Tripods: Carbon Fibre vs Aluminium

I'm looking for a set of tripod legs that are quite lightweight (for
hiking/travel) but also reasonably general-purpose for other situations. I
don't generally use any long/heavy lenses but flexibility in positioning
etc. is important. Having said that, maximum height extension is pretty
much irrelevant. This will be for 35mm only.

Since I am after something that is as lightweight as possible, I've been
comparing some carbon fibre legs against their aluminium counterparts and
I've found two tripods from each category that seem (to my inexperienced
eye at least) to be roughly equivalent. However, the CF legs are obviously
3-4 times the price of the aluminium ones!

Here are the two tripods I'm comparing and their relative specs:

Manfrotto 190Pro Black (Bogen 3001BPRO in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 119cm
Weight: 1.75-1.9kg (specs differ among sources)
Leg sections: 3
Max load: 5kg

Manfrotto 440 CF (Bogen 344CF in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 128cm
Weight: 1.6kg
Leg sections: 4
Max load: 5kg


So what's the story? I'm thinking The 190PRO obviously matches the CF legs
in load capacity because it has only 3 leg sections instead of 4 but this
doesn't really matter to me. The important aspects to me being the weight
(only 300g different), max load (same) and packed size (same). So my
question is, given the huge price differential, should I be seriously
considering the CF legs?

Christian wrote:
I'm looking for a set of tripod legs that are quite lightweight (for
hiking/travel) but also reasonably general-purpose for other situations. I
don't generally use any long/heavy lenses but flexibility in positioning
etc. is important. Having said that, maximum height extension is pretty
much irrelevant. This will be for 35mm only.

Since I am after something that is as lightweight as possible, I've been
comparing some carbon fibre legs against their aluminium counterparts and
I've found two tripods from each category that seem (to my inexperienced
eye at least) to be roughly equivalent. However, the CF legs are obviously
3-4 times the price of the aluminium ones!

Here are the two tripods I'm comparing and their relative specs:

Manfrotto 190Pro Black (Bogen 3001BPRO in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 119cm
Weight: 1.75-1.9kg (specs differ among sources)
Leg sections: 3
Max load: 5kg

Manfrotto 440 CF (Bogen 344CF in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 128cm
Weight: 1.6kg
Leg sections: 4
Max load: 5kg


So what's the story? I'm thinking The 190PRO obviously matches the CF legs
in load capacity because it has only 3 leg sections instead of 4 but this
doesn't really matter to me. The important aspects to me being the weight
(only 300g different), max load (same) and packed size (same). So my
question is, given the huge price differential, should I be seriously
considering the CF legs?


What about a Monopod, most of those are under 1KG even in metal, and can
double as a walking stick?

Paul

"Christian" wrote in message
...
I'm looking for a set of tripod legs that are quite lightweight (for
hiking/travel) but also reasonably general-purpose for other
situations. I don't generally use any long/heavy lenses but
flexibility in positioning etc. is important. Having said that,
maximum height extension is pretty much irrelevant. This will be
for 35mm only.

Since I am after something that is as lightweight as possible, I've
been comparing some carbon fibre legs against their aluminium
counterparts and I've found two tripods from each category that
seem (to my inexperienced eye at least) to be roughly equivalent.
However, the CF legs are obviously 3-4 times the price of the
aluminium ones!

Here are the two tripods I'm comparing and their relative specs:

Manfrotto 190Pro Black (Bogen 3001BPRO in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 119cm
Weight: 1.75-1.9kg (specs differ among sources)
Leg sections: 3
Max load: 5kg

Manfrotto 440 CF (Bogen 344CF in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 128cm
Weight: 1.6kg
Leg sections: 4
Max load: 5kg


So what's the story? I'm thinking The 190PRO obviously matches
the CF legs in load capacity because it has only 3 leg sections
instead of 4 but this doesn't really matter to me. The important
aspects to me being the weight (only 300g different), max load
(same) and packed size (same). So my question is, given the huge
price differential, should I be seriously considering the CF legs?


I don't have a 190, but I do have a 440 (I think I said previously it was a
444, but just the other day I realised I had misquoted that, it is a 440).

I like the 440, though I do feel at this weight level you are making a few
compromises and I regard it as about as light as you can go before those
compromises start being a problem. You need good technique, and might well
want to weight (with a bag) or load (with a bungee cord) the tripod to
increase its stability. None of this is a problem.

I have used it with medium format, but prefer not to. I think of it as a
35mm tripod, basically. Mine currently has a Kirk BH-3 ball head on it, and
this seems a good combination - I know Lisa has one with an Acratech which
she also likes very much.

Compared to aluminium tripods of similar leg cross section, I think the 440
seems a bit more rigid. That may mean less damping due to it being stiffer,
but to me the balance seems slightly in favour of the CF at this point. The
damping issue is much mitigated by good technique anyway: using a cable
release is the better answer at low speeds, but from about 1/15s up it is
better to press down onto the camera providing your own mass as damping - in
this situation my 440 does very well, yielding pin sharp images with 300mm
and longer virtually every time, and with 600mm (rarely used on this 'pod)
most of the time.

I would urge comparing the 'feel' of the bounciness and stiffness of these
two if you possibly can. If you can only get them by ordering them, see if
it is possible to buy both and return the one you don't keep, since you'll
know your answer very quickly without having to take them out-doors and put
any wear on them.

Whether the 300g weight difference matters is a personal matter - to me it
did.

One thing I don't like about these is the mechanism for adjusting the leg
angle. This uses a complexly shaped soft aluminium pin at the top of each
leg. These pins get galled and worn, causing them to bind which then
requires some fiddling with to free them again - I don't know how widespread
this experience is, and I still think that overall the 440 is a very useful
tripod and use it a lot. (I haven't looked into whether I can get a spare
pin and replace the offending part, but generally Manfrotto is good with
spares, so if any of mine get to be too much of a nuisance I may do that.)

I do have to say that in general I like the Gitzo tripods more, but in this
particular weight bracket the Manfrotto seems to stand out.



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

"Christian" wrote in message
...
I'm looking for a set of tripod legs that are quite lightweight (for
hiking/travel) but also reasonably general-purpose for other
situations. I don't generally use any long/heavy lenses but
flexibility in positioning etc. is important. Having said that,
maximum height extension is pretty much irrelevant. This will be
for 35mm only.

Since I am after something that is as lightweight as possible, I've
been comparing some carbon fibre legs against their aluminium
counterparts and I've found two tripods from each category that
seem (to my inexperienced eye at least) to be roughly equivalent.
However, the CF legs are obviously 3-4 times the price of the
aluminium ones!

Here are the two tripods I'm comparing and their relative specs:

Manfrotto 190Pro Black (Bogen 3001BPRO in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 119cm
Weight: 1.75-1.9kg (specs differ among sources)
Leg sections: 3
Max load: 5kg

Manfrotto 440 CF (Bogen 344CF in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 128cm
Weight: 1.6kg
Leg sections: 4
Max load: 5kg


So what's the story? I'm thinking The 190PRO obviously matches
the CF legs in load capacity because it has only 3 leg sections
instead of 4 but this doesn't really matter to me. The important
aspects to me being the weight (only 300g different), max load
(same) and packed size (same). So my question is, given the huge
price differential, should I be seriously considering the CF legs?

I don't have a 190, but I do have a 440 (I think I said previously it was a
444, but just the other day I realised I had misquoted that, it is a 440).

I like the 440, though I do feel at this weight level you are making a few
compromises and I regard it as about as light as you can go before those
compromises start being a problem. You need good technique, and might well
want to weight (with a bag) or load (with a bungee cord) the tripod to
increase its stability. None of this is a problem.

I have the same tripod, and actually have the same opinion of it as
Peter. It's a LOT more steady with a nice heavy bag hanging from it.
The bag hanging ring is conveniently located, but is far more convenient
to use with a carabiner on your bag's shoulder strap.


I have used it with medium format, but prefer not to. I think of it as a
35mm tripod, basically. Mine currently has a Kirk BH-3 ball head on it, and
this seems a good combination - I know Lisa has one with an Acratech which
she also likes very much.

The Acratech and the 440 (I think it's a 444 in the US) are a perfect,
if not inexpensive, match. The Acratech is very light, but with double
the weight capacity of the 440, could be considered overkill. It (the
Acratech) is just so much nicer to use than cheap heads.


Compared to aluminium tripods of similar leg cross section, I think the 440
seems a bit more rigid. That may mean less damping due to it being stiffer,
but to me the balance seems slightly in favour of the CF at this point. The
damping issue is much mitigated by good technique anyway: using a cable
release is the better answer at low speeds, but from about 1/15s up it is
better to press down onto the camera providing your own mass as damping - in
this situation my 440 does very well, yielding pin sharp images with 300mm
and longer virtually every time, and with 600mm (rarely used on this 'pod)
most of the time.

Although I've not used a 190Pro, I've handled them. I would guess the
overall stability to be comparable, although like Peter I'd probably
give a slight nod to the CF.



One thing I don't like about these is the mechanism for adjusting the leg
angle. This uses a complexly shaped soft aluminium pin at the top of each
leg. These pins get galled and worn, causing them to bind which then
requires some fiddling with to free them again - I don't know how widespread
this experience is, and I still think that overall the 440 is a very useful
tripod and use it a lot. (I haven't looked into whether I can get a spare
pin and replace the offending part, but generally Manfrotto is good with
spares, so if any of mine get to be too much of a nuisance I may do that.)

Another agreement. One of mine does bind now and again. But this must
be balanced against this mechanism being far faster and more convenient
than the Gitzo mechanism, or for that matter any other leg angle
mechanism I've seen.


I do have to say that in general I like the Gitzo tripods more, but in this
particular weight bracket the Manfrotto seems to stand out.

For convenience and speed of operation, I think the Manfrotto's win
hands down, no comparison. For simplicity of design, durability and
ease of field servicing, the Gitzo's are superior.

As for the two tripods you're asking about, clearly the CF is a bit
better tripod, and the weight difference becomes more and more
pronounced as a day of shooting goes on. I would predict that you would
end up replacing the 190Pro long before you replaced the 440, if you
ever replaced the 440 at all. With tripods, you can really save money
by taking the long view. A cheap tripod is actually a more expensive
way to go, as you then have to add the price of the discarded cheap
tripod to the price of the good tripod you'll eventually buy anyway. So
buying the good tripod first is actually cheaper

Lisa

Hi Lisa et al,

Christian wrote:
Manfrotto 190Pro Black (Bogen 3001BPRO in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 119cm
Weight: 1.75-1.9kg (specs differ among sources)
Leg sections: 3
Max load: 5kg

Lisa Horton wrote:
by taking the long view. A cheap tripod is actually a more expensive
way to go, as you then have to add the price of the discarded cheap
tripod to the price of the good tripod you'll eventually buy anyway. So
buying the good tripod first is actually cheaper

Now I know what you stand for, I would like to ask what you would
suggest. I'm looking to buy my first (post $15) tripod and I mostly use
it where I have to carry it for a while (from a few hours to a full day)
and only for (light) 35mm equipment. I have been looking at the tripod
which Cristian mention and the 3021BPro. Generally I'm not too scared by
the weight of either of them, but would like to hear what you think
would be the best, single, tripod. Sure a carbon tripod would be nice,
but that is totally out of my range at the moment.

Martin

Martin Djernæs wrote:


Lisa Horton wrote:
by taking the long view. A cheap tripod is actually a more expensive
way to go, as you then have to add the price of the discarded cheap
tripod to the price of the good tripod you'll eventually buy anyway. So
buying the good tripod first is actually cheaper

Now I know what you stand for, I would like to ask what you would
suggest. I'm looking to buy my first (post $15) tripod and I mostly use
it where I have to carry it for a while (from a few hours to a full day)
and only for (light) 35mm equipment. I have been looking at the tripod
which Cristian mention and the 3021BPro. Generally I'm not too scared by
the weight of either of them, but would like to hear what you think
would be the best, single, tripod. Sure a carbon tripod would be nice,
but that is totally out of my range at the moment.

Well now you're talking about a really decent tripod. If the CF models
are out of your range, I'd suggest that you need look no further. This
model has the quick leg locks that I like, has a better leg angle
adjustment mechanism than the CF model Peter and I were referring to,
and has the nice horizontal center column capability. I consider it
fully sturdy enough for 35mm unless you're using very long lenses. I
would rate this a "single purchase" tripod for sure.

If CF is out of your price range, then it's good you're flexible about
weight, because without CF, compromising on weight usually means a
lesser tripod

Lisa

Both are nice tripods. Will serve you well. Went with the 3001pro about
a year ago and have been pretty pleased. Sustained some damage to my
3205 and never got it fixed...... The 3001 has performed well, a little
heavy after a long day though. Replaced the bolt on the center column
with an actual hook, my bag now hangs from that. Use mainly F4 bodies
with a variety of higher quality zoom lenses, seems to handle the weight
well.

Considering CF but figure the smarter move would probably be for me to
loose some weight rather than the tripod!

Hope it helps,
Bill

--

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
-Theodore Roosevelt


"Martin Djernæs" wrote in message
news:mHn9c.17507$gA5.250252@attbi_s03...
Hi Lisa et al,

Christian wrote:
Manfrotto 190Pro Black (Bogen 3001BPRO in US)
Packed size: 52cm
Max height without column: 119cm
Weight: 1.75-1.9kg (specs differ among sources)
Leg sections: 3
Max load: 5kg

Lisa Horton wrote:
by taking the long view. A cheap tripod is actually a more
expensive
way to go, as you then have to add the price of the discarded cheap
tripod to the price of the good tripod you'll eventually buy anyway.
So
buying the good tripod first is actually cheaper

Now I know what you stand for, I would like to ask what you would
suggest. I'm looking to buy my first (post $15) tripod and I mostly
use
it where I have to carry it for a while (from a few hours to a full
day)
and only for (light) 35mm equipment. I have been looking at the tripod
which Cristian mention and the 3021BPro. Generally I'm not too scared
by
the weight of either of them, but would like to hear what you think
would be the best, single, tripod. Sure a carbon tripod would be nice,
but that is totally out of my range at the moment.

Martin

Bill and Lisa thank you for your comments.

Lisa Horton wrote:
and only for (light) 35mm equipment. I have been looking at the tripod
which Cristian mention and the 3021BPro. Generally I'm not too scared by

Well now you're talking about a really decent tripod. If the CF models

Thanks.

Martin

Christian wrote:

I'm looking for a set of tripod legs that are quite lightweight (for
hiking/travel) but also reasonably general-purpose for other situations. I
don't generally use any long/heavy lenses but flexibility in positioning
etc. is important. Having said that, maximum height extension is pretty
much irrelevant. This will be for 35mm only.

Since I am after something that is as lightweight as possible, I've been
comparing some carbon fibre legs against their aluminium counterparts and
I've found two tripods from each category that seem (to my inexperienced
eye at least) to be roughly equivalent. However, the CF legs are obviously
3-4 times the price of the aluminium ones!


You need two things from a tripod; rigidity and stability. They are
not the same thing.

Carbon fibre tripods are more rigid than aluminium, but their lower
weight means that they have lower overall stability. You cannot
change the laws of physics; any tripod that weighs less will be less
stable. all other things being equal.

Beware the Manfrotto/Bogen magnesium 3-way head that's often sold with
the carbon fibre tripods, because it tends to vibrate.

Martin Djernæs wrote:

I'm looking to buy my first (post $15) tripod and I mostly use
it where I have to carry it for a while (from a few hours to a full day)
and only for (light) 35mm equipment. I have been looking at the tripod
which Cristian mention and the 3021BPro.


The 3021B Pro (Manfrotto 055B Pro) is perfect for 35mm and light
medium format work. If you want a lighter tripod the 190 is also
suitable for light 35mm work.

Choose your tripod head carefully, and avoid the Manfrotto 460
magnesium head because it is not rigid and tends to vibrate.