|
|
|
-
The Manfrotto formerly known as Bogen 3001(190) is a pretty sturdy tripod for it's size. It's 21" collapsed and about 46" extended with the column down. Add the head of your choice.
It's small enough to fit a suitcase with the head removed.
I've used it with an RB67 and a holga pinhole with the column down it's reasonably steady.
A motorcyclist is the only one who understands why a dog rides with it's head out the window.
"I had an idea once, it died of loneliness"--George
-
I've been packing around an old Slik S-502 System tripod for the last 20+ years. It collapses down to under 20 inches, extends to five and a half feet, and only weighs a couple of pounds. It is plenty sturdy for my Mamiya C-220 and 330, I even put my Calumet cc-401 on it a couple of times, it strains but handled it. It has tubular legs with twist locks, and a single handle pan head(I wish it were a ball head), and the old style QR studs instead of a QR plate.
Rick A
Argentum aevum
BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"
-
And while we're on the subject, I've yet to find an even relatively inexpensive aluminum tripod that is sturdy and does not have round, tubular legs. There's a reason for that - a circular shape is inherently stable. Think about the arches in old cathedrals. Or an egg.
I'm sure you can compensate for other shapes with expensive materials or machining, but for bang (stability) for the buck, I'll take round legs.
One other point, if you just want the tripod to steady your Bronica for slightly long exposures and weight/cost is an issue, you might be better off with a good monopod than a poor tripod.
"Far more critical than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer
-
 Originally Posted by mgb74
And while we're on the subject, I've yet to find an even relatively inexpensive aluminum tripod that is sturdy and does not have round, tubular legs. There's a reason for that - a circular shape is inherently stable. Think about the arches in old cathedrals. Or an egg.
I'm sure you can compensate for other shapes with expensive materials or machining, but for bang (stability) for the buck, I'll take round legs.
That may be an oversimplification of what's going on. I'm no engineer but I believe strength can be derived from increasing the wall thickness of a tube or increasing its diameter. Thickness = weight, so is best avoided in portable objects, including tripods.
Rigidity can be gained from altering the shape of a tube to counter lateral forces - square or egg shaped for example - but most of the flexibility seen in a lightweight tripod will be in the joints, where a degree of ingenuity is required to create a locking and bracing device for the legs that's still light. The shape of the tubing will be less of an issue than bracing this telescopic join.
Tripods exist that are extremely light, light enough to skid across a hard surface in the wind, but perform well enough as a prop to enable brief exposures. The triangulation of the legs provide the support, not their lateral load bearing capabilities, at least for the camera weight it is likely to encounter.
If the user requires something to enable extended exposures of a night sky he's going to have to sweat some serious weight, if he wants a tripod to hold the camera still for longer than his hands, say a 1/30th to 1/2 a second, he can carry a much lighter i.e. flimsier tripod.
-
Hey guys, thanks for all the input. I think I've come across the perfect one now: MANFROTTO M-Y TRIPOD WITH 3 WAY HEAD 7301YB.
http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-7301.../dp/B001TK3EJ4
Anybody have any experience with this one?
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
"Far more critical than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer
-
I can recommend the Gitzo GT1550T for travel. It is quite expensive, but amazingly reliable and strong.
Albeit not being a good tripod for MF on its heaviest side, it holds an Fuji GX680 without being damaged (that test was done after replacing the small ball head with a 2 way head)
Anyway, for more conventional MF travel stuff (TLR, smaller SLRs and SWC...) it is next to perfect. It was my only option for some long, challenging (5 days in wilderness) trips. It is light enough to serve as a walking stick to take the pressure off my knees when going down dale.
On my last trip I abused it quite heavily, but after some cleaning it performs like new again.
-
Originally Posted by Treymac
You realize that's 360mm high, right? 14" + a little bit. extended you pick up a little bit more.
A motorcyclist is the only one who understands why a dog rides with it's head out the window.
"I had an idea once, it died of loneliness"--George
-
Brett Weston used an Aluminum tripod with non round legs, the legs were rectangular. He didn't seem to have any problem with his Rollei and RB67.
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
-
If I believe the marketing, the feature that tubular legs need is non-rotation.
When you inconsistently tighten the sleeves and go to adjust the legs... as you twist, tripods without the feature will loosen the leg you just cinched instead of the section you want.
|
|
Adv Reply
