Ultra - light tripod (high-end, with an unusual handling question)

[Dan Wells]

Hello all-
      I'm looking for a tripod to carry when thru-hiking the Appalachian Trail (it may or may not make all 2,189 miles, because I think I'll only carry a tripod when I'm splitting the weight of tent, cook kit, etc. with someone (not on solo sections). The camera gear is going to be my (on the way) Fuji X-Pro 2 with zoom lenses (even though the zooms are heavier than primes, they are lighter than an equivalent number of primes) - I'm still deciding between the 16-55 (best image quality but no stabilization), 18-135 (flexibility and stabilization) or 18-55 (size, weight, stabilization) for a normal lens, and I'll certainly have my 10-24. There may be sections where I have the 100-400 as well, if I have a couple of hiking partners for a while and can shirk other weight  Even if the 100-400 doesn't make any of this trip, the tripod needs to be sturdy enough to handle it, because I'm not buying a very expensive tripod exclusively for one trip, and I own and use the 100-400. It probably doesn't matter from a tripod perspective, but a 56mm f1.2 may find its way into my pack for portraits and low light...
         The unusual handling question is that I have a physical disability that denies me use of my left hand, and I don't care for conventional ballheads for this reason. It's hard to get the drag right so I can move my hand back and forth from camera to knob, especially  on lighter heads that don't have a separate friction control (the Really Right Stuff BH-30 lacks a friction control, for example, and the BH-40 is getting heavy). The two heads I have identified as interesting are the Arca p0 (the unusual lock is probably a huge advantage, because the lock ring is a reasonable place to move the camera from, and it's also very light and stays level while panning, although not while tilting), and the smaller Uniqball (the 35), because it actually offers level movement in two dimensions for a reasonable weight and size (leveling is one of the biggest challenges with one hand).
      For legs, I think I'm looking at the lightest Gitzo Traveler (series 0) at 1.9 lbs, or the Really Right Stuff series 1 (2.4 lbs with the center column removed). The smallest Gitzo Mountaineers might also be a consideration, but they are close in weight to the RRS, if not heavier, and, from what I'm reading, the RRS is sturdier? Really good leg locks (anti-rotation and positive locking) matter when one doesn't have another hand to stabilize the leg, and aren't Gitzo and RRS way ahead of Benro, Sirui and friends in this regard? I've used slightly larger Gitzos at various points, and their locks seem much better than any cheaper tripod I've used. Are RRS locks like Gitzo, better, or worse? I've never seen an RRS tripod, although they get exceptional reviews. I don't think there is anything with non-rotary locks in the very lightest weight range, is there? All the Manfrottos are at least 3 lbs...

[Dan Wells]

Correction - I'd have to go to the Series 1 Traveler in a Gitzo - the Series 0 is extremely short, and would require full center column on pretty much every shot!

[degrub]

Would one of the monopods work for your needs ?
Frank

[NancyP]

My 1.4 kilo /3 pound solution:
Arca-Swiss p0 without the Arca clamp. The pan function is at the clamp platform, not at the base of the head.
63mm Sunwayfoto discal Arca-type clamp, with screw operation
Feisol 3442 (for compactness - if you don't mind the extra fourth leg segment. Otherwise, you could get the 3342 3-segment version)
No center column. There is a hook that screws into the underside of the center plate, to hang a weight (water bottle!) if needed.
Legs fold 180 degrees over the head, for compactness.

This little setup works fine with my lens-footed short telephotos, up to the Canon 180mm f/3.5L, which, together with its camera, weighs about 2.2 kilos / 5 pounds. Hanging a weight helps a lot if pointing camera down or up such that the center of gravity is not over the center plate any more. It's a 1 kilo set of legs, everything larger than a point and shoot makes it top heavy! I haven't tried it with my 400 f/5.6L, that lens weighs a little less than the macro. I think that it might be fine with a slightly heavier lens than those already mentioned, but I wouldn't put a Big White 8 pound 500 f/4 lens on it.

Operation: there's only one control, a ring around the head. Easy and fast. You would have to steady the camera when the ball head is loose. This could be problematic for some - I don't know the nature of your disability. You could consider a pan-tilt head for true one-handed operation, or the Manfrotto pistol-grip ball head, or a 3 axis geared head, but all of those are either bulky or add weight or are quite expensive (Arca-Swiss geared D4 head hits all three, Manfrotto 410 geared head is REALLY heavy). Another inverted head similar to the p0 is the Acratech, but I don't know how easy it is to operate.

[NancyP]

I just checked the weights of your proposed heaviest combo, the 100-400 lens and XT2, its about 1.8 kilos, the Feisol legs are fine and the p0 head ought to be maneuverable with one hand, with a little patience in getting the exact framing. I only use the other hand for faster fine tweaks in framing, but could do without. Check out the Manfrottos - Hejnarphoto.com has adapter kits to convert some Manfrotto heads to the Arca-type quick release system - I have done this with my studio tripod and 410 geared head.

https://www.manfrotto.us/products/supports/tripod-heads/xpro-geared-3-way-head-with-adapto-body-mhxpro-3wg  This is a 27 oz geared head, so 1 pound heavier than the Arca p0, probably easier for you to make fine adjustments.

https://www.manfrotto.us/products/supports/tripod-heads/horizontal-grip-action-ball-head-with-rc2-rapid-connect  28 oz. Bulkier, looks very easy

http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/category-s/146.htm   List of Manfrotto to Arca adapters

[Dan Wells]

A couple of questions on NancyP's setup...

Is the Sunwayfoto clamp instead of either Arca's own version or a RRS option a cost saving measure? Or is there another advantage? As I understand it, screw operated Arca-type clamps are pretty universal, although the lever-operated models are not necessarily (am I right that Arca-brand clamps don't necessarily work perfectly with RRS plates). The plates I plan to use are RRS, Fuji (they make their own X-Pro 2 baseplate, and I'll have to look at it compared to the RRS) or a combination (Fuji on the body and RRS on the big lens?). A fitted plate on the body is pretty essential, which is why I'm dubious about Arca's lighter "slidefix" quick-release system, which uses different plates (and there are no fitted plates for the X-Pro). I've never used a slidefix plate, but Manfrotto plates, which are also universal-fit, are forever coming loose on me, while I've never had that problem with any fitted Arca-type plates on any camera.

How are the leg locks on that Feisol? I've never used a Feisol tripod, and what I like about Gitzo (and RRS?) locks is the short turn, positive action and no problem with leg rotation. Most Chinese Gitzo clones I've seen and used (Benro, Sirui) have much longer screw distances (over 1/2 turn, sometimes over a full turn, instead of Gitzo's 1/4 turn), don't tighten as definitively , and have problems with leg rotation. It's entirely possible that Feisol has copied Gitzo locks much etter than the others... If the Feisol locks are as good, and the weight is as low, the price difference is certainly welcome!

Interesting on the Manfrotto to Arca converter plates - I wish the Manfrotto heads were lighter (an extra pound is really not what I'm looking for). I like the design of a lot of Manfrotto heads, but they are almost always heavier and bulkier than competitive options, and rarely as smooth as the really good brands.

Dan

[NancyP]

The Sunwayfoto discal clamp is due to the fact that I bought the p0 used and it didn't have a clamp on it, just the standard bolt. The previous owner had an RRS lever clamp on it that he wanted to keep, so he sold the head "naked". Yes, it is cheaper, but I also wanted a very compact screw clamp that would allow the legs to be folded 180 degrees around the head and still have legs parallel to each other (compact, fits in small tripod case it came in), and the Sunwayfoto clamp is also very light, having some aluminum milled out where not needed. I wanted a screw clamp because I didn't want to worry about adjusting a lever clamp. This Feisol 3442/ Arca p0 tripod is my usual hiking/travel tripod, I use it for almost everything, with exception being I use a heavy tripod near the car. I have a larger Arca head (Z1) with the Arca brand lever, it works great for most of my lens feet and L brackets and rails, but not all - and it is hard to adjust on the fly.

The Feisol 3442 / 3342 series has anti-rotation design on the legs. I would guess that the screw-type lock/unlock range is about 180 degrees, maybe a little more - it is a turn of the wrist. They don't have a flip lock option. The Feisols are Taiwanese made, and I think these are well made.

http://www.feisol.net/tripods/tournament-tripods.html
http://www.sunwayfoto.com/e_goodsmulu.aspx?cid=45   I have the DDY-64iL because that was the only size they had back then,  they have now added a clamp specific to the p0, which has a 60mm platform, clamp DDY-60p0, probably looks a little better not having the 2 mm overhang.

[Conner999]

My tripod is an old heavy beast unsuited for your needs, but I love our P0 head. Have used AS and RRS large bullheads and the ease of use of the P0 and it's lack of 'droop' after locked is fabtastic. It also makes a very slim form factor when packing - no large knobs jutting out.

[Rory]

For legs, I think I'm looking at the lightest Gitzo Traveler (series 0) at 1.9 lbs, or the Really Right Stuff series 1 (2.4 lbs with the center column removed).

Just a word of warning about the RRS TQC-14 tripod.  It has a wingnut type tightener on top.  The top of the wings are above the base where you attach the ball head.  Hence, your ball head base must to be narrower than the wingnut gap (2 inches).  Pretty dumb design.  Otherwise this tripod is great.

[Dan Wells]

Rory's observation raises two questions:

Does the wingnut still exist with the center column removed? I'm guessing that, if one mounts the plate directly to the top of the legs, the wingnut is not needed?

It looks like the Uniqball is too wide for that wingnut (2.2", with the width where you'd expect it, in the base) - the Arca p0 is a more interesting question, because its maximum diameter is 2.36", but it's substantially above the base in the locking collar (it's an upside-down ballhead). The base diameter looks small enough to fit, possibly exactly 2", possibly a bit smaller (Arca still has no web presence, in 2016!, and Rod Klukas' Arca site shows every dimension of the head except that one... Other than at the collar, a good 2" above the wingnut, it looks like the diameter of the ball housing is about 2.1", and, being upside-down, even the bottom of the ball housing is an inch or more above the nut.

RRS themselves doesn't list the exact clearance, but it is slightly more than 2" - the RRS BH-40 is known to fit, and that is 2.1". From the picture of the TQC-14 with a BH-40 on their website, it looks like a Uniqball might even (just) fit, depending on whether it is a little over or a little under 2.2" - it would be AWFULLY close.

Does anyone know if the p0 will fit?

Also, it looks like a couple of the Novoflex ballheads can mount upside down, providing the same functionality as the Arca, but with a drag lock as well (although substantially more expensive - more expensive than Arca? I didn't know that existed!)...

[muntanela]

Look at www.arca-swiss-magasin.com, but I think it is written only in french, with some random exceptions. (Really incredible).
Some years ago I bought slidefix (meanwhile the name has changed in monoballFix) clamps and plates on the P0 and on the L-bracket.  It was a very big mistake. I don't recommend this type of clamp (the one on the head  is even defective).

[Rory]

Rory's observation raises two questions:

Does the wingnut still exist with the center column removed? I'm guessing that, if one mounts the plate directly to the top of the legs, the wingnut is not needed?

The butterfly knob is still needed, as shown on page 7 of the RRS Tripod and Monopod Manual. 

If you need to take a ground level shot it is a real pain to remove the center column and attach the hook back to the base.  The plastic tightening rings have a propensity to fall out.  In the field good luck finding one. 

Since I use my camera at ground level more than I would want to use the camera with the center column extended, my solution was to hack saw the center column, so it only protrudes about an inch below the base, allowing the tripod to fully flatten.  I have the center column extended about 1/4 inch, which allows the base to clear the butterfly knob wings.  I usually mount my BH55 ball head, although you can use any ball head with this configuration.  Another solution would be to trim about 1/4 inch off the top of the butterfly wings.

[Dan Wells]

I've chosen and ordered my tripod head - an Arca-Swiss Monoball P0. I got it without a QR setup, planning to attach an RRS clamp - it's actually cheaper than the Arca clamp, and it's guaranteed to work with RRS plates. It looks like the Monoball is compatible with both - it clears the wing nut on the RRS, and it's narrow enough that the Gitzo reverse folds pretty well, if not completely.

The question now is Gitzo (either the four section 1545 or the five section 1555) vs. RRS (TQC 14) for the legs. I'm visiting Boston over the next few days, and can see both Gitzo legsets at at least one dealer there. Unfortunately, RRS has no dealers anywhere.

The Gitzo has several advantages, one of which I'm not sure really is an advantage. The certain advantages are that it's cheaper (any $700 travel tripod that counts as "cheaper" is a little bit ironic, but it's competing against a $850 travel tripod), and that it's a tiny bit lighter (0.1 lb lighter with the column than the RRS is WITHOUT the column). It also comes with a short column that probably takes off another 0.1 or 0.2 lb (it doesn't look like it's possible to dispense with the column entirely, which the RRS does support). The advantage I'm uncertain of is reverse folding - it certainly makes it more compact, but does it also increase the chances of collapse?

It seems like the big advantage of the RRS is sturdiness - the leg diameters are equivalent to a (significantly heavier) Gitzo Series 2. RRS boasts endlessly of this, but it seems like the new Gitzo Travelers with the Carbon eXact tubing have gotten close - the top tube of a pre-2015 Series 1 Traveler was 21.7mm, but the new one is 25.3mm, not that far off RRS' 28.7mm. I suspect that Carbon eXact is probably a close equivalent of the large diameter thin-wall tubing RRS has been using (and their comparisons are to Gitzo's older Carbon 6x tubing). RRS also uses anodized metal fittings instead of painted (I'm assuming Gitzo fittings are painted, because that's who RRS tends to compare against), which they claim is sturdier.

Has anyone used them both? Is RRS a meaningful step up over Gitzo? I've decided to go for one of the two, rather than the Gitzo clones from China and Taiwan (Feisol, Sirui, Benro, etc.), because the 1/4 turn locks, anti-twist mechanisms, dust sealing and light, sturdy tubing are all a big deal to me. I've had a few clones, and none of them hae leg locks I like. I've used Gitzos, and the locks are in another league (not all of what you pay for Gitzo or RRS is just the brand, although I'm sure they take advantage of it - if one of the manufacturers of $250 travel tripods decided to build a $450-$500 travel tripod, I'm sure they could get in Gitzo/RRS territory).

Dan

[jng]

Dan,

I haven't used the Gitzo but I'm very happy with the TVC-14. I use it with the center column removed. The tripod is very sturdy and all the fittings work incredibly smoothly as many of us have come to expect from RRS. The TVC-14 handles my not so svelte MF kit quite well and is what I take with me when I either can't or simply don't want to schlep my aluminum-legged 3-series Gitzo beast.

Good luck!

John

[muntanela]

I have removed the central column of my Gitzo mountaineer, I wouldn't buy a tripod whose  central column can't be removed.

[NancyP]

My reverse-folding Feisol is sturdy. The leg positions lock in at a few set angles, like most tripods, and that mechanism is not prone to failure. The main difference in construction is in the details of the leg to tripod hinge itself. So if that feature appeals, go get it in the high-end brand offering it. (Why did I choose Feisol? I hung out at a Large Format forum for a while, and one of the senior hiking LF people used Feisol - seemed like it would be plenty sturdy for a mid-price tripod, and so it is).

[armand]

I have the Gitzo GT1541T which is an older version.
The reversible design is fine, it does make it significantly more compact (length wise) particularly if you don't want to remove the head. What I don't like is that in only has 2 locking positions for the legs, one that has the legs almost too close and the other where they are really really wide. To use it in between the legs are not locked and I'm counting on gravity and friction to hold it in place; with what I use its ok but not ideal. Collapsing was never an issue, you have to unlock each leg to do it.

[duane_bolland]

My only thought on this is that you're nuts.  I know two people that have thru-hiked the PCT.  They traveled as light as possible.  Their base weight (without food and water) was under 20 lbs.  In the book "A Walk in the Wood" Bill Bryson jettisoned half his possessions in the first three days.  I'd probably take an X-T1, 23mm and 56mm lenses, and a table top tripod.  Even that is too much. 

[NancyP]

It depends on how fit you are when you start, and if you have done a lot of elevation training with a fully loaded pack. Also, your mileage per day goal matters a lot. All bets are off if you have helpers of the human or 4-footed variety. Take an 8 X 10 camera if you have a llama to carry it and film and holders and film loading tent and...

[Dan Wells]

I'm going with a couple of other photographers... When I hike alone, I carry one body and a travel zoom. No support apart from rocks (which, of course, I don't bring with me - there are usually plenty) . With 3-4 people (party size not fully set yet), an extra lens and a tripod become possible. The real logistical problem is batteries!