RRS Tripods

Congrats. Looking forward to your impressions.

Edit to add: Mr. Evil Face should be an evil grin.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12268719
Congrats. Looking forward to your impressions.

Same here - I think TVC-3X is more comparable to GT35xx systematic tripods.

Especially the upper diameter - if it smaller (even by small amount) than Gitzo then it will be more streamline during travel.

James and Roger,

I will let you know my thoughts as soon as the tripod arrives; I assure you that your thoughts are more involved and more detailed by far,,,,,,,,,, again, thank you!


Kyle

Excellent coverage! It is with this level of sharing that manufacturers are not able to sell us lemons! I'm also considering the RRS tripod but seeing the new series are here, I'm seriously considering the new 2 and 3 series. But keep it coming! We love to see comparison!

Malsam wrote in post #12276024
Excellent coverage! It is with this level of sharing that manufacturers are not able to sell us lemons! I'm also considering the RRS tripod but seeing the new series are here, I'm seriously considering the new 2 and 3 series. But keep it coming! We love to see comparison!

I sincerely agree - it will be a challenge for RRS as well as carbon tube isn't going to be as easy to quality control as their metal stuffs...

I also seriously doubt the "last for lifetime" scenario for carbon tripods compare to old style aluminum.

Just like the tiny chip on my TVC-24 end tube - it is qualify as cosmetic imperfection, but who knows if that tiny area could be the failing point of the future?

roger1234 wrote in post #12278037
I sincerely agree - it will be a challenge for RRS as well as carbon tube isn't going to be as easy to quality control as their metal stuffs...

I also seriously doubt the "last for lifetime" scenario for carbon tripods compare to old style aluminum.

Just like the tiny chip on my TVC-24 end tube - it is qualify as cosmetic imperfection, but who knows if that tiny area could be the failing point of the future?

how have carbon fiber tripods heldup so far? any issues to question their being a "sound" investment for decades of use?

Kyles wrote in post #12279548
how have carbon fiber tripods heldup so far? any issues to question their being a "sound" investment for decades of use?

I really don't know - its only been 11 years (2+/- years usage) since I being to expose the existence of CF. Professionals may adopt earlier so maybe someone can jump in for discussion.

Earlier I hear news about CF tube/metal joint disintegrate (due to thermal expansion) or latitude fracture (when object strike the CF tube perpendicularly). My very limited experience is that if the edge finish is not good - you can peel away layers of CF and make it thinner/weaker. Earlier Gitzo is also easy to rub away surface layers (gray color powders).

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12139501
EDIT: No mention of the monopod, especially the modular one from the safari videos? I was hoping to see something about that in the next catalog.

I'm not sure you downloaded the correct catalogs. In the full 2011 catalog the Monopod is featured. And in the supplemental spring 2011 catalog the details of the safari rig are revealed in detail on page 29 showing all individual components.

dandig wrote in post #12289491
I'm not sure you downloaded the correct catalogs. In the full 2011 catalog the Monopod is featured. And in the supplemental spring 2011 catalog the details of the safari rig are revealed in detail on page 29 showing all individual components.

In the safari video Joe Johnson was using a monopod rig that attached to an assembly of two legs, converting it into a tripod. (At least, that's what I recall. I may have been drunk.)

MGW172 wrote in post #12091595
Very little information is out on the web yet as far as reviews. I've seen a few brief comments on FM, but nothing that convinces me just yet that the price premium is worth it.

I'm either buying a Gitzo or a RRS to go with my RRS BH-40 head in the next couple of months. Moose Peterson has a video review: http://www.moosepeters​on.com …cc9b19e988c2617​1&s=tvc-33 but I'd like to see a direct comparison to a Gitzo.

Also, Ive seen where someone said that the measurements listed in the specs on the RRS website might be off a bit as to length folded of the TVC-24, instead of 18.7 inches it's closer to 20.

Moose Peterson like other wildlife photographers are very demanding of their gear, he seems pleased by the quality,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12289600
In the safari video Joe Johnson was using a monopod rig that attached to an assembly of two legs, converting it into a tripod. (At least, that's what I recall. I may have been drunk.)

Ah right yeah this is the vid you are referring to http://www.youtube.com …Support#p/u/9/f​9BG6Pqkaz8

Yes those auxiliary legs are not mentioned you are correct. I guess maybe that didn't make it past the testing stage.

bpalermini wrote in post #12185129
I bought a TVC23 with a BH55 head last fall.

Many thanks for the information provided here !
I am also considering a TVC-24 together with a ball head, for my medium format gear. I was initially considering the BH-40, that looks fine with the TVC-24, in a light combination of 1,9 kg.
RSS mentions that the BH-55 would be an even better choice.
What is your opinion on this ?
I want to avoid that the tripod is so heavy and painful to carry that it stays home (like my current wooden Ries tripod), and want to bu sure that the extra 400 grams of the BH-55 are worth to carry ...

Thanks for your ideas (and possibly pictures, those from the GT-3541 and RSS TVC-24 were extremely usefull for me!).

mbdeso wrote in post #12350926
Many thanks for the information provided here !
I am also considering a TVC-24 together with a ball head, for my medium format gear. I was initially considering the BH-40, that looks fine with the TVC-24, in a light combination of 1,9 kg.
RSS mentions that the BH-55 would be an even better choice.
What is your opinion on this ?
I want to avoid that the tripod is so heavy and painful to carry that it stays home (like my current wooden Ries tripod), and want to bu sure that the extra 400 grams of the BH-55 are worth to carry ...

Thanks for your ideas (and possibly pictures, those from the GT-3541 and RSS TVC-24 were extremely usefull for me!).

I would say depends on your shooting. If you're tall and need eye-level (nature/panorama/sense​) then TVC-24L should fit the bill for carrying it light and compact.

As for BH-55 yes it does defect the purpose of carrying it light, plus the narrow top plate of TVC-2x will look even more funny with BH-55 sticking out at the side. However, if you want to add smoothness (with progression friction control) for the cost of added weight and top heavy, then it may worth it if you extend your tripod for up right shoot or hanging a bag under the hook. For low angle/macros I will doubt its stability due to being top heavy.

roger1234 wrote in post #12350986
I would say depends on your shooting. If you're tall and need eye-level (nature/panorama/sense​) then TVC-24L should fit the bill for carrying it light and compact.

As for BH-55 yes it does defect the purpose of carrying it light, plus the narrow top plate of TVC-2x will look even more funny with BH-55 sticking out at the side. However, if you want to sacrifice smoothness for the added weight (top heavy) then it may worth it if you extend your tripod for up right shoot. For macros I will doubt its stability due to being top heavy.

Thank you for your quick reply.
I don't need a tall tripod : I am not so tall and use a waist view finder (so great on the Contax 645).
I don't do macros neither (I use my Zeiss 120 macro for portraits ...).
Possibly I can start with a BH-40, and if I feel it requires more stability, I will upgrade to a 55 later. My first challenge is to ensure that I actually use the tripod and maximize optimal quality x percentage of utilization.

mbdeso wrote in post #12351025
Thank you for your quick reply.
I don't need a tall tripod : I am not so tall and use a waist view finder (so great on the Contax 645).
I don't do macros neither (I use my Zeiss 120 macro for portraits ...).
Possibly I can start with a BH-40, and if I feel it requires more stability, I will upgrade to a 55 later. My first challenge is to ensure that I actually use the tripod and maximize optimal quality x percentage of utilization.

Good point - BTW I made some correction to my previous post - sorry.

So basically BH-55 will be stronger, smoother, and have progressive friction control for heavy gears. But yes - I would say try BH-40 first if you like.

PS: I use Markins M20 personally.