Acratech GP-S & Feisol CT-3442

RandyS wrote in post #13969697
The GP series heads work nicely for (single row) panoramic shots.

Nine shots stitched together, about a 180 degree view. With something in the foreground, you either need a nodal rail or you need to plan your shot so that it doesn't bisect the foreground object.

Nice. Thanks for the tips. What lens/focal length/camera settings/other settings do you tend to do your panoramics with?

I'm debating if having the camera in portrait orientation would mean I should consider an L-bracket.

RandyS wrote in post #13969603
Hey Marcos -

I just found (looking through the 'Market Watch' forum) another maker for rails. The guys in Market watch had high praise for the lens plates from this site and the prices are good. It's certainly worth at least a look.

Thanks for the link. The idea of a multi-row Panorama Head is really intriguing!
http://www.scvphotoide​as.com …panorama-head-ver-ii.html

I might spend the money I save by going Feisol over Gitzo on this sort of thing.

The multi row panoramic fixture looks pretty nice for the money. I've never messed around with something like that before but I think it would be interesting.

I'm not really an expert on this, In fact I'm only now getting back into the technique after a long time away from it. But for what it's worth, I like something from 35-50mm for panoramic shots. If you get too wide, distortion can make putting it all together more difficult. Of course, some people do use wider, so ...

I shoot it all in portrait orientation and normally try to keep the aperture as small as is reasonable. Other settings are whatever they need to be. While I normally shoot things in manual mode, that's far more important when doing a panoramic shot than other times. The last thing you want is for your exposure to change from frame to frame. Along those same lines you'll either want to move focus off of the shutter release or set the lens for manual focus only.

LOL. It looks like I'm going to try to duplicate your setup to a certain extent.

Tomorrow I plan on seeing about ordering the Feisol CT-3442. I'll buy the long column just because (not sure if I'll ever use it). Probably order the spikes and carrying strap for grins.

I'll buy a nodal rail --- either the Kirk model, or the one from Hejnar Photo. Need to see if buying a multi-row setup up front saves any real money --- if not, I'll probably hold off and see how a single row works out.

I need to also look into an L-bracket. I bought the Acratech plate for my 5D2 without battery grip. Not sure if I want that generic Acratech L-bracket. The one from Kirk looks interesting. Any recommendations on L-brackets?

As for lens, I think I'll try my new 35L first. Like you said, 35mm is about the widest you can go without seeing distortion. I was surprised how much was evident when using a 24L.

Other idea I'm looking forward to trying: I got a DSLR Android app for my Galaxy Nexus. The idea is that I can hook up my phone to my 5D2 and the phone will be able to do 5 or more exposures for HDR bracketing. Panoramic and HDR combined -- wonder if that will work out well?

I was asked a question about Feisol in a PM, but given that it was technical and not personal thought I'd put it here in the thread for a couple reasons. First and foremost - odds are good that someone else may be better equipped to address it than I (*chough*tvphotog*coug​h*). That, and someone else may be wondering the same thing, so in the name of sharing ...

===============
PM to me:
-----
Hello. Thanks for writing a good review on the Feisol CT-3442.
I'm thinking about buying the Feisol CT-3442S, I emailed Feisol this week they said if I use a ball head with a ball larger than 40mm, I won't have the ability to reverse fold the legs onto the ball head. Can I ask, what is the diameter of your ball head?

Thanks a bunch!
---------------
My Answer:
-----
You're welcome.

Are you sure about that model # for the tripod? I know of a 3442, a 3402, and a 3441s - I've never seen a 3442s listed anyplace before.

The base of the tripod (where the legs attach) on the 3441s is much smaller in diameter than it is on the 3442. That's not all bad as the tripod is narrower when folded up. But you have less space for a ball head within the folded back legs. Another difference the smaller base brings is that the space from one leg to its adjacent leg is smaller, allowing for less to stick out between two legs (an important part of getting an Acratech to fit). Another, not inconsequential, difference between the 3441s & the 3442 is that the 3441s has a center column. The head has to fit between the legs out near the feet of the legs. On the 3442, it has to fit between them right where the legs are attached to the tripod.

The base of the tripod on a 3402 "looks" like it might be a similar diameter to the 3442, but I don't think the legs of that one fold back.

Also, I wonder if they're sure about the ball diameter being the metric you need to pay attention to. If nothing else, the Acratech may be somewhat of an odd data point due to its shape. The GP-s has a 38mm ball and the base diameter is 53mm. But the body of the head is so oddly shaped I'm unsure how I'd quantify its size. There are spots on the body that are probably > 100mm wide, but they're narrow in cross section and fit between the folded legs of the 3442. I can see where they could cause a problem with a 3441 (s or t).

I also have an Arca Swiss B1 which is a much more "traditionally" shaped ball head. The legs of the 3442 still fold back nicely with that mounted. On that head, the ball diameter is 54mm and the base diameter (widest spot) is 76mm.

I'd suggest sending email to Kerry at reallybigcameras.com ( sales@reallybigcameras​.com ) to see if he can help you sort this out.

I recieved my legs yesterday. So I have my complete set. Now to get out and use them. Thanks for this review I really like the setup.

FWIW, I also just received my CT-3442. Looks really great attached to my GP-s ballhead. One minor issue is that when I full extend the tripod legs, it is too tall for my height. Not extended the last leg section and extending the center column about two thirds, I can get the right height.

I got to play with the setup and see if I can easily extend the last legs section part way in a fast/reliable manner to avoid using a center column.

Heap64 wrote in post #14055087
I recieved my legs yesterday. So I have my complete set. Now to get out and use them. Thanks for this review I really like the setup.

Good deal James. I'm looking forward to hearing how the rig works out for you in the Rockies.

marcosv wrote in post #14055209
FWIW, I also just received my CT-3442. Looks really great attached to my GP-s ballhead. One minor issue is that when I full extend the tripod legs, it is too tall for my height. Not extended the last leg section and extending the center column about two thirds, I can get the right height.

I got to play with the setup and see if I can easily extend the last legs section part way in a fast/reliable manner to avoid using a center column.

Yea ... it's not a short tripod. Have you tried the height without the center column installed? In the photos it looks like that adds a couple inches. That alone would make it too tall for me also. But with the flat plate for the base it works fine for me. Well, it works fine as long as I don't have to point the camera downwards.

When I want it shorter, but not by a whole leg section, I drop the smallest section a bit on one leg and tighten it. Then I put that on the ground and drop the other two legs the same amount. Not the fastest or most graceful method but it works.

I don't know what camera you're using, but if it has Live View that can be one of your friends while using a tall tripod.

RandyS wrote in post #14056133
Yea ... it's not a short tripod. Have you tried the height without the center column installed? In the photos it looks like that adds a couple inches. That alone would make it too tall for me also. But with the flat plate for the base it works fine for me. Well, it works fine as long as I don't have to point the camera downwards.

When I want it shorter, but not by a whole leg section, I drop the smallest section a bit on one leg and tighten it. Then I put that on the ground and drop the other two legs the same amount. Not the fastest or most graceful method but it works.

I don't know what camera you're using, but if it has Live View that can be one of your friends while using a tall tripod.

Yup. I tried it without the center column installed first since from your excellent pictures it was clear that that would be the most compact method of storing the tripod legs. It was too tall.

My concern about dropping the legs part way is that it could take a little longer to setup the tripod. Granted, I need to see how hard it will be getting the tripod level so that I can use the GP-s as a panning base (without turning the GP-s upside down).

It *will* take longer to set up the tripod if you're extending one leg part way. I do it frequently. The fastest way to set it up shorter is to go much shorter and just leave the bottom section in its 'home' position.

And I think under most conditions, leveling the leg set will take you more time than turning the head upside down. The ballhead lets you work in all directions at once. It can take a lot of tweaking getting the same level set by adjusting leg length.

RandyS wrote in post #14056861
It *will* take longer to set up the tripod if you're extending one leg part way. I do it frequently. The fastest way to set it up shorter is to go much shorter and just leave the bottom section in its 'home' position.

And I think under most conditions, leveling the leg set will take you more time than turning the head upside down. The ballhead lets you work in all directions at once. It can take a lot of tweaking getting the same level set by adjusting leg length.

Yeah. I was afraid of that.

I'll see how things go when I get the chance to try out the tripod this weekend. I need to judge if keeping the last leg sections retracted is going to be too hard to use without a center column. If I get really close in height, I might consider buying the Acratech leveling base. The leveling base adds 1.7" to the overall height and would also solve my leveling issue in a panning setup.

Thanks for the review Randy. I am looking at getting either the 3442 or the 3441T. Do you think the 3442 with its wider base mount will be an overall more stable tripod than the 3441T? Do you think the center column on the 3441T offers any advantages? - Seems the consensus is that most photographers do not want to extend a center column due to increased vibration potential.

@Spotfire -

You're welcome.

Boy. That's a lot of good questions. I don't really know the answer to any of them. I largely went with the 3442 for a couple fairly specific reasons -

- Didn't want/need a center column for the reasons you're thinking I might not.
- I liked the wider base as it makes it easier to fold the legs back over a ball head. Especially an oddly shaped one like the Acratech.

I've no idea whether the 3442 is any more stable than the 3441t. If I had to guess, I'd guess it isn't. As an aside - they share the same legs so that doesn't enter into the equation.

I have another set of legs and that one has a center column. I don't think at all that the column is a waste of time. As I'm sure you can sort out, it's not going to actually cause vibration issues. Not on its own it won't.

For those times, when you're out of the conditions where external influences can cause vibration problems, a center column can be very nice to have. For instance tabletop/product photography in the studio. It's really nice to have the center column to get the control over the height of the camera. That can be a chore by adjusting the legs alone.

If it means anything, I don't at all miss having one on the 3442, and this has become my main tripod. But then ... I have that other set of legs if I'm going to be in the studio.

^^^^^
It is strange, but I seem to be putting more thought into the tripod purchase than I did my camera which is a 60D. I am looking for a tripod that could fit a larger ballhead but still be reasonably small to fit in a suitcase. I am new to photography and plan to do mostly outdoor/landscape but I am sure I will end up taking some indoor shots where the center column would come in handy - family portraits, etc. I see the 3442 has a center column kit you can purchase, so maybe that could be a plan B.

A couple things -

If you like larger heads, the 3442 will fold up fine around one the size of an Arca Swiss B1.

If you add the center column kit, it will add something like 1.5"-2" to the fully extended height of the legs (w/o extending the center column). I'm about 5' 9". It's pretty much at the maximum height I'd care for. I think with the center column kit I'd have troubles with using the viewfinder unless I compensated by controlling how far I extend the legs. And that can be a bit of a pain.

And nothing at all odd about spending a lot of quality time researching / thinking about your support equipment. This is actually more important stuff than some folks realize.