190xprob + Aluminum Travel Tripod, or Carbon Fiber travel tripod?

[Headshotzx]

Hey fellow photographers!

A month ago I purchased a Manfrotto 190xprob + 486RC2 head and I love everything about it, except for the weight and bulk. I know it's a 'full-size' medium tripod, so I can't help but live with it.

However, I will be traveling at the end of the year. Above that, i can definitely appreciate having a lightweight / small tripod that I can put in my camera bag when I go out shooting locally with a small shoulder bag.

I know I can afford a Benro Travel Angel Aluminum-169, leaving me with a standard tripod and a travel tripod that are both aluminum.

Or, I could sell the Manfrotto 190xprob and go for a Benro Travel Angel C-169. Note that I have never ever needed the use of two tripods at the same time like most other people don't as well.

I'm getting a roller bag for local urban use (when shooting with lots of gear) and so the weight of a tripod won't be much of a problem other than for travel. The deciding factor would be Carbon Fiber in a travel tripod versus Aluminum in a full size tripod. Which would be more stable and/or vibration damping?

Hope to hear from you guys!

Cheers,
Zexun

[Headshotzx]

Hm, anyone can help?

[ed rader]

Hm, anyone can help?


sounds like your call. i had two tripod before and now i have one. i have the benro C-128 with markins Q3, which weighs about 3.5 lbs. the tripod is light enough to travel with and sturdy enough for everyday use.

if i used a tripod alot i'd still have two tripods. when i went to alaska i did not use my tripod once, nor did i use it in maui last year. i would not put that much money into a tripod that i don't use much. around here i occasionally do long expsoures with landscape lenses so i need a sturdy tripod. the aforementioned benro serves me well, tho i will eventually upgrade to the gitzo 1541.

did that help :D?

ed rader

[Jim G]

Have you had a look at the Feisol offerings? I have their CT-3442 and it's a brilliant carbon fibre travel tripod.

[joove]

While the thicker tripods or ones with fewer sectoins have better rigidity and damping (for the same material i.e.). Even something as light as the Gitzo 1541T can work. The one I have has a center hook and it can be weighed down a bit for more stability.

Put your camera on a tripod. Turn LV on at 5x or 10x. Tap the leg, or simulate vibration/wind in some fashion and you can see what the real damping/rigidity of the beast is. Then load it up and see if things improve (they should).

I dragged the 1541 with me all over hikes on Kauai. I let my backpack hang off the center hook for extra stability and I was fairly happy (although i did not compare it with other tripods. I just wanted an ultralight hiking tripod). You can also buy a strap and hook one end to the tripod's bottom hook and put your shoe in the other end and press down.

[Headshotzx]

sounds like your call. i had two tripod before and now i have one. i have the benro C-128 with markins Q3, which weighs about 3.5 lbs. the tripod is light enough to travel with and sturdy enough for everyday use.

if i used a tripod alot i'd still have two tripods. when i went to alaska i did not use my tripod once, nor did i use it in maui last year. i would not put that much money into a tripod that i don't use much. around here i occasionally do long expsoures with landscape lenses so i need a sturdy tripod. the aforementioned benro serves me well, tho i will eventually upgrade to the gitzo 1541.

did that help :D?

ed rader

Um. Not much, but I'll try to understand what you wrote:

Used to have 2 tripods
Sold one away and now own a non-travel C-128 + good bh
Will get a GT1541 (t?) so you'll have 2 tripods again, and so you might sell the benro.

Um. No, it doesn't really help in my choice haha. Thanks anyway!

Have you had a look at the Feisol offerings? I have their CT-3442 and it's a brilliant carbon fibre travel tripod.

Oh I have. One thing I don't like is the leg locks which needs a sequence to open/close iirc.

While the thicker tripods or ones with fewer sectoins have better rigidity and damping (for the same material i.e.). Even something as light as the Gitzo 1541T can work. The one I have has a center hook and it can be weighed down a bit for more stability.

Put your camera on a tripod. Turn LV on at 5x or 10x. Tap the leg, or simulate vibration/wind in some fashion and you can see what the real damping/rigidity of the beast is. Then load it up and see if things improve (they should).

I dragged the 1541 with me all over hikes on Kauai. I let my backpack hang off the center hook for extra stability and I was fairly happy (although i did not compare it with other tripods. I just wanted an ultralight hiking tripod). You can also buy a strap and hook one end to the tripod's bottom hook and put your shoe in the other end and press down.

Yeap. I understand that if the material is the only difference, CF will be more rigid and dampen vibrations a bit more. Unfortunately, now the variables are materials and the thickness of the last leg section.

[habsfan93]

I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 carbon fibre tripod, and I can tell you that if I had a non CF tripod, I wouldn't take it anywhere without a car.

I recently went backpacking with the CF tripod, just strapped it onto the outside of my pack, and I couldn't even tell the difference with it on or off.

[Headshotzx]

I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 carbon fibre tripod, and I can tell you that if I had a non CF tripod, I wouldn't take it anywhere without a car.

I recently went backpacking with the CF tripod, just strapped it onto the outside of my pack, and I couldn't even tell the difference with it on or off.

Hm, the 055CXPRO3 is quite heavy, though. I much prefer twist locks but I had to purchase my 190xprob with flip locks because I was going to shoot fireworks a month ago.

Still no word on stability of the travel angel series vs 190xprob, though. That's a question that's been bugging me since long before I actually purchased the 190xprob.

[tvphotog]

The 1541t is compact and lightweight, and if it were not one of those things, I wouldn't carry it with me as much as I do. You never know when you're going to need it, and it's when you leave it at home that you need it.

I chose to sacrifice stability in some situations for the weight and easy carry ability.

[RDKirk]

I'm getting a roller bag for local urban use (when shooting with lots of gear) and so the weight of a tripod won't be much of a problem other than for travel. The deciding factor would be Carbon Fiber in a travel tripod versus Aluminum in a full size tripod. Which would be more stable and/or vibration damping?

What's the actual difference in weight? What's the actual difference in price? What's the actual difference in height? What's the actual difference in capacity? Those four questions require answers.

[joove]

The 1541t is compact and lightweight, and if it were not one of those things, I wouldn't carry it with me as much as I do. You never know when you're going to need it, and it's when you leave it at home that you need it.

I chose to sacrifice stability in some situations for the weight and easy carry ability.

What the man says.

Also, a point I made earlier might have been hard to pick up on. I tried to convey that sacrificing stability is not necessary. You can weight a travel tripod down: drape something over the legs or hang something from the hook at the bottom (if it has one) or put the weight of your body on it (via a strap that hangs down from the bottom). All of these ensure that you increase support to the extent possible.

So, even if you decide to get a lighter tripod, you can still get it to behave like a much heavier/sturdier one by doing the above (as well as avoiding extending the center column).

[RDKirk]

I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 carbon fibre tripod, and I can tell you that if I had a non CF tripod, I wouldn't take it anywhere without a car.

Really? The aluminum version of that tripod is the 055CXPRO3. It costs $220 less and only weighs 22 ounces more. Twenty-two ounces makes that much difference to you? You couldn't find 22 ounces to shave off somewhere else?

Back when I was an avid road cyclist, there was always this desire to shave weight off the bike. Many people would spend two or three hundred dollars for a titanium handlebar or a set of titanium groupo bolts just to shave six or seven ounces of weight. It always seemed more cost effective (and healthy) to me to lose six or seven ounces of buttfat.

[Wilt]

How much does your current rig weigh? Then calculate the weight of CF tripod and head, and how much you 'save' in the changeover. The 190 predecessor, the 3001 model, was a 'hiker's tripod' even in aluminum alloy form.

[Headshotzx]

What's the actual difference in weight? What's the actual difference in price? What's the actual difference in height? What's the actual difference in capacity? Those four questions require answers.

Weight: 190xprob = 1.8kg, C-069 = 0.8kg , C-169 = 1.3kg

Price in SGD: 190xprob = can sell for $180 (bought for $170 used), C-069 = $390 (topup $190), C-169 = $440 (topup $260)

Folded height: 190xprob = (57+10)cm, C-069 = 34cm, C-169 = 36cm (biiiig difference)

Max height column down: 190xprob = 122cm, C-069 = 121cm, C-169 = 130cm

Load Capacity: 190xprob = 5kg, C-069 = 6kg, C-169 = 8kg


The C-069 is the equivalent of gitzo's 1 series. Can those things handle a 70-200?

190xprob -> C-069
Weight reduction of 1kg
Folded height reduction of 33cm
Negligible column down max height
1kg more weight load capacity
Priced within my reach

190xprob -> C-169
Weight reduction of 500g
Folded height reduction of 31cm
Column down height increases 8cm
3kg more weight load capacity
Priced just a little bit out of my reach as a student, but I can try asking my parents for a loaner


Whenever I'm out with a tripod, I'll have my gear bag with me so I guess I could always weigh it down via the hook. 190xprob doesn't have this weighing-down hook, though. Not like it needs it.

The issue here is that if I'm gonna get an aluminum travel tripod, I might not even touch the 190xprob any more after that and so I'll sell it later on. In that case, I might as well sell it soon to get a CF Benro Travel Tripod...

EDIT: So I searched around. Even with a weighted bag, it seems the C-069 shouldn't be used with a 70-200 because of the really small last leg diameter. Bummer...

[unevendistortion]

i had the same trouble myself picking between the c-069 or the c-169..

do you really plan mostly use the tripod for landscape long exposure (that is, do you honestly going to use that 200mm for long exposure). i would guess the 069 will do just fine for wide angle photography, 200 mm here and there with the IS would be just fine.

i wouldnt suggest the 190xprob though, it's not that much lighter... we didn't think 055 was heavy either, before we walk around with it..

i'd suggest to stick with one of the benros Carbons instead.

[Headshotzx]

i had the same trouble myself picking between the c-069 or the c-169..

do you really plan mostly use the tripod for landscape long exposure (that is, do you honestly going to use that 200mm for long exposure). i would guess the 069 will do just fine for wide angle photography, 200 mm here and there with the IS would be just fine.

i wouldnt suggest the 190xprob though, it's not that much lighter... we didn't think 055 was heavy either, before we walk around with it..

i'd suggest to stick with one of the benros Carbons instead.


Good point there. There are times when I would like to do mid-long exposures (5 secs) with a 200mm, but most of the tripod usage will be below 50mm for real long exposures (20 secs and up).

[Wilt]

If you want long exposures, the tripod's rigidity and ability to resist torsion from wind, using a long lens as a sail to twist the tripod, is important. I know how the Bogen 3221 could not resist the wind in Hawaii, forcing me to wait until lulls in the wind, and I know the Manfrotto 190 (successor to Bogen 3001) would not hold up to the wind as well as the Manfrotto 55 (successor to Bogen 3221). So going to an even lighter tripod is tempting fate. Weight hanging from the center of the tripod does little to improve anti-torsion, it just helps to keep the entire rig from blowing over. A Gitzo 1531 is 1.1 Kg without head (2.5 lbs.) and I would never go for a lesser tripod for long exposures.

[habsfan93]

Really? The aluminum version of that tripod is the 055CXPRO3. It costs $220 less and only weighs 22 ounces more. Twenty-two ounces makes that much difference to you? You couldn't find 22 ounces to shave off somewhere else?

Back when I was an avid road cyclist, there was always this desire to shave weight off the bike. Many people would spend two or three hundred dollars for a titanium handlebar or a set of titanium groupo bolts just to shave six or seven ounces of weight. It always seemed more cost effective (and healthy) to me to lose six or seven ounces of buttfat.


Well, the cost wasn't an issue for me. I had won a gift certificate for the store I bought it at that paid for almost the entire tripod.

As for the weight, it is a huge difference. Just standing in the store, with the aluminum tripod in one hand and the CF in the other, the weight difference to me was night and day. That said, if I hadn't had the GC, I probably would have sucked it up and bought the aluminum one...I think.

I'm a cyclist as well, and I know all about shaving weight. For me, I think its worthwhile to shave the weight in certain areas. A CF vs. non-CF tripod to me is the equivalent of a bike frame that weighs twice as much, not a set of screws, but the entire frame. That to me is worth it. But I certainly wouldn't replace the screws on my tripod with ones that weigh half as much.

[joove]

Weight hanging from the center of the tripod does little to improve anti-torsion, it just helps to keep the entire rig from blowing over.

Good point! I just tested the vibration damping part by seeing how much things jump in LV with/without the extra weight. Torsion, didn't think of.

[Headshotzx]

Singapore doesn't have really fast wind speeds, and i really do shoot in mostly urban environments. I'll take a look at one local benro dealer and try my 70200 on the c069 and c169. I wouldn't be able to test torsion that easily, though...

[Wilt]

Singapore doesn't have really fast wind speeds, and i really do shoot in mostly urban environments. I'll take a look at one local benro dealer and try my 70200 on the c069 and c169. I wouldn't be able to test torsion that easily, though...

I presume you will not remain on the island of Singapore forever and never holiday elsewhere?! I was taking holiday in Hawaii when the wind issue on the beach became a real problem, not merely a tolerable issue. Keep it in mind, that's all.

[Headshotzx]

I presume you will not remain on the island of Singapore forever and never holiday elsewhere?! I was taking holiday in Hawaii when the wind issue on the beach became a real problem, not merely a tolerable issue. Keep it in mind, that's all.

Would wind be a total nuisance with a small camera and lens? Think 7D/5D2 with UWA.

[Wilt]

Would wind be a total nuisance with a small camera and lens? Think 7D/5D2 with UWA.

No, a long lens is the 'sail' in wind, causing torsional forces on the tripod. A short lens and camera merely is a 'smaller sail' which can be offset with more mass hanging below the center column, to resist wind tipping everything.

[Headshotzx]

No, a long lens is the 'sail' in wind, causing torsional forces on the tripod. A short lens and camera merely is a 'smaller sail' which can be offset with more mass hanging below the center column, to resist wind tipping everything.

That's what I was thinking. The long lens would be a lever, but a small camera (which I hope I will travel with next time, no big 70-200's and all, just a few primes) would not be so affected by the wind.

[neilwood32]

I had the 190cx3 with a 488 ballhead on it up on top of one of the hills in town here in a fairly strong wind with no problems (50D +sigma 18-50 2.8 ).

Was using shutter speeds upto about 5 seconds and couldnt detect much if any blur in the images.

[Headshotzx]

No, a long lens is the 'sail' in wind, causing torsional forces on the tripod. A short lens and camera merely is a 'smaller sail' which can be offset with more mass hanging below the center column, to resist wind tipping everything.

That's what I was thinking. The long lens would be a lever, but a small camera (which I hope I will travel with next time, no big 70-200's and all, just a few primes) would not be so affected by the wind.