Tripod: Carbon Fibre v Aluminium advice please

Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle

In Memoriam
Messages
12,654
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Hmmm, looking for a travel tripod which can take at least an 8kg weight, ive owned a redsnapper RS-324 Alloy 4 Section Tripod and it was an excellent tripod buy very heavy @ 2.4kg, now im thinking a Carbon fibre, ive seen the Beike CF one at less than £70, weight capacity is 8kg which is good, 5 section legs which is also good so smaller in folded size at about 13 inch but the legs are only a max of 25mm wide

I could even go for the lighter Horusbennu C2240X which weighs in at less than 900grms with 22mm legs

Heres my quandry, im used to the "butch" big heavy stuff and am worried that the 25mm or 22mm legs of the CF tripod will have a bit of "give" and not be as rock solid as the redsnapper was, am i wrong to worry about the rigidity

Ta.
 
Last edited:
Like you I have a Redsnapper, and agree that it's an excellent buy for the quality and performance at that price. However due to the weight I became loathe to carry it unless I had a definite objective or was working out of a car. Enter a used Gitzo 1542T from Ffordes. Fitted with an RSH-61 head from Redsnapper it weighs 1.3kg, is easily carried under the flap of a Thinktank Retro 10, and supports a 1D MkIII with a 70-200 2.8L MkII attached, either fixed or with friction set for panning. The top section is 24mm diameter, and when extended the legs are pretty rigid, and I always hang my bag underneath from the hook. Not as solid as my much larger tripod, but certainly rigid enough for most uses. I will happily carry it all day just in case. Here's a picture next to the Redsnapper for a size comparison. I don't think you'd have a problem with such a tripod.

tripods.jpg
 
Last edited:
What you are talking about is compromise
at every turn Photography presents you with compromises.
Every manufacturer of tripods knows this, and offer a range of products that place the capacity, weight and prices at different points.
Only you can decide which factors are most important to you.
However nearly every photographer ends up with a number of tripods to suit different occasions.
This reduces the compromises at the cost of making daily Choices and cash out of the bank.
 
vulcan2912 said:
I have the three legged thing eddie. If folds down really small and can take lots of weight. It's not cheap but worth every penny. Mine has spent many a day in a lake , snow and everything in between. Multiple trips abroad and still acts like it did when it was brand new.

Gary
Click to expand...
Sorry, don't want to crash the thread but I'd be interested to know which model you have Gary.
 
Rigidity becomes more of an issue when you extend the legs – the smaller the main diameter, the smaller each subsequent section, especially when you start going into 4 or 5.
As said above, that's where the compromises come in – folded size vs ultimate rigidity vs weight.

Stability, which is what the other member was referring to when mentioning hanging his bag off the centre column's hook, will affect all tripods, especially in certain weather conditions or substrate under foot.

Depending on available budget, I'd be looking at the C3540V or FX8442 or 8349 – that's where the sweet spot lies for compromises, IMO.
 
Don't dismiss the Horus stuff – I was all set to get a really good deal on a Redged (RTC332, iirc) a year ago, but they were transitioning to the new 8x technology and their own design highlights, which looked very nice.
So I said I'd hold off until the new ones came in, and do a bit of a review on what was going to be the current model rather than an outgoing one – by late summer, they'd still not materialised, and I haven't bothered to keep tabs on what has been happening.
Suffice it to say, the price of the TSC434 is a lot more expensive than the since discontinued RTC436 it has replaced, which no longer makes them as competitive as they were.
In the same timeframe, Horus has been maintaining their prices, from what I remember, for the 8x cores they were doing back then too.

I know they were stung heftily by Naneu, after a big shipment of certain bag models had to go back because they were not right, after Naneu moved production to a new factory. Great bags, but the company seems to have gone to ground, and Redged is out of pocket.
I've no doubts that their tripods are more than decent, but they've nothing like the range they had previously, with the older 6x layered core design – and it's a shame to see it's taken them so long to get only this far along the product line-up.
 
Last edited:
IME, to get the same overall rigidity from CF it has to have larger tubes which increases it's weight almost to the point of aluminum. The type of CF weave is important and most of the less expensive versions use too simple of a pattern/layering. Even my old Gitzo (an earlier version of a 5532) twists and wiggles quite a bit but it is an old design (tubes). I also own a cheap Benro CF which I like...but the weight ratings for CF always seem WAY overstated... (probably not as far as failure goes).
CF being a plastic based composite is more susceptible to neglect/environmental wear/damage... other than corrosion.

I own a couple of each type... But IMHO, it's like everything else...CF is a lot more money for minimal gains.
 
Hi Gary,

What are you going to be using on the tripod? If your kit actually weighs 8kg I would buy a heavier rated one personally. Weight ratings are a bit like quoted battery life times for your phone (nit always practical).

If it is that heavy I'm guessing it's a medium or large format set up or a very large telephoto in which case I don't think you'll get a lot of joy from the smallest ones.
 
Heres a few pics on the tripod i went with, shown here with a D3S, Nikon 400mm f/2.8 with a Nikon 1.4x attached as well as the Beike BK-45 Gimbal head

Got to say that im very impressed with this tripod and Gimbal head, the tripod seems to be very well made, and has quite thick 28mm legs dropping down to 19mm, vast majority ive seen are thinner 25-15mm legs, this gives me a little more confidence that it can handle the weight, the tripod also has a very good 15kg rating

Should just add that the manufacturer quotes this as weighing in at 1.27kg, ive just weighed it at home and it comes in at 1.1kg, im gobsmacked something so light can take something so heavy

Legs were a little stiff but are begining to free up a touch.
 
Last edited:
Can you get a smaller tripod mount for the lens Gary?
 
:)that original one is bloody ridiculous.....
 
Gary Coyle said:
Heres a few pics on the tripod i went with, shown here with a D3S, Nikon 400mm f/2.8 with a Nikon 1.4x attached as well as the Beike BK-45 Gimbal head
Click to expand...
Well, It should make an acceptable gimbal mount. But I think you're going to find it's too unstable for stationary shots w/ longer FL's (TC's) or slower SS's. I use a 400 f/2.8 +TC's a lot. My Gitzo has 44mm tubes, no column, and is rated for 54lbs (24.5kg); even that's too "wiggly" for things like the moon at 800-1200mm (800mm DX) without a lot of care. My Benbo Classic 2 is better for that kind of stuff.
 
sk66 said:
Well, It should make an acceptable gimbal mount. But I think you're going to find it's too unstable for stationary shots w/ longer FL's (TC's) or slower SS's. I use a 400 f/2.8 +TC's a lot. My Gitzo has 44mm tubes, no column, and is rated for 54lbs (24.5kg); even that's too "wiggly" for things like the moon at 800-1200mm (800mm DX) without a lot of care. My Benbo Classic 2 is better for that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
Its absolutly fine, solid as a rock, i dont shoot the moon so im OK there, i will only be using this with the d800 and small wide lenses for landscapes etc, etc, and in summer if im at the Cricket all day with the combo above and it's absolutly rock solid for that as well, no wiggle at all, not that it would even matter with the sort of shutter speeds i use anyway.
 
Gary, I'm not knowledgeable about tripods, but I know a bit about carbon and aluminum. I think one aspect to take into consideration is that aluminum can be dented and bent a bit, and it will continue to function and retain most of its stability, while with carbon, you have to be careful that it has not been used in too thin layers.

If the carbon was used in sufficient thickness to produce stability, it will take a lot of beating and dropping without problems, but if the makers were too intent on saving weight and used a too thin layer of carbon, then the carbon will crack under pressue, instead of bend or dent like aluminum, and then the carbon loses all stability at that location.

So if I would buy carbon, I would make sure the thickness of the tripod's rods' walls is sufficient, to avoid small incidents breaking the carbon. I know that from bycicles, where they try to save so much weight that they produce the rods with incredibly thin walls, using elaborate shapes to regain stability, but when you hit those rods with something, the walls can crack easily, because they are not made for stability in that direction of force.
 
AchimT said:
Gary, I'm not knowledgeable about tripods, but I know a bit about carbon and aluminum. I think one aspect to take into consideration is that aluminum can be dented and bent a bit, and it will continue to function and retain most of its stability, while with carbon, you have to be careful that it has not been used in too thin layers.

If the carbon was used in sufficient thickness to produce stability, it will take a lot of beating and dropping without problems, but if the makers were too intent on saving weight and used a too thin layer of carbon, then the carbon will crack under pressue, instead of bend or dent like aluminum, and then the carbon loses all stability at that location.

So if I would buy carbon, I would make sure the thickness of the tripod's rods' walls is sufficient, to avoid small incidents breaking the carbon. I know that from bycicles, where they try to save so much weight that they produce the rods with incredibly thin walls, using elaborate shapes to regain stability, but when you hit those rods with something, the walls can crack easily, because they are not made for stability in that direction of force.
Click to expand...
Not a clue myself mate LOL, if it makes any difference this one is classed as 8x, someone mentioned they used a Gitzo 1542T carbon fibre which costs £500 and is classed as a 6x, dont know if the higher or lower figure is better, i think it is how many seperate layers of CF are used in its construction, ive had it out today with the 400m/D3S combo and its pretty, pretty solid and doesnt budge an inch and im not going to force it just to prove i could break it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top