Tri-Pod Stability

CyberSteak

Ok, not getting much advise on which Tri-Pod to choose between the ones I'm looking at so thought I would get some input on general stability qualities and pick that way. I've narrowed the search to 3 tri-pods. 1 is a 4 section, the other two are 3 section.

1st) 3 Section vs. 4 Section Legs

With 4 section legs the obvious bennefit is a shorter tri-pod to carry. The obvious problem is this apparent stability problem with the thinner legs on the bottom sections. How much is stability impacted by going with a 4 section tri-pod? Is the shorter folded size worth the instability? If the majority recommends 4 section, then my search is done. If not...

2nd) Extending Center Column vs. Not

If the majority recommends a 3 section tripod then... How much can someone extend the column witout compromising stability? One tripod can reach my eye level without extending the column while the other will need to be extended about another 4 inches.

Input welcomed and appreciated...really...it is.

Awais Yaqub

I use 4 section Feisol tripod and i am happy with stability even when using fully extended center column. But i cannot compare because i have never used other type of tripods.

I like center column for instant hight adjustment, much easier than adjusting all three legs.

I used 100mm macro, 17-40L with 400D and stability is not bad.

cab.in.boston

I probably won't be too much of a help (which is why I haven't responded to you before) because I'm in the same stages as you, a lot of research and not a lot of hands-on experience. I'm 6'5", so I have even more of a height issue than you do. Have you read Thom Hogan's article on the subject? I don't remember if I've seen anyone point you towards that, and being a Canonite, you probably don't follow his stuff as much as I do.

Anyway, in my case, at 6'5", I figure I need my tripod to get to about 64-66", the rest of the way to my eye level will be head + camera. I am not really concerned about weight, as the pod will mostly be used on short-ish hikes or near the car/house. I don't travel all that much, so the shorter length of the 4-section legs doesn't really matter that much to me (it does to Thom, he travels a ton, so that's a factor for him).

After a bunch of reading, I think I have settled on the Giottos MT9371. It gets to almost 63.5" without extending the column, and I figure if I have to bring up the column 2-3", that will be fine, or I can lean down just a touch. Anything is better than the full squat I have to do to get down to the height of my current - old and very cheap - tripod. So anyway, I'd opt for the 9371 because with the 9370, the center column would pretty much have to be fully extended, and I know I don't want that. Plus, the trick center column looks very cool and handy for working with your new macro lens. So there you go, an opinion (based on reading and speculation rather than experience) for you tending towards the 3-section Giottos.

As for the head, are you sure you want to go with the Giottos head, and not something with Arca-Swiss compatible plates? I'd be a little concerned with getting into a proprietary system, but that's just me. Obviously it costs more, but I am planning (as of now) to go with a Kirk ball-head plus either Kirk or RRS quick release plates. That way I could use them on my monopod (also on the wishlist at the moment) and not be stuck with one system, particularly as my lens collection grows to include heavier glass with tripod mounts. I would much rather have plates for everything than have to constantly remove and reattach the plate from the ball-head. That's what I have to do now with my current - old and very cheap - tripod, and it's quite annoying. But that's just me, and obviously you have put a lot of thought into this... YMMV.

Art Scott

CyberSteak wrote:

Ok, not getting much advise on which Tri-Pod to choose between the ones I'm looking at so thought I would get some input on general stability qualities and pick that way. I've narrowed the search to 3 tri-pods. 1 is a 4 section, the other two are 3 section.

1st) 3 Section vs. 4 Section Legs

With 4 section legs the obvious bennefit is a shorter tri-pod to carry. The obvious problem is this apparent stability problem with the thinner legs on the bottom sections. How much is stability impacted by going with a 4 section tri-pod? Is the shorter folded size worth the instability? If the majority recommends 4 section, then my search is done. If not...

2nd) Extending Center Column vs. Not

If the majority recommends a 3 section tripod then... How much can someone extend the column witout compromising stability? One tripod can reach my eye level without extending the column while the other will need to be extended about another 4 inches.

Input welcomed and appreciated...really...it is.

I have used 3 section tripods for years (manfrotto/bogen) and traded UP to a 4 section Giottos....the legs on the Giottos are large enuff to offer superb stability when fully extended.....also if you proper tighten the center column it is extremely stable also......Reasons I went to Giottos was: 1-Price 2- compact enuff that I can backpack it onto trains, buses, metros, & trams without banging it constantly as I did the 3 section pods....I can pack it into my suitcases for overseas travel.....it is stable enuff to use with medium format gear and large handle mount flash units attached (sunpack 622 flash).....

I donot use the center column that much as I am only 5'9" so I can use it a max leg height 99.9% of the time....but have run the center column up and shot with it fully extended to see if it was stable and it definitely is.

CyberSteak

Awais Yaqub good to hear about your experience with both the 4 section tri-pods as well as an extended center column. I won't have much weight on my tri-pod. Max weight I could put on it at this time would be my 40D, 580EX II Flash, and a 70-300mm. I think that's about 5 lbs total.

cab.in.boston - 6'5"? You win. You'll definately have it harder then me. Though it makes for an easier decision. You clearly have to go with the tallest tripod. Thanks for the link I'll check into that. As far as the Ballhead/plate system goes. Here's where the Induro takes a slight lead as the plate that comes with it, is infact, Arca-Swiss compatible plate. And you brought up a lot of interesting scenarios for it's use.

Art Scott - Glad you responded as you seem to offer some fairly good advice.

So you consider it a trade up from 3 section to 4...interesting and good to hear.

Looking at your reason to go with the Giottos...

Price - I'll agree, they do appear to be a less expensive tripod. Though at the moment, Adorama has the Induro for $125 on sale so if I were buying tomorrow, both Giottos would be the more expensive choice. The 4 section Giottos is the most expensive at $217.95

Compactness Folded down - The 4 section Giottos is the smaller of the 3 I'm looking at. The 3 section Induro is only 2 inches longer though (giottos mt9370 @ 24" and Induro @ 26.1"), surprisingly. Maybe you can speak from experience. How much of a difference do you think that'll make?

It seems like my concerns with regards to stability in the center column isn't really valid with either of the three tripods I'm looking at. The shortest of the three without the column extended is the Induro at 66". The most I'd have to extend the column is about 4.5".

Thanks for the input so far guys.

Scott_Quier

I started my life as a born-again photographer (dropped it for years, picked it back back up some 5 years ago) with a tripod very similar to the Manfrotto 190XB with an Acratech Ultimate Ballhead and was happy with it for quite some time. I shot with a 300D (yep, that's what I started with and it's been downhill ever since ) and a Canon 75-300 IS. I did find with this tripod however that the center column was worthless. Extend that puppy at all and you invited all sorts of camera motion.

I took this tripod to the Glacier Shootout in 2007 (though I did have much better glass and camera bodies by then) and found the combination to be totally unsuitable for the environment I encountered - lots of wind. I found it nearly impossbile to get the tripod stable with the legs fully extended. And, I suspect the ballhead was undersized for the task - at least that's the argument I used to rationalize the purchase of a new ballhead.

For the Acadia Shootout in Oct 2009, I purchased the Feisol CT-3371 tripod (see my review of it here) and the Really Right Stuff BH-55 PCL
(BH-55 with PCL-1 panning clamp). I'm only 5'8" (173cm) tall and I find that I can't use the tripod with the legs fully extended - the thing is too tall. Additionally, I have since discovered that the rubber feet on this tripod are not the right solution outdoors - they are too soft and compress at the slightest touch. This allows the mildest zepher to induce camera motion. So I bought the steel spikes and installed and tested them prior to the Acadia trip. I suffered a small bit of harassment over the size of the rig, but this solution worked wonders, even on top of the very windy Cadillac Mountain with a with a Canon 5DII and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS mounted on it. The funny thing is, this tripod doesn't weight more than an ounce or two more than my first rig - go figure!

rpcrowe

Always remember

CyberSteak wrote:

One tripod can reach my eye level without extending the column while the other will need to be extended about another 4 inches.

Remember that a tripod doesn't need to reach eye level. The viewfinder of most cameras is approximately 3-4" above the base. So a tripod which reaches to 3-4" of eye level without raising the center column is fine. Also, it is no problem to me to bend an additional inch or two which I can do by simply tilting my head.

pathfinder

I find the discussion of whether the tripod reaches your eye level interesting, as I very rarely shoot from eye level,and many of the better landscape images I remember were shot from a very low, or a very high point of view. I rather envy some of the shorter photographer's ease of shooting from ground level, I find it hard on my knees. And I even own carpet layers knee pads so I can get low. Frequently I am lying in the snow to shoot lately.

I use several tripods, and while smaller lighter ones are handy, bigger heavier ones are definitely more stable in the wind, and I almost always wish I had a different one than the one I have at hand when I am working.

I agree with Scott's suggestions of for legs and head. I favor three section legs over 4. I have been eyeballing wooden tripods again lately.

Scott_Quier

pathfinder wrote:

I find the discussion of whether the tripod reaches your eye level interesting, as I very rarely shoot from eye level,and many of the better landscape images I remember were shot from a very low, or a very high point of view. I rather envy some of the shorter photographer's ease of shooting from ground level, I find it hard on my knees. And I even own carpet layers knee pads so I can get low. Frequently I am lying in the snow to shoot lately.

So get tile layer's knee pads Since tile is harder than carpet, maybe tile layer's knee pads will be more cushy? My DW has a pad that measures (approx) 12" x 18", intended to be used under both knees in the garden - that seems to work for her quite nicely.

pathfinder wrote:

I use several tripods, and while smaller lighter ones are handy, bigger heavier ones are definitely more stable in the wind, and I almost always wish I had a different one than the one I have at hand when I am working.

I agree with Scott's suggestions of for legs and head. I favor three section legs over 4. I have been eyeballing wooden tripods again lately.

Wooden tripods? Now that's hard-core!

kdog

Scott_Quier wrote:

Wooden tripods? Now that's hard-core!

But you can throw them on the fire if you run low on firewood.

CyberSteak

Hey I covered this in the other thread but...

I went with the Induro AX213. It was the shortest of the three extended without the column but it was right in the middle as far as folded size (read: portability). It's also a 3 section tripod so more stability and less leg locks to play with/worry about.

The clincher though was the sales price. I took the extra savings, splurged a little more, and got the BH-40 LR from real right stuff. I figured the legs may get replaced or I may get another set, but at least I'll only ever have to buy the ballhead once.

And yeah I measured out how high my camera will be without extending the column and acounting for the camera and balljoint height. I'll have to spread my legs out a bit or hunch over a little, but nothing too uncomfortable I think.

Art Scott

CyberSteak wrote:

.

Art Scott - Glad you responded as you seem to offer some fairly good advice.

So you consider it a trade up from 3 section to 4...interesting and good to hear.

Looking at your reason to go with the Giottos...

Price - I'll agree, they do appear to be a less expensive tripod. Though at the moment, Adorama has the Induro for $125 on sale so if I were buying tomorrow, both Giottos would be the more expensive choice. The 4 section Giottos is the most expensive at $217.95

Compactness Folded down - The 4 section Giottos is the smaller of the 3 I'm looking at. The 3 section Induro is only 2 inches longer though (giottos mt9370 @ 24" and Induro @ 26.1"), surprisingly. Maybe you can speak from experience. How much of a difference do you think that'll make?

It seems like my concerns with regards to stability in the center column isn't really valid with either of the three tripods I'm looking at. The shortest of the three without the column extended is the Induro at 66". The most I'd have to extend the column is about 4.5".

Thanks for the input so far guys.

For me it was the right move.....the tripod I use is very much like this one linked HERE.....someone at Philly Photo got sloppy and used a photo of 3 section to sell a 4 section pod......here are my reasons....I did not want 2 or 3 or 4 tripods....one for each type of shooting.......so I looked, I bought and I returned several.......While in Europe banging my pod on trams, buses, metro and train doors with it sticking up over my LowePro back pack I stayed in a bad mood in these situations, so bad I left my Med. format gear in my loft in Praha and just used the 35mm......I had situations where I need the flexability I now have with the Giottos......I WILL AGREE that with 99% of all tripods the center column bein raised brings on all kinds of grief.....but that is because the cc is smaller.....my CC is large in diameter and withthe tightening system on the Giottos I find them very stable.....even with the center column out of the center and doing a 45* angle with camera on the end of the column....I do use a "sand" bag to help stabilize the whle thing but I need the ability to get into weird positions at times...........This current tripod is going to become my studio pod and I will get another giottos in the near future for all things outdoors or for a second pod to shoot off of at weddings remotely.................

As far the 2 inches is concerned that should not be a problem....my problem was that my Bogen was over 8" taller and it was incapable of holding the weight of my Giottos.......I also bought and returned a BenBo from England.....2 sections, 1 "L" shaped bolt that held all the legs tight.....it was a bitch to set up and this was designed specifically for wildlife and macro shooting......

My next Giottos will have a 2-4 inch center column which will not protrude from the lower end of the tightening mechanism....that way I will be able to get almost ot ground level for some shooting......

The Giottos I linked to is only $164.95.....not one of the >$200 tripods.....

here is a photo of my Giottos demonstrating some of its stability at its shortest set up with around 5lbs hanging off to the side.


This photo shows all of what is hanging off the tripod.

CyberSteak

I looked at getting the shorter center column for the Induro but then thought there's already a solution. Since the center column can go horizontal, with it in that position I should be able to get as low as the legs allow. Right? The center column would no longer be in the way. Makes sense to me anyway. I guess I'll have to wait to see if that's the case.