Tripod for a folding 8x10”

[Ari]

Understood, Drew, and I mostly agree. And I wouldn't presume to compare the ultralight to a big tripod designed for LF use.

However, I've found that using my current lightweight tripod - a 4-section jobber that only gets 47" tall and has detachable legs that can each be used as a monopod and is only 22mm at its thickest leg section - gets me sharp negs on 8x10.
I doubt I'd get equally good results in heavy wind, but I'll get to testing that eventually. I use a tent peg and string to anchor a tripod in the wind, but rarely has it been really necessary.
I did a rough vibration test with a small laser, and it passed with flying colors. But I also think the camera (a Wehman) is more solid than, say, a 2D, so it gives off less vibration too.
So yes, the proof will become apparent only once the actual 2-section tripod is used and tested. But it looks promising for a casual day tripper.
I'll be happy to report my own unscience-y results and as usual, the tripod will go to David at The Center Column for a scientific peek under the hood.
I'd be thrilled if 22mm tubes were enough, but it may be that we'll need to build a 2-section tripod with slightly thicker tubes to make it acceptably steady.

[Drew Wiley]

I should have pointed out that an intelligent CF design for 8X10 folder use will not have its legs stemming off from BELOW the top like most models, but hinged around the perimeter of the top platform itself, like a corolla essentially increasing the top platform diameter in terms of torque resistance. Thicker tube diameters also factor. My Feisol CT3472 has those features, and it really helps. It looks like the FLM is constructed in a similar manner. I can't realistically comment on build quality in relation to current pricing because I bought my Feisol back around the time of its introduction, when it was considerably more affordable than now. Incidentally, I shoot a Phillips 8x10 folder, the grand-daddy of all the nice and stiff lightweight designs.

I tested quite a few construction laser prototypes early on, as well as selling them. We even had our own private label big wooden survey tripods. One day the salesman who sold the lasers for the calibration of the new Panama Canal locks stopped by with one of those models to show me, on his way back from Panama. Complete overkill for ordinary construction purposes. These were even corrected for the curvature of the earth, and could be auto piggy-backed for many many miles with extreme precision. But these particular lasers were so accurate and sensitive that the very slightest vibration would instantly trigger a shutoff switch inside. My office at that time happened to be in an upper loft with a plywood floor over steel structural beams, with a bit of spring to it. He set up the laser across the room, which was quite large, and turned it on to impress me with all its special features. But I would just gently tap my foot on the floor and it would shut off. He didn't know I was messing with his head, and couldn't figure out why that uber-expensive laser had seemingly shut off on its own. Well, I was impressed, but not commercially interested. My customers didn't do mile-wide canals.

I do hope your experiment works out. But I'm certain there will be some inevitable penalties to the lower weight.

[eolo14]

I bought a used Burlbach years ago. This set of wooden legs has a leveling center column. I have found that mounting my 8x10 Kodak 2D directly to this center column 9 so no ball head) saves weight and still gives as much range of movement as I usually need.

What model of Berlenbach do you use ?
And about the head on it ?

Thank you

[eolo14]

Berlebach is also my go-to first choice for my Wista 8x10. For smaller formats, dealers choice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What model of Berlenbach do you use ?
And about the head on it ?

Thank you

[esearing]

I am using the FLM CP34 L4 II currently with a Manfrotto xpro 3 way head for my 5x12 and 4x5. I could have gotten away with the CP30 for 90% of my needs but for 1.2 pound difference I will never need another tripod. The 3 way head is rated for up to 17 pounds and works well with the big 5x12.
If you don't need the height the CP3? S4 models would also offer some weight savings.

Another feature that Ari doesn't usually mention is how easy it is to disassemble the legs when they need cleaning. If you order the 34 or 38 you can also get the bowl head attachment. You may not even need a head if using that for leveling and minor tilts.

[neil poulsen]

. . . A new Linhof Vintage Heavy-Duty Pro Tripod cost 3650 $ , and the others that I found on ebay are scrap. . . .

I just sold two, excellent, heavy-duty Gitzo tripods, one on this site for $290, and one on EBay for $350. Both were the same and rated with a 33 lbs capacity. They were both cosmetically in poor shape, but both were also highly functional.

. . . My lightweight carbon fiber version is a Feisol CT3472, which I've modified a bit for sake of a platform-only top, with a 3/8-16 stainless hook below in lieu of an ordinary turnbolt, so I can hang things from it. Feisol does now offer an optional easily interchanged low-profile half-ball device for that particular model, though I don't personally need it. I don't think I'd want to go any lighter than that CF model due to wind issues. Both these tripods have spike feet. The same pair of tripods serve well for my P67 long tele work.

A lot depends on the weight of the 8x10. For me, there's a dividing line at about 14 lbs. Below this weight, my Feisol 3372 (almost the same as Drew's) will work fine. It has beefy legs (38mm?), and can support this size of 8x10.

Above this weight, like for a Calumet C1 black 8x10, or a Sinar P 8x10 camera, a heavy duty pro model is called for. (i.e. above Gitzo, five section, Studex tripod.) Heavy (15 lbs) , but capable.

[John Earley]

I wasn't happy with my Bogen 3021 tripod with Manfrotto 438 leveling head primarily due to the leg locks which were difficult to use with my arthritic hands. I ended up purchasing an Artcise AS90C carbon fiber tripod with a leveling ball, 40mm main leg sections and 69" height. So far I've been pleased with it but have only had it for a short time. It seems sturdy, well built and it appears to dampen vibration very well in my totally unscientific "Drew Wiley style poke it with a finger" testing.

[Drew Wiley]

Weight per se is not the primary factor. It's how the weight and torque vector length is DISTRIBUTED. For example, with a monorail design, at long extensions the weight distribution is primarily linear, whereas with a big flatbed there is going to be more risk of width wobble. The ole Calumet C1 sorta represents the worst of both worlds in terms of needed support. But how the tripod is "anchored down" to the ground is a subsidiary issues. My Feisol CF might be perfectly competent on a calm day, but simply doesn't have the sheer gravity or mass to keep it on the ground on a day like today, with sudden very strong wind gusts, which could easily lift the entire assembly off the ground. With my wooden Ries, the camera might shake and spoil the exposure is I'm not extra careful; but at least the risk of getting the camera smashed on a toss is reduced (though its taken a few short flights totally off the ground even attached to the Ries, luckily landing on soft foliage in each instance). That's why I'm waiting until tomorrow to go out, when this windstorm is forecast to be over, and when either the Feisol CF or the heavy Ries maple tripod would be fine. But since I'm trying to rather quickly get back into summer backpacking shape, I'll select the Ries because I deliberately want some serious extra pack weight.

But yes, if I weren't so comfortably adapted to the no-head method, I'd would have no doubt opted for one of these new "half-ball" devices that tightly nest in a scooped out portion of the top. They aren't terribly expensive either - just $75 for the version that fits into either the Feisol CT3472 I have, or the slightly lighter CT3372 (but that won't fit any of their other models due to insufficient top platform diameter).