Selene03

Since there has been quite a bit on tripods posted here in the last few days, I decided to ask my question. I have searched widely on tripods and heads in this forum and another one I am on. I have a couple of tripods already--one that I know doesn't suit my needs (a MeFoto carbon fiber which is useless in any kind of windy situation and a Manfrotto 055 cx which is ok, but probably not sturdy enough for really windy situations). I have heard a couple of people say (not necessarily on a forum), that aluminum tripods are more stable than carbon fiber, but I seem to get the opposite impression from the various posts here. So that is my question: is an aluminum tripod necessarily more stable than something made of carbon fiber. By the way, I have sort of narrowed a choice of legs down to either a gitzo or a Feisol (I forget the exact numbers but they both have received great reviews, especially the gitzo), but both of them are carbon fiber. My purpose is to photograph panoramic landscapes, wildlife, wild flowers, and/or stars--milky way, etc in what seem to be very windy situations (Maui beaches, high deserts).

I am now down to a choice of head. I currently have a Manfrotto pistol grip, which is ok, but was better with my Canon 6D than it is with my 5D Mark IV. The largest lens I will probably have on it is a 100-400 L II maybe with a teleconverter. I might also use a 70-200 2.8, which might be heavier but feels about the same as the 100-400 to me. It's possible I could get one of the longer Sigma or Tamron zooms in the future, but I am not planning on it now. I lot of times I will be using it with smaller, wider lenses.

Everybody has been pointing me in the direction of a good ball head (thinking about an Arca Swiss Z1 or a RRS BH-55)--I can't decide which one. Yet, yesterday, someone said the best heads were either a 3 way head or a gimbal head and that ball heads were fairly limited.

I realize that opinions here are as likely to be as diverse as those I have encountered so far, but I am really at the stage where I have more information than I can really process. Maybe I am overthinking the whole thing. My sense is that the gimbal head would be by far the best for wildlife and birds but maybe not the best for panoramas and stars, but I am not sure I am right about that. Thanks and my apologies in advance for repeating questions others have posed here, but my questions are not really being answered in the tripod under $100.00 questions.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

i've been very happy with my fluid damped 3 axis head, ball mounted on an aluminum video tripod.
The 3 section legs taper down from 5" wide and are cross stabilized to the center column tube,
making a very rigid structure and the heavy head helps dampen the camera.
I don't shoot BIF or rug rats.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I had a couple different Manfrottos,but I went arca-swiss when I got the Wimberley WH-200 II and then added an RRS BH-55. Heavy,but a fine,solid piece of equipment and for my shooting,it is perfect. The BH-40 would probably been adequate,but I am tired of making duplicate purchases because of a price difference that disappears when you "upgrade."

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

I have the RRS BH55 and I love it. Have not had any regrets other than I should have bought it sooner. It sits on a Gitzo 35 series and they compliment each other.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

A head that a lot of people pass up but in my opinion is exceptional is a fluid video head. I have this one:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827210-REG/Manfrotto_MVH502AH_75Mm_Flat_Head.html

and it is very versatile. I just added a couple of these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B016IOGVXQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and it can handle just about anything.

This combination gives me very smooth panning and precise locks when I need it. It is a little big but you get use to it. It also doubles for video. I also have a Movo Gimbal head: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GK4IYP8/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 that I use primarily for long lenses with collars, i.e. my Sigma 150-600 and my 180mm Sigma Macro but the Fluid works just as well.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

In my collection of tripods I have a carbon fiber and the matching model in aluminum, both made by Manfrotto. The carbon unit cost about $200 more than the aluminum one. I use the aluminum one far more often than the carbon one because as far as I'm concerned, the aluminum one is more stable. I do have a few tricks I use to increase stability. On hard surfaces I use blast bags and bungee cords. On dirt, especially uneven surfaces, I use large aluminum nails and bungee cords to tether the tripod to the ground. This technique works great in windy conditions as will as calm. Haven't knocked a tripod, with camera mounted, over yet. Sure it may take a few extra minutes to set up and take down, but it's time we'll spent.

I have a compact Manfrotto with the pistol grip and stand alone pistol grip head I can use on most of my tripods. The head I use most often for general and wildlife photography is a gimbal head. I use a ball head on my polarie star tracker.

I hope you find what you are looking for at a reasonable cost.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You've been given a LOT of misinformation!

Aluminum tripods absolutely ARE NOT more stable than carbon fiber. Either material used in a well-made design with adequate diameter legs and a minimum number of leg sections will be equally stable in windy conditions. In fact, carbon fiber absorbs fine vibrations better than metal. And, of course, CF can weigh less... has a higher weight to strength ratio than any metal tripod.

Personally for field work I use several Gitzo "Series 3 Systematic" CF tripods with big lenses and heavier camera bodies. They are 15 year old models with three-section or four-section legs.

One Gitzo I have fitted with a heavy duty ballhead (Kirk BH-1), which I often use with a gimbal accessory (Wimberley Sidekick). This three-section leg model is my most-used, most versatile rig.... the best of both worlds: A ballhead for use with shorter lenses, that's more compact, easy to carry in the field, and is lighter and more versatile than other types of heads (i.e., pan/tilt, fluid). Fitting the gimbal adapter to the ballhead converts the tripod for easy and comfortable large-lens use. In my case that includes both lenses you mention... 100-400mm (3.5 lb.) and 70-200/2.8 (<3 lb.)... plus bigger and heavier 300mm f/2.8 (6 lb.) and 500mm f/4 (8 lb.)... sometimes with teleconverters that increase the difficulty of getting a steady shot.

That rig was used with the 100-400mm on the gimbal adapter for these shots (which were part of a long four day, 20,000 image shoot... got tired of handholding two cameras w/larger lenses!):



Same tripod rig, BH-1 ballhead and gimbal adapter, but here with 500mm lens + 1.4X teleconverter:



Another copy of the same tripod I have fitted with a full-size gimbal head... a cheap Chinese knock-off that I'll probably replace with something better eventually. This type of gimbal makes a tripod pretty much dedicated for only large-lens-use. A full size gimbal head (as opposed to a gimbal adapter w/ballhead) replaces any other head on the tripod, actually making a tripod MORE specialized and LESS versatile... Precisely the opposite of what you've been told. Full size gimbals are a great way to work with big, heavy, long telephotos... But they are not usable with shorter lenses (i.e., without tripod mounting rings). You'd need additional accessories or to remove and replace them with a ballhead or pan/tilt for use with other lenses.

Both these tripods also have leveling platforms under the head (instead of center columns). That's a helpful thing to have when working with gimbals. It makes setup a lot faster, but the leveler adds around 1 lb. weight. Total weight of these rigs with heads, carrying bags, leg pads is around 9 lb. apiece. Not exactly lightweight travel tripods! Newer models might weigh a bit less and with smaller/lighter lenses such as you're planning to use, you might be able to get by with a mid-size ballhead and possibly a Gitzo Series 2-size tripod.

At times I use two more tripods: One is a heavy duty, rock-steady aluminum Bogen (now Manfrotto) with cross-braced, three-section legs, geared center column, and a pan/tilt head on a leveling platform. When I was much younger I carried it in the field with up to 4x5 and 5x7 film cameras. But it's a beast that weighs between 15 and 20 lb., so I've put it on a roller dolly and semi-retired it to "in-studio" use. The protruding control handles of the pan-tilt head (actually shorter than some) also made it harder to pack away and tended to catch on branches carrying it out in the field. The thumb-screw leg locking mechanisms also can catch on things like branches, sleeves, cuffs. The same an happen with lever-type leg locks, possibly accidentally loosening them. Personally I prefer the low profile, self-adjusting, twist-type leg locks such as Gitzo uses (I think Feisol does, too... as do many others).

My fourth 'pod is another Gitzo Series 3 Systematic with a heavy duty ballhead... But it's a different extra-tall model with 4-section legs and is fitted with a heavy duty ballhead (a cheapo Smith-Victor that's surprisingly similar to the Kirk BH-1). Instead of a leveling platform, it's fitted with a rapid (not geared) column. This is specifically because the column can be reversed to "hang" cameras and lenses below the tripod, making for a very stable setup shooting low-angle macro and close-ups. I prefer this over the tripods that rotate a center column to horizontal and beyond, trying to do macro with an off-balance "boom" setup. Those really need a counter-balance and still might not be very sturdy. Being extra tall (72" the tripod legs alone) with a center column, if needed this rig also can be used for unusually high-angle work.

I bought the Bogen aluminum tripod over 30 years ago... at close to $400 if memory serves. For field work I replaced it with the first Gitzo about 15 years ago... that cost about 3X as much. The other two Gitzo I've bought used the last few years... at about 1/3 the cost of new. I figure any of these will outlive me... And that a more expensive tripod that lasts a lifetime probably ends up costing less than cheaper ones that you don't enjoy using and find yourself replacing every few years when the cheapie breaks, or in search of something that does a better job and is more satisfying to use.

One minor gripe... the older Gitzo twist-type leg locks have to be loosened and tightened in a specific order... or you end up loosening the one above. I occasionally forget. More recent models use an anti-rotation feature on the legs, solving this small issue.

You won't go wrong with those leg sets or heads you mention. I've used Arca-Swiss in the past. RRS certainly is really good stuff, too... though I think some of their less specialized items are a little over-priced.

EDIT: Fluid dampened video heads can be great for large lens work... But they're big and heavy. Might want to hire a porter or get a mule to haul it for you. And pistol grip heads are essentially small ballheads. I tried them, but they weren't adequate for larger lenses. And the spring-loaded release mechanisms aren't are as reliable as a knob that you tighten.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

I use Benro tripods and I have both an aluminum and a carbon fiber unit. My aluminum unit is a tall system and usually stays inside but my carbon Fiber unit goes with me. Both of these are heavy duty systems and can handle up to 44lbs each. They are the most stable tripods I have ever used. The downside is they are a little heavy coming in at around 6lbs each. I don't use either one of them for hiking but I will schlep them out in the field and not worry about them getting blown over.

Carbon Fiber:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1157820-REG/benro_tma48cl_mach3_9x_carbon_fiber.html
Aluminum:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1157827-REG/benro_tma47axl_mach3_aluminum_series_4.html

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I sold my 16.6 lb aluminum Bogen 3051 studio tripod with 3047 pan tilt head because it was unstable with a 300mm lens on a 35mm film camera. It was ok in the studio with short lenses as a back up to my Gitzo Studex, and it was slightly lighter. I decided on a Gitzo Series 3 carbon. And though it was better than the Bogen, it wasn't much better, and was unstable with a 500mm lens. So I returned it and waited until Feisol released their CT3472 - at 4lbs and with a 37mm top tube, it was more stable than the Gitzo 3, which had a 32mm top tube, and was more than fine with the 500mm, and only 2 ounces heavier. I decided against a Gitzo Series 5, with it's hefty 43mm top tube, and over 5 lb weight, and at the time a $1000 price tag. It was more stable, but not appropriate for my needs as I often take my gear into the woods - so weight and packability are important considerations. And I did enjoy the $500 savings over the Feisol.

If someone is yanking your chain and telling you that aluminum is more stable, just ignore them. The best and most expensive (and most stable) tripods employ carbon fiber for strength, low weight, and high vibration damping. Feisol makes two great tripods the CT3342/3442, and the heavier duty CT3372/3472 - 3section/4section legs, respectively. The lowest cost versions are the legs that are not "rapid" or anti rotation. The 3 section smaller tripod costs $300, and the 3 section bigger tripod is $500. There is a small upcharge in cost for the 4 section legs, along with a slight increase in weight - about an ounce or two. I've had my CT3472 since 2007, and the CT3442 since last spring - no issues with either.

BTW, Manfrotto still makes that Bogen 3051, which is now called the 058B Aluminum Triaut Tripod - it still weighs 13.6 lbs, and when you add the pan tilt head, will bring you up to 16.6 lbs. The tripod is $470 at B&H and the replacement for the 3047 head is the 808RC4 3-Way Pan/Tilt Head. And you still need to replace the RC4 quick release plate if you use Arca-Swiss standard lens and L plates.

If you have the money hanging around, you can't go wrong with Gitzo or RRS - both make exceptionally good products and they stand behind them. If you don't mind buying a lesser known brand, you can't beat the Feisol for price/performance. They also stand behind their stuff.

I use an Arca Swiss Z1, which I upgraded in 2006 from a B1 - solid well-made product. Similar to the top end RRS, Markins and maybe slightly better than the Kirk ball heads. If you want to get a sense of what ball heads are good - take a look at what Wimberley suggests for use with their Sidekick Gimbal - there are a lot of popular ball heads that are not up to the task of taking a lateral load, and that should be a consideration.

If you want to by just one tripod, take a look at that CT3472 or CT3372.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The heavier the tripod, the more stable - it is the law of physics .....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Selene03

Thanks to all of you!!!! You have all been really helpful and have given me plenty to think about. In general, should I get a leveling platform too if I am using a tripod that doesn't have a center column? Thanks again. You have given me some great ideas!

Bill_de Loc: US

I keep hearing three sections is better than four. That's not necessarily true. I think this has something to do with the impression that if there are more leg sections the lower ones will be thinner on a tripod with more sections. It's better to compare the thickness of the lowest section than the number of sections. Of course I am talking about quality tripods with quality twist locks.

--

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I get all the adjustment I need with three and the typical shorter storage length with the four section is of no consequence.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Three section legs make for a relatively lighter "more efficient" weight distribution. 4 section legs can be stronger - but "waste" more weight ( and $$ ) in doing so.