UK Tripod Question

Started Mar 12, 2013 | Questions thread
alFR Regular Member • Posts: 286
Re: Feisol CT3442

Kuppenbender wrote:

That's exactly what I bought the 3442 for. I wanted a tripod small and light enough to take out for day and not feel hard done by if it didn't get used. I looked at the smaller Traveller-style tripods and went with the ct3442 because the leg sections were thicker in diameter.

Both the leg thickness and the need to extend the centre column substantially on the traveller models to get enough height for me put me off a bit.

If you're using heavier gear (FF DSLR, 300mm f4 etc...) it might be wise to err on the side of caution and go 3-sections. Of course, a decent head (ball or otherwise) would be an absolute must in that case, and more likely to be the weaker link than the thinner leg section.

The Feisol 50D looks fairly robust, so I was considering going for that. Most of my use would be with a 24-105 f4 for hiking and a 100mm macro, so nothing too heavy. The biggest lens I can see myself ever owning would be a 100-400 f4.5-5.6 or a 70-200 2.8: don't own either currently, but I'd like to future-proof a bit if possible as I'd hope the tripod would last a while.

That said, even the 3342 or 3472 would be as small/light as what I was originally looking at (a RRS TVC-24L and BH-40 combination: the 25% import duty/VAT on the RRS if imported to the UK (plus the steep initial price!) sort of ruled that one out, however) so I could get either of those and not be carrying any extra.

The bottom line is that every tripod is a compromise of some sort.

True! For me I guess it probably comes down to the lighter weight of the 3442/3342 vs the extra height and possibly slightly greater rigidity of the 3472.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow