in the required position.

In terms of transportability this innovative design really shows its benefits. Since the legs can be separated from the tripod column, the individual parts can be stowed comfortably and compactly. This is an essential advantage for air travel or hiking. Furthermore, the photographer can decide before the 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 carry-
ing weight.

Additionally, the tripod column has three tapped holes to mount accessories like flashes, reflectors, flags or other items. One example of the extraordinary tripod design: to create shadowless illumination for macro or portrait shooting, two flashes can be positioned to the right and left of the camera by means of flexible mounting arms.

Whether used as a standard, mini, car or clamping tripod, the application range for the QuadroPod® is as varied as the requirements of the jobs in the field of photography.

Consequently the QuadroPod® created by Novoflex is an unrivaled tripod system. The Novoflex QuadroPod® is expected to be available in early 2009. "

[isaacc7]

All I know is that after my school days in upstate New York, swore that I would never own a metal tripod again. I could feel the cold through my gloves... At the time, the choices were metal or wood, so I bought a Reis. Never regretted it, and when I start shooting LF again, I'll get another Reis. It was one of those things where 10 minutes after I got it, I wondered how I lived life without it all those years.

Having said that, I do have a "basalt" manfrotto tripod for my smaller formats. I got it mostly because it held up my stuff and I got a discount on it cause I was selling them... It works fine, but I really prefer how the reis works. Would I buy a fancy material tripod that works like reis? Maybe, not sure if the wood is all that important, but it sure does look good... :-)

[Alan Davenport]

Interesting discussion, interesting article. From it all I gain the following:


Old technology can be as good, or better, than the newest stuff in the shop.
Don't hang a pendulum from your tripod, and definitely don't drop junk next to it during your exposures.


The obvious (to me) conclusion, is that it's more important to buy a tripod that is sufficient to the task at hand, than to worry about what it's made of. For most of us, that comes back to the old balancing act between how much we're willing to carry versus how much we can afford to spend.

[Don7x17]

I believe wooden tripods are popular with birders and astronomers because of the shorter duration vibrations.

Merg

None of the birders I know on the west coast use wooden tripods with their high end (~3000-3500$) spotting scopes. Everyone seems to have carbon fiber.

And I don't know any users of 500-600-or-800mm lenses (I know 14 users plus myself) for bird photographs that use wooden tripods, nor do any of the big names (including BIRDSASART.COM) advocate a wooden tripod over metal or carbon fiber......maybe someone else does.

Maybe wooden tripods for birders are an east coast phenomenon? They're not in vogue on the left coast.

Best regards
Don

[Bob Salomon]

Merg

None of the birders I know on the west coast use wooden tripods with their high end (~3000-3500$) spotting scopes. Everyone seems to have carbon fiber.

And I don't know any users of 500-600-or-800mm lenses (I know 14 users plus myself) for bird photographs that use wooden tripods, nor do any of the big names (including BIRDSASART.COM) advocate a wooden tripod over metal or carbon fiber......maybe someone else does.

Maybe wooden tripods for birders are an east coast phenomenon? They're not in vogue on the left coast.

Best regards
Don

Don,

I agree with you. As the distributor for aluminum, carbon, basalt, and wooden tripods and calling on Audabon dealers in the N.E. I have not seen wooden tripods on display at any of the dealers that sell in that market specifically. Do see them at a lot of camera stores and some of those stores may cater to Audabon people.

[lilmsmaggie]

lilmsmaggie, my experience with fiddle and cello bows is solely limited to my friendship and conversations with one of my nearest neighbors, 89-year old Jack English, who lives at a walk-up cabin on his inholding off the grid 5 miles inside the Ventana Wilderness. He makes snakewood bows that sell for $3K-5K. He does amazing inlay work in gold but can no longer hair them himself with horsehair as his hands are so gnarled from gout. His son Dennis is a former state champion fiddle player who has also achieved some renown for his hairing of bows. So there's at least one bow maker using snakewood. No tripod makers I know of, a snakewood stick big enough for a bow is $150, just for the raw material.

Well, I'm just saying based on my experience, research and reading as well as discussions with bow and violin makers in the San Francisco bay Area. I spent a day with John Bolander before his death (he lived near the Santa Cruz boardwalk at the time), discussing bow-making. Not once did "snakewood" enter the discussion. Granted, there may be some bow makers that use this material for their bows considering that Pernambuco wood is actually now considered to be in limited supply, greatly increasing its value. Bow blanks, (sticks if you will), can be quite expensive.

It is not uncommon for a well-made bow by a good bow-maker with a reputation for exceptional work to sell well above $2K. case in point: Morgan Anderson in Washington bows sell anywhere from $3K to 5K depending on the bow. What actually contributes to the price are the other materials used to make the bow; whether it is nickel or silver mounted, some bow makers even use gold. The frog of a bow can be made from ebony to very exotic materials including tortise shell.

In any case, the reference to "Snakewood" that I had trouble with was that of resonance. A bow or violin maker will tell you that the acoustical physics of sound associated with bowed instruments, is not associated with the resonance of the bow.

The sound of a string instrument is created by the drawing of the bow hair across the string, which in turn sets up a vibration that is transmitted via the bridge and sound post to the back of the instrument, and thus amplified. The amplified air pases through what are known as the f-holes.

It terms of resonance and sound quality, the woods chosen for these characteristics are Spruce, and Pine. Mahogany is used for the neck, scroll, back and sides of the instrument. Ebony or Rosewood is used for the finger board, tailpiece and pegs.
For fingerboards, Ebony is the preferred wood because of it strength.

However, we digress. I think the original questions presumption was that maybe a wood tripod somehow translated into sharper pictures. Hopefully, we've dispelled this myth. A wood tripod simply dampens the vibrations and reduces the amount of time those vibrations last.

[Merg Ross]

Merg

None of the birders I know on the west coast use wooden tripods with their high end (~3000-3500$) spotting scopes. Everyone seems to have carbon fiber.

And I don't know any users of 500-600-or-800mm lenses (I know 14 users plus myself) for bird photographs that use wooden tripods, nor do any of the big names (including BIRDSASART.COM) advocate a wooden tripod over metal or carbon fiber......maybe someone else does.

Maybe wooden tripods for birders are an east coast phenomenon? They're not in vogue on the left coast.

Best regards
Don

Don, thanks for the clarification. It was only speculation on my part, I stand corrected.

Regarding tripods for photography, I have used wooden, aluminum and carbon over a fifty year period. Each has been chosen for a particular reason, but none because of vibration concerns. From my experience, more important than choice of material, are field methods and procedures. Some have been addressed; length of cable release, dark slide pull duration, wind, etc.

I was out earlier today with my 8x10 and wooden tripod; simply a combination of my heaviest camera and most robust tripod. For lighter cameras I still use an old aluminum Tiltall and a carbon Feisol. They all seem to do the job.

[walter23]

I'd think the head would be more important than the tripod, assuming the latter is solid.

[Vaughn]

Yes, the head is important, I would say equally as important.. While a heavy beast on a heavy beast of a pod, the Ries double tilt head is a fine platform for my 8x10. Relatively low profile (keeping the camera near the apex formed by the legs) and a large platform for the camera to attach to (metal to wood in my case).

In a studio or flatland situation where the camera could be kept very close to level, going without the head altogether would most likely be the most stable set-up...but impractical in the field for me as I often have the camera tilted up or down beyond the rise/fall capabilities of the camera and coverage of the lens.

Vaughn

[Nicholas F. Jones]

In defense of metal (the OP inquired about the supposed superiority of wood), I can offer the extreme case of my own personal experience with the Nikon 1200T, the longest currently available (until recently) LF lens with a FFD of 755.7mm or 29 and 3/4 inches.

I shoot with a 5x7 back on my Tachihara 8x10 triple extension. Manfrotto-Bogen 3036/3236 with the 3057 heavy duty head. I use the M-B 3252 long lens camera support to hold up and stiffen the front bed when fully extended. (I try to apportion the total cantilevering proportionally over the three extensions, but even so each bed is extended almost to the limit of its effectiveness).

Many of my exposures (on Tri-X) are 1 sec. @ f64, although occasionally faster up to 1/4 sec. In reciprocity situations I've gone as long as 4 secs or so. I use a short 9" cable release.

I don't even attempt a shot with the 1200T except under optimal conditions, i.e. no wind or sheltered from same, no nearby vehicular traffic, etc. The surface is sometimes a lawn, sometimes concrete or asphalt.

It's a very heavy, solid system, and the conditions are as close to optimal as I can manage. On a light table with a 4x loupe, a high percentage of the negatives are acceptably sharp and a few are as good as anything I've produced on the same system with much shorter lenses. So I'm inclined to conclude that the causes of my blurred negatives over the years do not include the fact that my tripods (and long lens support) are made of metal.

[EdWorkman]

Damping is achieved quickly with non-linear material(s)in the load path- That's engineer-speak for the use of, say, neoprene pads between buildings and their foundations- or "seismic isolation" . Way back in these posts use of "thick spongy pads" under lab instruments was mentioned-quite similar. So perhaps a 1/4 inch thickness of neoprene on a large tripod support surface would work well, or a coupla layers of old wet-suit, well tightened down .
Another approach is to support the instruments on something of [relatively] high mass and stiffness. Folks at research laboratories like really thick concrete floors for mass, in combination with short spans to increase the stiffness more than thickness alone cuz mass also makes seismic forces higher.
Unlike with buildings, you folks can easly test your results and go back to the wet suit for more layers.
Dampening is very cheap, initially, as a quart of water will provide lots of havoc in that area.
More than you wanted to know

[Drew Wiley]

I actually sell lasers and tripods, among the many hats I wear to make a living. For student and casual use metal tripods are popular because they're cheap and lightweight. Most are made in China. There are also made in China clones of brand-name wooden tripods which look nice and are relatively cheap but perform horribly.
But around here I never see a professional surveyor with a theodolite using anything but a substantial clad wooden tripod. And these do perform as decent large-format camera supports too, though I'd rather use my Ries. As far as the spotting scope and bird-watcher crowd is concerned, I'm out at Point Reyes all the time, and those guys admire my big Ries tripod, though most probably wouldn't want to deal with the weight. I gave one of my old wooden surveyor tripods to a friend for a small astronomical telescope and it works far better than the metal one which came with it.
But everything is relative. I don't think I ever got a blurred exposure using my old metal
Gitzo or my new carbon-fiber Gitzo. But around the coast here where the wind can be
incessant, I prefer wood. Common sense. With the Pentax 6x7 and a very long lens
things are much more critical than with the 8x10, and it's either Ries or failure,
especially since the negative has to be enlarged so much more. This whole discussion
is meaningful in my opinion, but by no means does everyone need a wooden tripod.
Many view cameras are quite easy to stabilize.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for all the responses, there's certainly a lot of food for thought in them. I haven't read them all carefully but I've read some carefully and at least skimmed all of them. I have only a couple comments or clarifications.

With respect to sources of vibration other than the shutter tripping - e.g. pulling the dark slide, setting the aperture, wind, etc. - while all of these no doubt can set up vibrations, they can normally be dealt with in ways other than by carrying a wood tripod. The only potential source of vibration I can think of offhand that can't be dealt with in any other way is the shutter tripping. That's why in my original post I mentioned that as a source. I probably should have also clarified that I wasn't interested in the benefits of a wood tripod in dealing with other sources that usually can be dealt with without carrying a wood tripod.

I have no doubt that in general wood dampens vibrations better than metal and other materials used to make tripods. So it comes as no surprise that if I tap metal or CF legs with a finger nail I'm going to notice more or longer vibrations than with wood. But of course we don't do that when we photograph. My question was what vibrations that can't be controlled in other ways (e.g. by waiting a while to make the photograph after pullling a dark slide) does a wood tripod dampen (recognizing that I wasn't as clear as I could have been with the original post).

Again, thanks very much for all the thoughtful reponses.

[Struan Gray]

A final thought: one reason wood tripods can seem so dead with large cameras is the way the legs attach to the crown. The wide attachment typical of classical wooded tripods certainly helps prevent some sorts of motion. This sort of wide attachment is usually only found in metal and CF tripods intended for surveying instruments or large film and video cameras.

A similar point can be made about heads. The stiff-hinge, large mating surface heads like the Ries two-way head or the Sinar pan-tilt head I have may not be any better than other heads at resisting the small torque, high frequency vibrations of small camera shutters, but are much better at dealing with the large torque, low frequency case of a large camera in a wind. My B1 ballhead is fine with a 250 on 6x6, but merely adequate with a 420 on 4x5.

[Phil O.]

I used a Davis and Sanford tripod for several years in my early days of shooting 4X5 and medium format. There have been times where I photographed along streams and rivers where I had to place one or more of the legs in the current to get the shot I wanted. And it bothered the heck out of me to have to do that, as I'd place my hand on a leg and feel for the vibration from being in the current. If it seemed like too much, I'd relocate the tripod to reduce the vibration, or at times give up on the shot.

To help overcome that occassional problem, I bought a Bromwell (Berlebach) Tilt Sentry, and later a Brom Master (Uni) for my 8X10. And it seemed to me that there was a noticable difference in cutting down the vibration between the aluminum versus wood tripods when placed in a current.

To what degree there was a difference I suppose is partly subjective, when taking into consideration wanting to justify the extra expense and also wanting the problem to be at least partly solved.

But at the very least, the Bromwell/Berelebach tripods I own are real purty to look at! :-)

[toyotadesigner]

Post from Bob Salomon: Then there is this. Which is now coming to market. Vibration is reduced by 50% by the use of a 4th leg:

Huh. A *TRI*pod with 3 legs will stand rock solid on almost any uneven surface - ever tried to do that with 4 legs? How often have you experienced tables in restaurants (outdoor, garden restaurants) with 4 legs that are not sturdy? You can check for yourselft or ask an engineer which solution is better on a variety of surfaces - a 3 point or a 4 point connection.

The answer is clear.

As much as I appreciate German products and Novoflex I really wondered about their marketing gag with the 4 leg tripod.

[Bob Salomon]

Huh. A *TRI*pod with 3 legs will stand rock solid on almost any uneven surface - ever tried to do that with 4 legs? How often have you experienced tables in restaurants (outdoor, garden restaurants) with 4 legs that are not sturdy? You can check for yourselft or ask an engineer which solution is better on a variety of surfaces - a 3 point or a 4 point connection.

The answer is clear.

As much as I appreciate German products and Novoflex I really wondered about their marketing gag with the 4 leg tripod.

But tables don't have a joint at the top of the leg to level it on any surface. With the Quadropod you set any three legs on the surface needed and then push the 4th lrg in so it is rock solid on any ground, or mounted to a window or to shelves.

[Nicholas F. Jones]

In my previous post I approached the question whether wood dampens vibrations better than other materials used in camera supports by adducing a particular extreme case (a 1200mm telephoto lens on a 8x10 folding field camera). Even though it's only a single configuration, precisely because it is extreme it might for all I know shed light on less extreme configurations. Besides, having no technical knowledge or understanding whatever in this area I'm not about to add to the confusion by introducing uninformed speculations.

The implications of my particular case come down to this: having removed all the usual controllable sources of vibration (except, possibly, that conceivably caused by the use of a short cable release), I consistently get sharp negatives in a situation (extreme bellows extension) where blurring is a common result. I speak from the experience of my repeated failed attempts to get a sharp negative with the 450M mounted on my Canham 5x7 woody--a camera designed for wide angle lenses which does give me beautifully sharp negatives all the way down to 72mm; again, the tripod--a smaller, less stable M-B--is made of metal. Previous posters write about torque; unless I'm badly mistaken, that's what's at issue here.

The one obvious qualitative difference between the contrasting performances of the 450M on my Canham 5x7 and of the 1200T on my Tachihara 8x10 is the use of the (metal) long lens support on the M-B (metal) 3036/3236. The support attaches to the forward leg of the tripod and screws into the bottom of the leading edge of the forward-most camera bed. So it's still a three-point system as opposed to four (with a monopod in front) or six (with a second tripod in front), both of which I considered and dismissed in favor of the M-B 3252.

For all I know, wood DOES dampen vibrations better than metal, but whatever the truth may be regarding materials my real-world all-metal support system yields satisfactory results under extreme conditions. I strongly suspect that it's the lens support arm that makes the difference since it not only holds up the sagging bed(s) but even more importantly stiffens and stabilizes when cinched up and locked down. That is, it may help to minimize any vibrations set in motion by my inherently unstable all-metal system.

[Archphoto]

What adds to the stability is to have the center of gravity of the camera with lens directly above the center post of the tripod and otherwise have the load directly over a leg.
Sinar has some good solutions for it.

Peter

[toyotadesigner]

Far too much hassle and work. You can place any TRIpod anywhere and it's set. Period. A Quadropod involves much more work. Worst of all, you can't use it with only 3 legs.

Where I use my tripod there are no windows, shelves, or any other kind of support for a fourth leg.

Just give it a try - you'll need several minutes to place the fourth leg without lifting one of the other three. It's an axiom in physics and math which nobody can beat or even prove wrong.

[Bob Salomon]

Far too much hassle and work. You can place any TRIpod anywhere and it's set. Period. A Quadropod involves much more work. Worst of all, you can't use it with only 3 legs.

Where I use my tripod there are no windows, shelves, or any other kind of support for a fourth leg.

Just give it a try - you'll need several minutes to place the fourth leg without lifting one of the other three. It's an axiom in physics and math which nobody can beat or even prove wrong.

There are three variations of the Quadropod. All three are mentioned in the release but since you missed it I will reiterate, one model can use either 3 legs 120° apart or 4 legs 90° apart.

As for set up it is actually much faster to set up the four legs as the fourth leg is just pulled in tight. With a tripod there is frequently more adjusting of each leg for maximum stability on uneven surfaces.

And you apparently missed the set-up completely.

Just set it down, spread the legs. Pull the 4th leg in tight. That is it!

As for windows and shelves. The legs can end in rubber balls with spikes, clamps or suction cups. The clamps and suction cups allow you to mount the Quadropod to car roofs, book shelves, windows car seats, etc. The clamps and suction cups have a small ball head so any angle necessary is possible.

Additionally the Quadropod has interchangeable legs and each full size leg is a monopod. The Quadropod can use two standard legs and two short metal legs and let you place two legs on the ground and two legs against a building or a wall to allow you to set a camera support up as close as is feasibly possible to a structure to increase camera to subject distance when every inch counts.

As you obviously have not read the brochures nor seen the Quadropod at any of the shows where it has been exhibited since Photokina (NY Javits show, MacWorld, San Diego Show, PMA, NANPA in the USA) perhaps you should withhold your comments until you have at least read about it or seen it.

Like anything new, there are always doubters.

[tgtaylor]

There are three variations of the Quadropod. All three are mentioned in the release but since you missed it I will reiterate, one model can use either 3 legs 120° apart or 4 legs 90° apart...

...you should withhold your comments until you have at least read about it or seen it.



If what you say is correct, then it won't do a 180 like my Gitzo G1348 and allow me to position the camera a couple of inches off the ground. But, as you say, the best way to evaluate this tripod is in person with your camera.

Thomas

[Bob Salomon]

If what you say is correct, then it won't do a 180 like my Gitzo G1348 and allow me to position the camera a couple of inches off the ground. But, as you say, the best way to evaluate this tripod is in person with your camera.

Thomas

Minimum height is 2.75" and maximum current height is 61", the minimum height using the 61" maximum height legs is 3.9". Additional legs are in preparation to go up to the 90" range. Additionally with the center column version the column can be reversed to go as low as you like including the lens actually coming in contact with the ground. Although that would not necessarily be a choice with large format.

[Bob Salomon]

If what you say is correct, then it won't do a 180 like my Gitzo G1348 and allow me to position the camera a couple of inches off the ground. But, as you say, the best way to evaluate this tripod is in person with your camera.

Thomas

It has been shown in the Bay area at Gasser, K&S, Bear Images, Cameras West so you could ask one of these dealers what it is like. There is a very good chance that some of them have the preliminary brochures showing what it is and how it works.

[Charlie Strack]

Scientifically, woods (at least the ones used for tripods) dampen vibration far better than the metals that are used in tripods. This is a provable fact, if you care to delve into the science. It has to do with the elasticity of the material which is measurable.

Elasticity means how much you can flex a material before it permanently deforms.

Materials with a high elasticity (steel, for example, and other hard metals) tend to allow vibration or ringing. Materials with low elasticity such as wood tend to dampen vibration and ringing.

Think about a bell made out of wood or lead: strike it and it produces a dull thud. Think of a bell made out of brass or steel, and it rings for a long time.

There is no way to eliminate all sources of movement that can induce vibration in a camera/tripod/head combination, and for evaluation you have to consider all 3 as a system. Thus having a system that dampens vibrations well is a good thing if you want sharp photographs.

As for me, I own 2 aluminum tubular tripods, and a Ries wooden tripod. If I could only have one it would be the Ries. It's incredibly strong, and reasonable in weight for its capacity, and a pleasure to use.

Off topic, one of the biggest advantages to a wooden tripod (and perhaps carbon fiber) is that in cold or even cool weather, they do not suck the heat out of your hands the way metal tripods do, allowing for easier work.

Charlie Strack

[D. Bryant]

It has been shown in the Bay area at Gasser, K&S, Bear Images, Cameras West so you could ask one of these dealers what it is like. There is a very good chance that some of them have the preliminary brochures showing what it is and how it works.

Hmmm, somehow I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Bogen/Manfrotto is developing a carbon fiber hexapod to keep up with the competition.

Don Bryant

[el french]

Hi Brian,

The owner of Celestron, Tom Johnson created an aluminum and steel tripod based on my research that stressed in all directions and preserved absolutely "dead" lack of vibration. Sadly it is no longer made.

Lynn

What do you mean by stressed in all directions? Do you have any photos of it or can you share the design?

[Alan Davenport]

Vibration is reduced by 50% by the use of a 4th leg

It's going to take some convincing, to convince me that simply adding the mass of that 4th leg to the other three, won't give the same increase in stability. IOW, just get a heavier tripod, which ought to cost less. Not to mention, now there are 33% more joints and leg locks to fail at some point.

Might be a solution in search of a problem, IMHO.

[Charlie Strack]

Increased mass can sometimes INCREASE vibration problems because of resonant frequency problems. Ansel Adams mentioned in one of his books about a very heavy tripod that with a particular camera would have big vibration problems. He used a different tripod with that particular camera.

The Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed because of resonant vibrations induced by the prevalent winds. It opened July 1 of 1940, and collapsed November 7 of the same year.

Videos are on the web, and if you doubt that vibrations and resonant frequencies can be a problem with your photos, you might be convniced by this video.

Charlie

[Peter De Smidt]

I used to have a Zone VI Lightweight wood tripod which went about 15 lbs. without head. It was heavy and very bulky, but it had great big feet. Once these were sunk in the ground, the tripod was very stable. However, it was a really pain to carry any distance, as much from the knobs catching on stuff as it was from the weight. In addition, every year or two I'd lightly sand the wood and put on a couple of coats of spar varnish. In spite of this, over time the wood started to bow, and this caused problems with adjusting the legs. So I sold it. Since then, I use a Gitzo series 5 aluminum tripod, and for 80% of my photography, I prefer it to the Zone VI. (The zone VI ruled in the muck, and darn it, if that isn't were I often end up.) In addition the tripod is 15 years old and it works great.

As has been mentioned, the overall resonance characteristics of the whole system are what matters, and there's no one best solution for all situations. A given tripod might test worse than another under certain circumstances, but the ratings might all change if you sink it's spikes into the mud, weight it down, add an auxiliary support arm... In short there are a lot of very good pods out their, wood, metal, composite...what matters is that you learn how to use it to maximize it's performance.

As an aside, I am the large format amateur type that prefers really heavy tripods with no center column... The last few years I've been a commercial assistant photographer, and so I've worked with a bunch of pros. Their view is just the opposite: Crank that center column up to the max! Here's a quote: "Set up some saw horses and plywood such that a ladder can be placed on top of that. Then mount my tripod on top of the ladder. Use gaffer's tape to hold it in place."

[Don7x17]

I actually sell lasers and tripods, among the many hats I wear to make a living. For student and casual use metal tripods are popular because they're cheap and lightweight. Most are made in China. There are also made in China clones of brand-name wooden tripods which look nice and are relatively cheap but perform horribly.
But around here I never see a professional surveyor with a theodolite using anything but a substantial clad wooden tripod. And these do perform as decent large-format camera supports too, though I'd rather use my Ries. As far as the spotting scope and bird-watcher crowd is concerned, I'm out at Point Reyes all the time, and those guys admire my big Ries tripod, though most probably wouldn't want to deal with the weight. I gave one of my old wooden surveyor tripods to a friend for a small astronomical telescope and it works far better than the metal one which came with it.
But everything is relative. I don't think I ever got a blurred exposure using my old metal
Gitzo or my new carbon-fiber Gitzo. But around the coast here where the wind can be
incessant, I prefer wood. Common sense. With the Pentax 6x7 and a very long lens
things are much more critical than with the 8x10, and it's either Ries or failure,
especially since the negative has to be enlarged so much more. This whole discussion
is meaningful in my opinion, but by no means does everyone need a wooden tripod.
Many view cameras are quite easy to stabilize.


Drew, et al

I regularly used a Pentax 67 with a 500mm lens, sometimes with a 2x coupler. The metal or carbon tripod (one of a collection of gitzo) never resulted in any vibration. And since I was using the Pentax 67's to photograph railroads, I regularly had massive amounts of weight going by that you could feel through the ground. (Try standing next to two moving trains within 10 feet of you moving uphill on Sherman Hill in Wyoming). Windy as hell up on Sherman Hill as well as on Altamont (When Western Pacific was still a railroad) -- no issues either.

With Respect to LF photography, I regularly use Nikor 1200T on my Arca Swiss 8x10 as well as the ULF lenses, as well as huge lenses at maximum extension on my Canham 12x20 (think Schneider 1100XXL fine Art, 550 XXL, De Golden Busch lenses, Doktor 1000mm and 750mm, RDA 30 inch, 42 inch. Again, having a metal tripod has never resulted in any vibration in the negatives. Either loupe or enlargement(for 8x10). For these I'd say that wind on the bellows is a bigger issue. Just wait a second - gee damping metal vs wood made no difference whatsoever. Wind in the Columbia River Gorge is absolutely no problem.

So the bottom line -- I haven't seen a need for any wooden tripod. YMMV.

I think too many have listened to Picker for too many years. Again YMMV.

[benrains]

The Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed because of resonant vibrations induced by the prevalent winds. It opened July 1 of 1940, and collapsed November 7 of the same year.

Videos are on the web, and if you doubt that vibrations and resonant frequencies can be a problem with your photos, you might be convniced by this video.

They'd especially be a problem for your photos if you were trying to photograph from the Tacoma Narrows bridge at that time.

Also, all you folks with the wooden tripods, sure your tripods may have better dampening capabilities than metal or carbon fiber in most situations, but what about the vibrations caused by termite infestations, eh? That's something I'll never have to worry about with my old Gitzo 5 series.

[kev curry]

Ben, just to pull yer leg a bit... if I really began to worry about the theoretical possibility of vibration inducing termite infestion in the wooden tripod that I don't as yet own, coz I decided on CF, I think I might interpretate that as the sign that its came the time to think about taking up bingo seriously:)

[benrains]

Ben, just to pull yer leg a bit... if I really began to worry about the theoretical possibility of vibration inducing termite infestion in the wooden tripod that I don't as yet own, coz I decided on CF, I think I might interpretate that as the sign that its came the time to think about taking up bingo seriously:)

Well, there are other sources of vibration in wooden tripods apart from termites that can make your nights sleepless. You have to think about carpenter ants, powder post beetles, and–worst of all–the nefarious woodpecker. At first one might be inclined to think, "great, that woodpecker will eat all of the termites and fix that vibration problem!" In fact, they only serve to make it worse... much worse.

I do know of one fellow who tried to solve his woodpecker problem by using his pet cat as both a deterrent and as a tripod stabilizing weight. He made a little hammock for the tabby which slung between the legs of the tripod. It was similar to one of those tripod accessory holders. Clever, right? His efforts were successful in keeping all the woodpeckers away, but the cat was so happy it just purred and purred the entire time... which of course caused the camera to vibrate and subsequently ruined all the photographs he'd made that day.

You just can't win with a wooden tripod! That's what I say.

[D. Bryant]

Drew, et al

I regularly used a Pentax 67 with a 500mm lens, sometimes with a 2x coupler. The metal or carbon tripod (one of a collection of gitzo) never resulted in any vibration. And since I was using the Pentax 67's to photograph railroads, I regularly had massive amounts of weight going by that you could feel through the ground. (Try standing next to two moving trains within 10 feet of you moving uphill on Sherman Hill in Wyoming). Windy as hell up on Sherman Hill as well as on Altamont (When Western Pacific was still a railroad) -- no issues either.

With Respect to LF photography, I regularly use Nikor 1200T on my Arca Swiss 8x10 as well as the ULF lenses, as well as huge lenses at maximum extension on my Canham 12x20 (think Schneider 1100XXL fine Art, 550 XXL, De Golden Busch lenses, Doktor 1000mm and 750mm, RDA 30 inch, 42 inch. Again, having a metal tripod has never resulted in any vibration in the negatives. Either loupe or enlargement(for 8x10). For these I'd say that wind on the bellows is a bigger issue. Just wait a second - gee damping metal vs wood made no difference whatsoever. Wind in the Columbia River Gorge is absolutely no problem.

So the bottom line -- I haven't seen a need for any wooden tripod. YMMV.

I think too many have listened to Picker for too many years. Again YMMV.
Just remeber to have your chainsaw handy while you are out shooting - Fred will be proud of you the next time you need to do some lunber jacking! :)

Don Bryant

[Don7x17]

Just remeber to have your chainsaw handy while you are out shooting - Fred will be proud of you the next time you need to do some lunber jacking! :)

Don Bryant

Reminds me of the article Fred published showing how to cut off shrubs ("landscaping") so that the cuts were angled away from the camera so they didn't show. Fred was always green - no fancy chainsaw, just a sharp bucksaw (hand operated)

[kev curry]

You make some very interesting points Ben, and I can tell you, that any residual lust still remaining for a wooden tripod on my part, has thoroughly disintegrated...there's certainly much much more to consider before buying a wooden tripod than first meets the eye of the casual observer;-)

[Armin Seeholzer]

As always I have the solution for all;--))))
If you need a new tripod you need one with 4 legs and everything is much easier:D :p :cool:

http://www.prophoto-online.de/fototechnik/Auf-vier-Beinen-Neues-Stativsystem-garantiert-Mehrwert/

Cheers Armin

[Dan Fromm]

Kev, its magic bullets all over again.

[kev curry]

:-)

[Turner Reich]

The manufacturers who have been around for half to a full century, how could they stay in business if their tripods didn't work? Wood has been used since the beginning, aluminum and metal for decades, carbon fiber for a few decades, since the '90s ? The cf tripods are designed primarily with one thing in mind, weight.

Maybe someone will invent a light weight gyro stabilizer head for tripods.

[Clemens]

Just a small, un-scientific test I made with a very long telephoto lens, ca. 1200mm focal length on a full format DSLR with liveview:

Gitzo Studex tripod vs. an old Berlebach Report: the Berlebach was the clear winner. If I touch the lens to focus I can see the vibrations in enlarged Liveview. When I finished focussing the image was still shaking 3-4 seconds on the Gitzo and about 1 second on the Berlebach. On the wooden tripod the lens was also much less vulnerable to vibrations caused by wind.

[Turner Reich]

Wood is good, a gyro stabilizer on top is better.

[Bob Salomon]

Berlebach actually published the vibration test results and test methods by a German lab. If anyone is interested we can mail it to them.

[Archphoto]

Why don't you put a link to that test here ?

Those who are still reading this thread will after 9 pages.....

Peter