tripod...yes sorry and head questions

[77seriesiii]

Greetings all and yes I looked but really didnt find what I was looking for.

I am in the market for a new tripod, needs to be able to grow with me weight wise. I do not have a preference btwn carbon fiber or wood. I pack the gear around on my back and put it through all types of weather conditions. I take images from teh waters edge, in the water, (salt to fresh), snow to ice, etc. etc. which one fits the bill better the carbon or wood. I like that the CF is a bit lighter, ok roughly 10lbs lighter but I would probably fill that space up with...food or wine...ok only wine. :rolleyes:

i am expecting the camera, film lenses, tripod, snacks and liquid beverages to have a total weight around 50#s. Given the above conditions what fits the bill better CF or wood? I dont really want to get into the aesthetics of wood vs CF, I like to make sawdust but am simply looking for a tool to fit the need. I've never used a wood tripod is the reason I am asking and was hoping to ping someone out there who has used both. Vibration is a concern big camera, big lens...vibration bad.

Thanks for the help.

./e

[Archphoto]

Reading your story/request just one thing comes to my mind: fiberglass.
The kind of tripod that is used by surveyers: it can stand water and pretty well everything the weather can throw at it.

Just a thought....

Peter

[Drew Wiley]

There are several threads not long ago dealing with this specific subject. I personally
contributed to the brawl by stating how I don't use a tripod head whatsoever, but do
use both wooden and carbon tripods. You will encounter quite a range of opinions.
I won't repeat mine or I'll start another food fight.

[77seriesiii]

Peter,

I had forgotten about the surveyor's stick options. I read that somewhere in here a while ago. Have to take a look at them.

Drew, didnt mean to pick the scab but I am looking for something that will go in and out of water for all seasons. In this sense I am not a purist just want to get the best tool. I know that metal is bad in the winter and very hot summers, hence the thoughts of looking at wood and cf. I get the cold winters but summers above 85 are rare. I took a look for where you posted and remember reading it when you did, but will have to look again tonight as I am heading out to work in a moment.

Erick

[jeroldharter]

I think the answer is simple. Whatever your weight limit, why push it with dead weight in a tripod? I would go with one of the new, larger sized Feisol tripods which will be less than 5 pounds, hold any 4x5 - 8x10 camera you are likely to acquire, and the cost is reasonable.

Salt water will be rough on any material but I think wood is at a disadvantage there. If you go with wood though, you might get one with just two piece legs so you could use "beater" extension legs in the rougher elements. That seems a bit extreme and expensive though.

[argos33]

I am looking into getting a Feisol Tripod, and after reading the reviews thinking about getting the 50D ballhead as well. Has anyone used this setup for medium and large (4x5) format photography?

[77seriesiii]

I was thinking of a feisol until I read their highest weight capacity, roughtly 26 pounds. With the type of gear I am carting around and expecting to get, 26 pound capacity is not enough. Kinda irked me a bit as I was thinking of getting one.

./e

[Ron Marshall]

What format will you begin with and what is the largest format you think you might use?

[77seriesiii]

I think the largest format I will use is 14x17. The types of format will be, as it stands now, film and collodion. I think once down the collodion path I will probably try some of the other image creation and alternative techniques but that bridge will be crossed when I get there. I am not looking for a period anything, just something that works that will take the abuse I plan to put it through. By abuse I mean, work...:p

Due to our desire to hike, I am looking at a few carbon fiber versions, a ries and a surveyor's sticks. havent narrowed down any better than that.

./e

[Steve Hamley]

Laura,

I applaud your commitment and admire your strength. You have some very nice work on your web site. I hope you aren't planning on carrying a 14x17 very far. Have you actually seen a 14x17 camera in person?

The obvious question is how much weight are you looking to carry comfortably? One of the lightest 14x17 cameras around would be the Canham at about 17-18 pounds, and a Wisner is about 35 pounds. A Ries A-100 with A-250 head would be the standard tripod for this camera at about 18 pounds. Add a couple of filmholders at around 5 pounds apiece, a lens, 10+ pounds for a pack that will carry it, and you're up to a minimum of 56 pounds for one of the lightest outfits out there. A Gitzo 1500 series CF and 1570M head would save you about 5 pounds.

So you're looking at 50-80 pounds not counting filters, changing bag, loupe, lunch, water, wine, and so on.

A realistic pack weight for 14x17 might range from 65-100 pounds. :eek:

The next obstacle is what are you going to carry a 14x17 in? I don't know of any commercial pack that could carry one along with the holders, lenses, etc. You might be able to kluge something to a Kelty external frame pack, or get Dan McHale to make you something custom.

The attached photo shows a Wisner 14x17 next to a rather large 8x10 (larger than a Deardorff by a bit). It's more than a half a yard in height and width, and although the Canham will be half the weight, the size won't be much different.

Cheers, Steve

[jeroldharter]

I think the largest format I will use is 14x17...
./e

Well that's different. You need a turret on a donkey cart for that rig. I think saving weight on a tripod for that setup is a low yield enterprise. I don't know that gear well, but you need the biggest of whatever is available.

[argos33]

Steve brings up a good point. If your pack weighs 90 lbs saving 5-10 (and spending a lot of money doing it) is not going to matter much. I would instead figure out more efficient ways of transporting your equipment. Get some sort of baby stroller like many forum members here use, or an ATV, or heck even a donkey. Carrying that much weight really bears down on you after awhile. If you can split the gear up amongst several friends it will also save a lot of pain. There is no need to kill yourself trying to take on everything yourself. This is something I have unfortunately learned from experience.

[77seriesiii]

Steve and gang!,

Thanks for the comments. I'll let Laura know that you liked her art, she will get a huge kick out of that! I'm the other half, the one that carries some of the equipment, holds the dog, drinks the wine...did I mention the wine? :p

I have seen a 14x17 but I hadnt thought the weight issue through, in other words, listed it all out and added it up. that is quite a bit and though can be done for a while, I dont think I can do that all day anymore. Even if I gave Laura 30lbs, I dont think she would be happy. Ok, so re-think the expedition camera and go with smaller and see how that works, lays out in a pack, etc.

On the CF versus wood, I am mostly concerned with the water Laura and I find ourselves in (sometimes falling in...). The occasional rain and fresh water is not so big an issue but we do plant a tripod in a stream or saltwater often enough to get the shot she is looking for. The weight savings overall of CF vs Wood is not that great as Steve pointed out. Still doing the mental gymnastics on the logistics.

Thanks again for the comments/thoughts.

Erick

[David Carson]

If you get a CF tripod with the legs that slide in like a gitzo, you're going to have to clean the grit outta that thing by disassembling it. A wood tripod is easy to clean.

[Steve Hamley]

Eric,

If you're doing saltwter and streams other than clear running, I'd agree with David - Ries is the way to go, a J-series or A-series depending on the maximum size camera. You might want to call the Ries folks directly, they are very helpful.

As an afterthought to the camera weight issue, you can carry light ULF cameras fo varying distances depending on you, the pack, the terrain, and the distance.

I frequently carry an 8x20 Korona (about 15 pounds), two holders, up to three lenses, and the usually stuff up to a mile on flat land or maybe 1/3 mile uphill, and I'm 53 and rather ordinary. I had Dan McHale make me a pack to carry cameras 8x10 up to 8x20, and it does exactly what he built it to very well. So it can be done, but the heavier the camera, the shorter you can carry it, the less steep you can stand, and so on.

I wouldn't even think about packing a 35 pound Wisner 14x17 unless the pack was to solely ensure the camera didn't get dropped when negotiating 10-100 feet to the desired location. That's assuming it would fit in any pack, again being more than a half a yard of camera in two directions.

If I were doing what I think you're doing, I'd do 7x17 and maybe 11x14. The cameras of choice for carrying would be a Folmer and Schwing or Korona (vintage, be careful buying), or a Canham or Ritter (modern). These cameras are small and light enough (if yo can even use those adjectives with ULF) for normal people to carry in a large pack for short distances. The F&S is a "banquet" camera and has a rather short bellows, the Korona was available in a "panoramic" model with a longer bellows and extension rail, and a "banquet" model without. My Korona 8x20 was a "banquet", but I had Richard Ritter make a rail and install a longer bellows.

Another thing to think about as you consider options is that above 7x17 and 11x14 (like 14x17, 8x20, 12x20), you're really into another class of lenses that can be heavier, much more expensive, and much rarer, at least in focal lengths 19" and shorter. For these larger cameras, you'll need 22"-24" of image circle at infinity, and if you want sharp out to the edges, that's not always easy shorter than 19"-ish.

Cheers, Steve

[77seriesiii]

Ok, good ideas, didnt think about stuff getting trapped in CF sectionals. How do the backpackers in the forum cart around their wood tripods? Lash them to the side of packs?

Contacting Ries to see what they say and am looking at Berlebach. Price differential doesnt seem that much between CF and Ries, however Berlebach seems to have lower prices.

./e

[Steve Hamley]

Erick,

I've known several people to lash a J-series Ries to a pack, never seen anyone carry an A-series that way. Since I'm never going far with ULF, I usually carry the tripod in my hands. A J-series will be workable up to moderate 8x10s.

A lot of people do carts, but I don't since the trails I frequent are too rough unless perhaps it had bicycle wheels on it.

Cheers, Steve

[shadowleaves]

just found Chamonix 14x17 is 14.55 pound at $4200 and a few pounds lighter than Canham....
not sure if it's cheaper.... 14x17...they're all very expensive..

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/1417.html


Laura,

I applaud your commitment and admire your strength. You have some very nice work on your web site. I hope you aren't planning on carrying a 14x17 very far. Have you actually seen a 14x17 camera in person?

The obvious question is how much weight are you looking to carry comfortably? One of the lightest 14x17 cameras around would be the Canham at about 17-18 pounds, and a Wisner is about 35 pounds. A Ries A-100 with A-250 head would be the standard tripod for this camera at about 18 pounds. Add a couple of filmholders at around 5 pounds apiece, a lens, 10+ pounds for a pack that will carry it, and you're up to a minimum of 56 pounds for one of the lightest outfits out there. A Gitzo 1500 series CF and 1570M head would save you about 5 pounds.

So you're looking at 50-80 pounds not counting filters, changing bag, loupe, lunch, water, wine, and so on.

A realistic pack weight for 14x17 might range from 65-100 pounds. :eek:

The next obstacle is what are you going to carry a 14x17 in? I don't know of any commercial pack that could carry one along with the holders, lenses, etc. You might be able to kluge something to a Kelty external frame pack, or get Dan McHale to make you something custom.

The attached photo shows a Wisner 14x17 next to a rather large 8x10 (larger than a Deardorff by a bit). It's more than a half a yard in height and width, and although the Canham will be half the weight, the size won't be much different.

Cheers, Steve

[David Carson]

People seem to use 3-wheel baby strollers to carry their gear. I don't because I don't get that far from the car with my stuff.

[Alan Davenport]

I think the largest format I will use is 14x17.

Check Navy surplus. Seems like a 5 inch gun mount oughta be about right...

Didn't the infamous Majestic head come with an equally humongous tripod?

I agree that weight saving isn't going to be significant. With a camera that large the only factor to consider in tripod selection is strength.

[77seriesiii]

Alan,

TOO Funny! On that note I was walking in Baltimore's Inner harbor this evening and I noticed the Coast Guard Ship with a 5" gun on deck and started thinking...Mind you and my wife can confirm, thinking is not something you want me to do, especially when bored, living in a hotel, and wandering around in the down town portion of a city that just happens to have a spare 5" mount on a ship. What? They're not using it :D

./e