Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
Thread started 25 Mar 2011 (Friday) 14:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

RRS Tripods

 
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Jun 27, 2011 19:32 |  #166

Kyles wrote in post #12667484 (external link)
I am referring to the test done on the Nikon forum, a test between Gitzo and RRS for sharpness based on how they handle vibrations, etc.

RRS used to have a graph showing how vibration decays from their own tripods as well as a few similarly spec'd tripods from other manufacturers. I haven't been able to find that graph for over a year and a half. As you would expect, it showed a different story than that of the poster's on Nikonians. I guess you could write Mark at RRS and see if that can be made available again.


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
peter_n
Goldmember
Avatar
2,479 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Boston, USA
     
Jun 27, 2011 20:11 |  #167

Neil's test on Nikonians was kind of an apple against an orange. He tested the 4 leg section Gitzo 3541LS against the 3 leg section RRS TVC-33 Versa. He found very small differences in rigidity/stability with a slight edge going to the 3541LS. AFAIK no-one has replicated the test or tried another.


~Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kyles
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
377 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Jun 27, 2011 21:13 |  #168

Indecent Exposure, peter_n,
thank you, as always, much appreciated,


Cameras - 1DMKIV - 1DMKII - 7D W/Grip
Primes - 100 F2.8 macro L - 135 F2 L - 300 F4 L
Zooms - 24-70 F2.8 L - 70-200 F2.8 L - 70-200 F4 L
Tripod - RRS TVC 33 - RRS BH55

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rvdw98
Goldmember
Avatar
1,592 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Jun 28, 2011 08:39 |  #169

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12667686 (external link)
RRS used to have a graph showing how vibration decays from their own tripods as well as a few similarly spec'd tripods from other manufacturers.

Just when I thought that MTF charts are the quintessence of anal retentiveness. :lol:


Roy

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 134
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jun 28, 2011 08:50 |  #170

I don't think I'd let that test influence my purchase; I find the aesthetics of the RRS products to be very nice, and above in this thread it appears the build quality is better. Tiny differences in rigidity/stability probably aren't going to impact anything I do.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roger1234
Member
66 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
Jun 28, 2011 11:03 |  #171

rick_reno wrote in post #12670412 (external link)
I don't think I'd let that test influence my purchase; I find the aesthetics of the RRS products to be very nice, and above in this thread it appears the build quality is better. Tiny differences in rigidity/stability probably aren't going to impact anything I do.

bw! That's why I bought it - and can't wait to see how long it perform. If its that good I'll get their traveler tripod line that yet to come out.

However it only take one or two major disappointments (unsolveable through their CS) to let me switch back to Gitzo or Chinese tripod camp. At this price range some failure just won't be acceptable.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peter_n
Goldmember
Avatar
2,479 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Boston, USA
     
Jun 28, 2011 12:43 |  #172

rick_reno wrote in post #12670412 (external link)
I don't think I'd let that test influence my purchase... Tiny differences in rigidity/stability probably aren't going to impact anything I do.

Me neither. I bought the 3541LS last December because it was $540; less expensive than the equivalent Benro! ;)


~Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Jun 28, 2011 13:51 |  #173

roger1234 wrote in post #12671104 (external link)
bw! That's why I bought it - and can't wait to see how long it perform. If its that good I'll get their traveler tripod line that yet to come out.

However it only take one or two major disappointments (unsolveable through their CS) to let me switch back to Gitzo or Chinese tripod camp. At this price range some failure just won't be acceptable.

I'd have to lose an arm due to some design induced catastrophic tripod failure before I'd consider that route.

I still toy with the idea of getting a Gitzo Explorer. I've talked to RRS about creating a system-compatible boom and was told they have no intention of offering one but I could try a long rail-to-BH-30 solution ("Adult Legos" he called it). So there may yet be another Gitzo in my future.


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
klr.b
Goldmember
2,509 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Jun 29, 2011 01:36 |  #174

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12672075 (external link)
I'd have to lose an arm due to some design induced catastrophic tripod failure before I'd consider that route.

I still toy with the idea of getting a Gitzo Explorer. I've talked to RRS about creating a system-compatible boom and was told they have no intention of offering one but I could try a long rail-to-BH-30 solution ("Adult Legos" he called it). So there may yet be another Gitzo in my future.

I'd be quite interested in seeing if that would work. I think it'd be poorly balanced, and it would really put the weight ratings to the test. Though, that solution would cost in excess of $400.


gordon
Gear and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Jun 29, 2011 02:15 |  #175

klr.b wrote in post #12675401 (external link)
I'd be quite interested in seeing if that would work. I think it'd be poorly balanced, and it would really put the weight ratings to the test. Though, that solution would cost in excess of $400.

I was thinking an MPR-CLII (would give me an excuse to finally get that pano kit) flipped with the clamp at the far end, the MPR-CLII sitting in the BH-55 on the other end. My B-150B Package sitting in the rail's clamp which is now 7 inches away from the BH-55. That would give me over 12 inches or so of maximum boom with the macro rail fully extended. I'm not at all concerned about the BH-55 handling this setup. I'm more worried about being able to easily adjust the rig for composition without picking up the tripod. Perhaps adding another B-150B for lateral adjustments might do the trick. With the money saved over going the Explorer route, that might not be so bad - it would also allow me to add the macros rails without having to add the height of whatever I'll use to flip the clamp to accommodate the macro rail onto the MPR-CLII's clamp in the first place, which would have been something like my LMT/B2-FAB assembly, but would be unnecessarily tall. Plus it would give me the added benefit of adding a proper nodal setup to my gear. /thinkingoutloud


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
klr.b
Goldmember
2,509 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Jun 29, 2011 03:07 |  #176

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12675495 (external link)
I was thinking an MPR-CLII (would give me an excuse to finally get that pano kit) flipped with the clamp at the far end, the MPR-CLII sitting in the BH-55 on the other end. My B-150B Package sitting in the rail's clamp which is now 7 inches away from the BH-55. That would give me over 12 inches or so of maximum boom with the macro rail fully extended. I'm not at all concerned about the BH-55 handling this setup. I'm more worried about being able to easily adjust the rig for composition without picking up the tripod. Perhaps adding another B-150B for lateral adjustments might do the trick. With the money saved over going the Explorer route, that might not be so bad - it would also allow me to add the macros rails without having to add the height of whatever I'll use to flip the clamp to accomodate the macro rail onto the MPR-CLII's clamp in the first place, which would have been something like my LMT/B2-FAB assembly, which would be unnecessarily tall. Plus it would give me the added benefit of adding a proper nodal setup to my gear. /thinkingoutloud

I'm not sure that would work with the MPR-CLII. Perhaps if you got the 192 Precision Plus Package (external link), then you could turn the clamp so that the B-150B would give you that extra "extension."

I guess after reading RRS's suggestion, I envisioned you putting the CB-28 (external link) in your BH-55. You could add a head on it like they suggested, or just put a clamp on the end if you don't need the fine tuning. That's what I meant by unbalanced. Twelve inches isn't so bad, but I'd like to see how it handles the weight over two feet out.


gordon
Gear and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Jun 29, 2011 03:36 |  #177

Yeah, the clamp orientation would be a problem which I think can be solved with the LMT/B2-FAB I mentioned, at least it does in my head. The two foot rail would be ideal but going the MPR-CLII route would give me an economy of packed gear, being a dual purpose rail in this implementation.

Decisions, decisions...


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gino17
Member
Avatar
91 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2009
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jul 01, 2011 05:50 |  #178

rick_reno wrote in post #12659716 (external link)
Are you happy with the way the Markins is working? If you don't have any complaints about it, I'd keep it.

Thanks for the advise from rick_reno and peter_n, yeah in fact I am quite happy with the Makins Q3 working currently on my Manfrotto 055CX Pro3.

Just think it is time to start gather information for some other head which is able to support my next target, EF 200-400mm f4L IS USM Extender 1.4x:razz:.

Gimbal type looks too bulky and I worry the weight of that new lens will be too harsh for Acratech......




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peter_n
Goldmember
Avatar
2,479 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Boston, USA
     
Jul 01, 2011 07:16 |  #179

I use an Arca-Swiss Z1 for my heavy stuff; it has a 54mm elliptical ball. Best ballhead I've ever used and worth looking into when the time comes.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


~Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Malsam
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: SG
     
Jul 01, 2011 22:31 |  #180

.....Best ballhead I've ever used and worth looking into when the time comes.

i also have a tendency to fall back onto the renown brands whenever in doubt...like when you have markins, kirk, RRS and AS to consider, if I'm too confused or couldn't find a true higher performer, I just get AS and I know I can't be wrong. I've used RRS ballhead before its a beauty but just find the "classic" leader more suitable for me. Same thing with the QR clamp. I'm still using the screw type. I've tried the lever style which is quick to attach and detach. But tons of people reporting their lenses or bodies falling down due to too fast releasing and improper clamping using the lever style, I decided to go for the "classic method". I'm ok to spend a few more seconds to take a good look on the slower clamping process than a split second seeing my setup crumpling down to the ground.

Tripod, same as well.... wanted to get 1 for my longer lens and was comparing and reading extensively about this RRS new range of made in US tripods with gitzo. In the end I got confused and couldn't really find a true winner over one another so my instinct comes in and got the gitzo :-)

PS: I'm still using


Gear Stuffs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

111,928 views & 0 likes for this thread
RRS Tripods
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Isa-FR
681 guests, 249 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.