Tripods - Carbon v Aluminium

[Boogle]

I think its to do with the weave as to why the CF does or doesn't transmit vibrations to certain points (note I didn't say it doesn't transmit them at all, just the potential is there to route them). Could be completely wrong though.

I've found my Carbon Fibre tripod very useful, and I ended up with it almost by accident. Its more stable, and the weight is wonderfully light. I too, thought that light weight would mean bad stability - turns out that's not accurate at all. The few times I've needed extra stability I just hung my kit bag off the hook. That's as good as making the legs out of lead - and you don't have to carry an additional 5kg of weight around.

To the people thinking 'hey, its only 400g!'. That's true, but that line of thinking can get dangerous:

'Hmmm, this pro body is only another 500g, that's nothing' +500g
'This lens is only 300g heavier than the other, who cares?' +300g

'This Tripod is only 600g heavier, and probably more stable - I'll take it' +600g

'This flashgun is only 200g heavier, I might need the extra power - you never know' +200g

'This backpack is 200g heavier, and offers much more space! I can get more kit in!' + 200g

So now we're up to 1.8kg just by not worrying about a little extra weight here and there. If you're carrying more lenses, tripod heads, etc. the extra weight will increase dramatically.

 

[REBlue]

I recently picked up a Feisol CT3342 tripod, and love it. I paired it up with the Markins M10 and a RRS lever clamp plate. I am 5'8" and I can just barely see through the viewfinder of a D300 when mounted. If I mount the Sigma 150-500, with a RRS foot, I cannot see the viewfinder at full extension (no center column). So it's not as if you would have to bend much to use it. Whenever you assess tripod heights, don't forget to factor in the height of your ballhead and clamp, the height of your viewfinder above the base of your camera, and the fact that your eyes are located some 3-4 inches lower than your total height.



http://community.webshots.com/user/REBlue01
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reblue/sets/

 

[Apochromatic]

Has anyone experimented with putting cement or sand or something
heavy into aluminum tripod legs to make it more stable?
--
Russ

--

I did this once with a telescope tripod and sand. The telescope tripod legs were one piece so it was easier to do. It shortened the vibration time of the legs, but IMO, the extra weight (almost doubled the tripod weight) was not worth it.

 

[calson]

I like CF when the weather is cold or for planting at the beach in sand saturated with salt water. Otherwise the CF is not an advantage as it is much easier to save weight with a lighter ball hear or leaving off the center column.

 

[fauyeung]

I have been researching various types of ballhead, but just could not really tell the differences between the high-end (M20, BH-55) versus the middle-range one (M10, BH-40).

Could someone point me to make the right decision? I am just a hobby type of photographer, mainly taking my kids' pictures and take vacation shots.

I have been seeing lots of users recommending the BH-55 and M20... but I am not quite sure if "bigger" the head is really better for my application.

My question is: Why photographer tend to recommend the high-end one over the middle range one?? Is it provides better control?

I have the D300, w/ 24-70 (always use) and 70-200mm (rarely use).

At this time, I am shooting w/ my monopod (rarely), w/ the optional "tripod stand placed at the bottom of the monopod" if I want to place my whole family in front of the camera.

Thanks ahead for all valuable comments.

filthypuppydog wrote:
We are the same height. Finding a tripod tall enough was a pain. I
hate to tell you since it appears you did not want to get a Gitzo,
but I went with the Gitzo GT3541XLS. It can extend higher than eye
level and it does not come with a center column. Wonderful tripod,
but expensive. I went with the Markins M20 ballhead on that one and
it is a wonderful ballhead. I also own the M10 Markins ballhead for
another tripod and it is also very impressive.

--
Regards,
Frankie

 

[atigun]

My old beat up aluminum Gitzo 120 legs (reporter series) rides as checked luggage inside my large backpack without any padding. Also when on field trips, it rattles along on the floor inside the cabin of the truck.

I am curious if CF would be robust enough for this kind of treatment; I would be worried about denting from sharp edges. It is one of the things that has kept me from upgrading to CF. I really do not want one if I have to baby-sit it.

--



Atigun valley, a place north in Alaska

 

[DStan]

Alright, here's what I don't quite get...

Everybody says carbon fiber tripods are better than aluminum. OK,
maybe from a weight standpoint they're lighter to carry. That doesn't
make them better. Lighter is less stable, in my experience.

AND, carbon fiber is used to build high end fishing rods because the
material is claimed to TRANSMIT VIBRATIONS better than other
materials. Easier to feel the fish bite...

Carbon fiber IS exceptionally stiff, flex-free material, when laid up
with its matrix, which is exactly why it transmits tiny vibrations so
efficiently. Ever ride a bicycle built with a carbon fiber frame?
Every little bump rattles your fillings loose!

SO, with these thoughts in mind, why is carbon fiber touted as such a
great photographic tripod material, when what one wants is the most
stable, vibration-free platform possible?

I'm thinking a concrete or lead tripod would be more stable...just
not very portable...

Alum. is more flexible and will resonate at a lower frequency than CF and bend more readily, which is not good for photos.

Your analogy to fishing rods may be flawed as they are not made of aluminum, I'd think in this case the comparison would be between CF and fiberglass, which is quite different.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
http://standavidson.com/post/Birds

 

[Arved]

I think Thom Hogan says it all:

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm

--

• Arved

'Take only pictures. Leave only footprints.'

 

[Arved]

So, by your theory, we should not only abandon CF for Aluminum, but abandon Aluminum for wood. Wood does a great job of damping vibrations.

I still have my "monster," a Bogen 3221W. CF is very tempting, but the 3221W is very functional.

When I was in Highschool, I got to borrow a Gitzo for a year. One thing I don't hear mentioned is build quality. The Bogen is nice, but it's kind of like a Chevy. The Gitzo, more like a Mercedes. Both do the trick, but even the heavy aluminum Gitzo - the build quality was very, very impressive. At the time, though, the Gitzo was about 4 times the price of a comparable Bogen. If I could have afforded the money, I would have gotten it, just like if I could have afforded it, I'd have gotten a D3. But I can't, so I didn't, I got the best I could afford, and I simply got on with my life.

--

• Arved

'Take only pictures. Leave only footprints.'

 

[RomanJohnston]

not diffrent...but for those on a budget....an aluminum copy of a CF Gitzo is the best assistant to the budget minded....

Buy the best ballhead you can put on it.....then buy the CF later when you can afford it if you find you use your tripod a lot.

I have a pair of tripods from Gitzo and they are exactly the same except alum vs. CF.

Not gonna lie...the CF one is my favorite....all the stabilty of its aluminum brother about 2/3rds the weight....makes a diffrence.

I also think CF has better vibration dampening....

Roman
--
The SOUL of a photographer is in SEEING the beauty ....
The GOAL of a photographer is to use their craft to capture it.
You CANT have one without the other.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

 

[DezM]

To the OP, buy what you can afford. I think you decided on Manfrotto and that's a good choice.
--
Dez

http://photos.dezmix.com

 

[malch]

Thanks for all your responses - I've never seen such a unanimous
response on these fora. I wish my budget extended to the Gitzo.

Take a look at the Benro products here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=benro+carbon&submit=B%26HPhoto&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t

or on Ebay. And the Feisol products here:

http://www.feisol.net/

Both are basically Chinese made Gitzo knock-offs. But the quality is really very high. You'll get 90% of the Gitzo quality for 50% of the Gitzo price.

One point someone else brought out - I'm 6'2" - I can't imagine
there's any tripods that are going to get the camera to my eye level?

I'm a shorty but this should be fairly easy with a center column and although that will cost a little rigidity.

 

[Suntan]

Alum. is more flexible and will resonate at a lower frequency than CF
and bend more readily,

On average (depending on the amount and type of fiber and the orientation of the fibers) carbon fiber reinforced plastic does have a Young's modulus of about twice that of "aircraft grade" aluminum (more "stiff" if you will) but to say that aluminum will bend more easily or that it will resonate at a lower frequency is an incorrect assumption. Both of those characteristics has just as much of a dependency on how the individual tripods are designed as they do on the material properties of the materials they are made out of.

-Suntan

 

[BruceEvans]

I have a Gitzo G1325 tripod that I've been using for about three years and love it. However, I also have CF fishing rods and have broken a number of them when they've got caught in my trunk lid or truck door. Has anyone had any problems with CF tripod legs shattering?

Bruce

 

[Suntan]

Well 99% as I vote aluminum

Me too. The added cost for a comparable CF tripod is a waste of money in my book.

In any case, if the lighter weight is truly something you desire, then you will already accept the added cost. Hiking for a week is one thing, but don't kid yourself, CF vs Al is not going to make or break you if you're only hiking a mile or two away from the trunk of the car.

As for the idea that a CF tripod will reduce vibrations, that may be true. But it is overblown, I guarantee you that it is possible to reduce the vibration of a comparable Al tripod (vs a CF pod) with a bit of well placed ballast.

If you want to own a well built, light weight tripod, by all means get an expensive CF tripod, nothing wrong with that. But don't buy one thinking that you can't get equivalent results with a quality Al tripod.

-Suntan

 

[Suntan]

I would be worried about denting from sharp edges.

Well, you don't have to worry about carbon fiber "denting"...

Although, depending on the design of the tripod (weave structure, number of layers, choice of matrix material, etc.) CF can be made to handle some pretty impressive abuse.

-Suntan

 

[fastbike]

Your issue has more to do with the diameter of the fishing rod rather than the material. Carbon Fiber is an extremely robust material.

I have a Gitzo G1325 tripod that I've been using for about three
years and love it. However, I also have CF fishing rods and have
broken a number of them when they've got caught in my trunk lid or
truck door. Has anyone had any problems with CF tripod legs
shattering?

Bruce

 

[aldu]

At minus 30 degre Hum! A friend of mine as broken 3 CF Gitso in a year and one just in front of me,Ouch! a $800 Tripod and crack,Whell hopefully he can replace the parts.

 

[ffnikclif]

--Fred

The Gitzo 3541 is tall enough for a tall guy. Pricy but it is a great tripod. I would stay away from a pistol grip. Saw a guy at the Grand Canyon with a brand new Mark III & he was using a pistol grip & he flopped it over to do a vertical & turned his head for a moment & over the whole thing went. It was sickning! At least it wasn't a Nikon.

Fred(6'4")

 

[Suntan]

Carbon Fiber is an extremely robust material.

Not to be too anal, but in a technical sense, the toughness of most traditional fiber reinforced plastics is not that great. They can be tailored for higher stiffness at the expense of toughness and vice versa, but ultimately they tend to suffer from catastrophic failure when they do go (break/shatter instead of dent/bend.)

More importantly, the transition temperature between brittle and ductile failure (think of smacking a piece of taffy against a post when it is frozen solid vs. it being left in the summer sun) is much more of an issue for frp components than it is for Al. Or put another way, whilst trekking through Yellowstone in January to get that shot of a buffalo covered in snow, you need to be more concerned about your carbon tripod than you would be if you were there in July.

Further, the strength of the designed part is significantly reduced when frp parts suffer a small failure whereas a traditional metal part is usually left with little or no reduction in operation (an frp pole with a hairline fracture thru it can not hold the same weight as a new frp pole whereas an Al pole with a dent in it will work pretty much the same as a new one.)

-Suntan