Posted by Ian Mason on December 28, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I need bigger glass and intend to buy a Canon 600mm and wimberly head as soon as I can persuade my wife we can afford it, that it can also be enjoyed by the children etc etc…. Once I’ve cleared that hurdle, I will need a stronger tripod. In my (limited) research, I’ve discovered claims that wooden tripods reduce vibration better than others – fairly persuasive considering such a beast of a lens. Since I enjoy wood as much as photography, this was music to my ears. However! There are always counter arguments. Does anyone have thoughts on this or perhaps personal experience?
When you have persuaded your wife PLEASE post EXACTLY how you did it.
I am sure plenty of us would like to know HOW!!!!!!!
GOOD LUCK
Posted by Carl Battreall on December 28, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Ian,
Wood is an excellent tripod material. I spent 10 years using a 8x10 view camera and had a great wood tripod to support it. The problem I see is the weight and the size. A wood tripod that would support a 600mm would weigh as much or more than the lens. Wood tripods are massive in size and don't collapse to a small size. I switched a long time ago to a smaller camera and a carbon tripod.
Posted by Kent Staubus on December 28, 2007 at 1:15 PM
I have a medium sized Berlebach wooden tripod. It does absorb vibrations better than aluminum, and about the same as carbon fiber. It's heavy mass helps to keep it more secure in the wind. The downside is it's heavy and quite cumbersome. I hardly use it since I got my Gitzo carbon fiber tripod. You won't be able to walk very far with a wooden tripod and that lens.
Most who use a 500/4 or 600/4 stick to using something like the Gitzo carbon fibre tripods - usually one of the 1548 (or it's replacement) models. One or two people I know do use a Satchler CF tripod instead - they seem to prefer them to the Gitzo's. The dual CF tube construction of the legs may help reduce vibrations - and they seem to be a popular tripod for Pro video use. One of them lost the tripod (sans head & camera) over a cliff in strong winds because it was too light weight .
Wood would look and feel great...but would also be a lot heavier than carbon fibre. I'm not sure the gain in vibration reduction would be worth the pain... unless you do a lot of work on windy cliffs .
Posted by Ian Mason on December 28, 2007 at 5:10 PM
"When you have persuaded your wife PLEASE post EXACTLY how you did it"
Avi, I have a lot of work to do on this over the next couple of months, and my skills of persuasion will be severely tested if I am to convince her it would be good for her health to carry it around for me
The feedback is very useful. It's one thing to do some simple arithmetic and make assumptions, but to hear the views of those with experience of the real world is of immense value.
Hank, I do it for fun, so profits aren't an issue thankfully. Your point is well taken however and I certainly wouldn't be able to have a porter.
I had considered that, for 95% of the time, the equipment would be used near a feeder so portability would rarely be an issue. However, it sounds as if the other 5% of the time would be a real pain. I suspect I might need to ignore my heart and go for the carbon fibre solution. To complement that, I could easily build something semi-permanent out of wood for the feeder area. Regrettably, I am fairly impulsive and I hope I can convince myself to take the time to consider it further!
Posted by Kelly Rowe on December 28, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Save your back. Go with a Gitzo CF and carry an empty sandbag to fill and hook to the tripod once you get where you are going.
Ian, just a small amount of counterpoint regarding most of the comments, from someone who has both a wooden tripod (Ries) and a Gitzo carbon fibre model. One thing to consider is the overall weight of the gear you are carrying. If you are carrying a total of 30-40 pounds of gear, is the extra 3-4 pounds for the tripod all that much different? Yes, I know it's about 10%, and I know that every little bit helps, but if you are talking about day hikes or location shoots that are relatively accessible I don't know that the difference is that significant. I have taken my wood tripod on full day hiking shoots, as well as my carbon fibre (shooting large format landscapes) and find that the tripod doesn't make all that much difference in how tired I am at the end of the day. As with so much in life, there is some relativity to the decision. Personally, I'm glad I have both tripods, and use both on a regular basis. Because I almost never shoot while taking a true backpacking trip, I use whichever tripod makes sense based on expected conditions, locations, etc. Tripod weight is generally a minor consideration - first concern is quality camera support and sharp images....
CJ
Posted by Garth McElroy on January 2, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I use a Gitzo 1410 with my 600mm. Why worry about vibration, that's what IS is for!!!!
Posted by David Chauvin on November 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I may be mistaken, but I would think that tripod vibration is only a problem if the camera/lens combo is locked down and a remote release is used for slow shutter speeds. If your hands are touching the camera/lens, I think it's a wash. BTW,,,,I regularly shoot with the 500mm on a gitzo and it works fine.
Discussion
11 repliesI am sure plenty of us would like to know HOW!!!!!!!
GOOD LUCK
Wood is an excellent tripod material. I spent 10 years using a 8x10 view camera and had a great wood tripod to support it. The problem I see is the weight and the size. A wood tripod that would support a 600mm would weigh as much or more than the lens. Wood tripods are massive in size and don't collapse to a small size. I switched a long time ago to a smaller camera and a carbon tripod.
Kent in SD
Most who use a 500/4 or 600/4 stick to using something like the Gitzo carbon fibre tripods - usually one of the 1548 (or it's replacement) models. One or two people I know do use a Satchler CF tripod instead - they seem to prefer them to the Gitzo's. The dual CF tube construction of the legs may help reduce vibrations - and they seem to be a popular tripod for Pro video use. One of them lost the tripod (sans head & camera) over a cliff in strong winds because it was too light weight
Wood would look and feel great...but would also be a lot heavier than carbon fibre. I'm not sure the gain in vibration reduction would be worth the pain... unless you do a lot of work on windy cliffs
Avi, I have a lot of work to do on this over the next couple of months, and my skills of persuasion will be severely tested if I am to convince her it would be good for her health to carry it around for me
The feedback is very useful. It's one thing to do some simple arithmetic and make assumptions, but to hear the views of those with experience of the real world is of immense value.
Hank, I do it for fun, so profits aren't an issue thankfully. Your point is well taken however and I certainly wouldn't be able to have a porter.
I had considered that, for 95% of the time, the equipment would be used near a feeder so portability would rarely be an issue. However, it sounds as if the other 5% of the time would be a real pain. I suspect I might need to ignore my heart and go for the carbon fibre solution. To complement that, I could easily build something semi-permanent out of wood for the feeder area. Regrettably, I am fairly impulsive and I hope I can convince myself to take the time to consider it further!
CJ