Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: lowep on May 25, 2011, 04:32:53 am
-
If wooden tripods have less weight, less cost and less vibration than other types why doesn't everybody use them?
What are the disadvantages? ???
-
They can get woodworm! :)
-
They can get woodworm! :)
Damn! You were too fast for me!
;-)
Rob C
-
amazing, that was my first though as well! ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Less weight? They're really heavy aren't they? That and decidedly bulky.
-
They catch fire, ahh an idea!
-
They catch fire, ahh an idea!
Actually thats an advantage if you get caught in a snowstorm ....
-
If wooden tripods have less weight, less cost and less vibration than other types why doesn't everybody use them?
What are the disadvantages? ???
Going traditional are we?? :)
Do they have less cost, less weight and less vibrations combined? Or to have less vibrations they become bulky and heavy and also cost?
Carbon fiber cost, but a good sturdy cabon is also low comparative weight. I followed advise by John Shaw in his books of a 3-section Gitzo without telescoping column. No need to look for any new one again; sturdy as rock and stick into anything above I want my support :)
Regards
Anders
-
"Less weight? They're really heavy aren't they? That and decidedly bulky."
Yes, but (not much more than a classic Manfrotto alu tripod like this one):
Manfrotto 055XPROB Aluminum Tripod Legs
Material Aluminum
Maximum Height 70.3" (178.5 cm)
Maximum Height w/o Column Extended 55.9" (142 cm)
Minimum Height 3.9" (10 cm)
Folded Length 25.8" (65.5 cm)
Load Capacity 15.4 lbs (7 kg)
Weight 5.3 lbs (2.4 kg)
Berlebach Tripod Report 3032
Material: wood
Maximum height: 142 cm = 56 inch
Minimum height: 9 cm = 4 inch
Transportation length: 90 cm = 35 inch
Load capacity: 12,00 kg = 26,46 lb.
Weight: 3,20 kg = 7,05 lb.
As with everything else, which is best depends on your priorities. My main concerns are cost and damping.
As far as I can figure out carbon costs significantly more than wood -- and dampens less?
Point taken about usefulness of wood as firewood in the snow however you also forget to mention than in case of a nuclear apocalypse the metal and carbon tripods would probably not fare much better than the wooden ones (though have not had opportunity to test this theory yet).
-
My rock solid carbon Gitzo weights in at just about 2kg per memory, and ROCK solid. It cost me but is also a keeper...
(nope, not at all think solid carbon dampens less than wood... Depends on member sizes, joints, solid )
It is my second tripod since serious into photography. Heads? On my 4th: Markins. That same as my Gitzo... finally a keeper. Works for me, yet we are all tad different.
All gear is a weighing of priorities, and preferences :)
-
I have 2 wood tripods and I'd never use them. One is antique and far too pretty and the other is very bulky and heavy. Conversely I never understood people who use carbon fiber as it's way too light and I've seen two instances of other photographers having their carbon fiber tripod w/ a camera on top tip over.
-
When I hang my photo bag at the hook in the middle my Gitzo carbon tripod is quite stable and vibration free, even with a tech camera on top.
-
They catch fire, ahh an idea!
Ya. Keep them away from Iceland ;)
-
The biggest disadvantage is the image a wood tripod infer on the photographer; this must be an awkward back-ass, oldtimer ;D.
There is more weight than aluminum and carbon, but the questions should be is there better stability of camera given the same weight? Compared with carbon I would assume no, for aluminum yes. The other question is do wood give better stability of camera given same price? For this I would say yes, there is a better price/performance ratio of wood versus carbon / aluminum.
In terms of handling the only wood tripod I have owned outperform others by a far.
-
Yup. If I hadn't problems with my hip and carrying a lot of bulk I'd have chosen a wooden tripod over the carbon.
-
Mold. Mildew. Rot. Termites. Carpenter Ants. ;D
-
"Mold. Mildew. Rot. Termites. Carpenter Ants...." all delicious but what about the disadvantages?
-
Why not use them? Because I prefer Carbon Fiber.
-
Compared to aluminum I think it's less a weight issue than a bulk issue. Wooden tripods tend to have two-section legs, which not only limits their maximum height, but also means that fully collapsed they're still quite large (too large to travel with, if travel means flying). That pretty much rules them out for me.
Compared to CF, the weight difference is pretty substantial. A 56" tall CF tripod would most likely weigh less than half what that above Berlebach weighs. That can be a pretty important consideration if you're hiking in rough terrain such as the mountains.
-
Conversely I never understood people who use carbon fiber as it's way too light and I've seen two instances of other photographers having their carbon fiber tripod w/ a camera on top tip over.
I don't think this has so much to do with weight as other design issues such as leg spread. For instance it's a real issue with the Gitzo 1- and 2-series because they're trying to get as much height as possible out of the shorter legs, and they therefore use a fairly narrow spread for the legs. But it would take a fair amount of stupidity to knock over my 3541XLS legs.
-
But it would take a fair amount of stupidity to knock over my 3541XLS legs.
Yup. I've got the same tripod and used it the last weeks with a Sinar F2 with a geared Manfrotto 3D head and had no issues at all.
-
"Mold. Mildew. Rot. Termites. Carpenter Ants...." all delicious but what about the disadvantages?
:D
You formerly work on submarines or something?? LOL