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.