How bad are center column and leg sections for tripod stability?

Mark1 wrote in post #14289138
Not only how skinny the little section is as Jon mentioned. But the quality of the connections on the leg. There are cheap section connections that will hold 50 pounds no problem, but at the same time wiggle like crazy. In this case the number of sections wil greatly reduce/increase the ammount of wiggle it has.

And the farther you extend the center colum the more of a monopod you have. totally defeating the stability the 3 legs give you. go all the way and you realy have nothing more than a monopod clamped to a tripod.

As above. I wouldn't worry about extending the center column a few inches or so, however.

There are certain photographic TRUTHS which have to be accepted on faith before you can advance as a photgrapher:

All four section tripods are worse than horrible.......except for Gitzo which makes theirs' with divine intervention.

All uncoated filters are useless.....except for Singh-Ray who made a pact with the Devil to bypass the laws of physics and light. (It cost them plenty, though, which is why they have to charge so much).

Bearmann wrote in post #14293918
As above. I wouldn't worry about extending the center column a few inches or so, however.

There are certain photographic TRUTHS which have to be accepted on faith before you can advance as a photgrapher:

All four section tripods are worse than horrible.......except for Gitzo which makes theirs' with divine intervention.

All uncoated filters are useless.....except for Singh-Ray who made a pact with the Devil to bypass the laws of physics and light. (It cost them plenty, though, which is why they have to charge so much).

Haha.

I don't even know I need a new tripod. I've never really had problems with my current one but drooling doesn't hurt I guess. My heaviest lens is also really light too and don't expect to ever use something longer than 200mm - if that. 135mm is plenty long.

TijmenDal wrote in post #14293813
Would you say the 3541 is a better tripod than the 3542? It seems to defeat a big part of the purpose of buying a CF tripod when it's heavier than my aluminum one...

If you need to support camera equipment that weighs 55lbs (that is if you believe Gitzo's published max load spec) then yes, it's obviously a better tripod than the 3541 which only supports a measly 39.6lbs (once again if you believe Gitzo's published max load spec for the 3541LS). However, if you don't like a slightly larger folded size - 22.6in vs 21.7in for the 3541, or a 13% increase in weight - 4.3lbs vs 3.8lbs then maybe the new one isn't such a bargain at the increased price...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14289151
I'm 5'7" and prefer to buy tripods such that I do not have to fully extend the skinniest sections at the bottom when standing up.

Just something to think about.

My problem is that I'm 6'2" and I haven't found an affordable tripod which I can do that with unless I get down on my knees. At the same time, I've always gotten good results with my Vanguard 263-AT even with the legs fully extended. With the SBH-250 ball head, I don't have to raise the center column to comfortably look through the viewfinder, but I do have to extend the legs all the way. The tripod came with a sort of hammock like affair which attaches to all 3 legs and with an added weight (can even use a rock or such that's just lying around), adds considerable stability to the setup, more than hanging a weight from the eye on the center column. It also doubles as a convenient place to set a second lens instead of digging them out of the bag all the time.

This tripod also has the swivel center column for close-up and macro, and is quite unstable used that way, even with the legs completely retracted. The weight of the camera and lens makes the whole setup rather bouncy. I have to use mirror lock and Live View when shooting like that.

Preeb,

I'm 6'2" as well, but my 055 tripods have both been fine. My natural eye-line IS 6" under that which by the time I've added the ballhead and QR system plates etc they can easily manage.

A pro landscape 'tog has very recently suggested I use a bungee cord between the head of the tripod and my backpack which should lie on the ground benead the 'pod. It stabilises it very nicely apparently. He was told to do this by another pro.

Lowner wrote in post #14297141
I'm 6'2" as well, but my 055 tripods have both been fine. My natural eye-line IS 6" under that which by the time I've added the ballhead and QR system plates etc they can easily manage.

I keep reading comments like this, and I keep having problems believing them. The 055 series goes up to around 137 cm with the column down. Add on 11 cm for the ballhead and 7 cm for the camera and the viewfinder will be at 155 cm - or 61". That's just over 5 foot!

Unfortunately I believed such comments without actually checking and bought an 055 - only to find that it was way too short for me at 6' 5".

Frank,

I assume you suffer with back problems? Luckily I don't. With the camera level and minus the centre column stuff, my viewfinder is 61.75", as you say 5 feet 1.75". At that height I'm not even aware of having to lower myself its so automatic.

I'm only 6'3" and don't have back problems but there is no way I'm going to use a 5' tall tripod all day. Good luck on that no back problem thing in a few years.

Lowner wrote in post #14297298
Frank,

I assume you suffer with back problems?

Only when I spend all day trying to use a tripod that is too short for me. The 055 would be perfect if I had eyeballs where I currently have nipples.

I am also 6'3" with no back problems and I agree. If you have to stand behind your tripod all day you really need one that fits. If you just set it and forget it, then it doesn't matter if the tripod is a little short for you.

My Benro is 58.1 inches at maximum height w/o center column. I need to extend the center column 4 to 5 inches to be comfortable. Can I use it without the center column, sure no problem, unless I have to use it that way all day. It is a matter of compromises that we all have to make that is within your budget.

hollis_f wrote in post #14297738
Only when I spend all day trying to use a tripod that is too short for me. The 055 would be perfect if I had eyeballs where I currently have nipples.

I don't want to have to stand on tiptoe or at attention, but I want to be mostly erect and relaxed, and my Vanguard is just about perfect. Since I always use a remote (either wired or RF) when the camera is on the tripod, I don't need to mount the camera on a 50 pound bridge truss to avoid shake from the shutter press. I've never had a visible problem from the mirror causing camera shake with this setup. It's certainly a lot more stable than the cheap Velbon tripod I had back in my 35mm film days - of course, the 60D with 70-200 f4 IS is a lot heavier than my heaviest 35mm combo was (Minolta SRT-102 with Vivitar 70-150), so a bit more heft is needed in the support structure.

Two schools of thought on the topic of tripod height...one has been expressed, so I will express the other view.

When I am shooting something, I strive for 'best composition' or 'best height for the subjectmatter...

In shooting groups of people at events or portraits, when the group is standing the best height is a bit above the beltline. Generally speaking, the camera lens should be at about eye level for head and shoulders portraits, chin level to chest level for ¾ length and chest level to waist level for full length portraits.

In shooting for myself, height of the shot makes all the difference in the world. Which would you think gets the better shot of the flowers,
this one...

Wilt wrote in post #14298067
Two schools of thought on the topic of tripod height...one has been expressed, so I will express the other view.

When I am shooting something, I strive for 'best composition' or 'best height for the subjectmatter...

You can make a tall tripod shorter.

hollis_f wrote in post #14298117
You can make a tall tripod shorter.

Yes, agreed (and as my example shots of the setup near the flowers shows). It just seemed that in the discussion about tripod height, the point of view of 'set it for my height' was the simplistic point of view, ignoring the topic of good composition. I submit that the number of times that 'height does not matter' is well outnumbered by 'best height for the shot', and that (unless a bad back is at issue) we should stoop or squat or get on our knees, rather than stand at full height.

I formerly owned a Manfrotto 055 CXPRO3. With an Acratech GP-s head on it, it was at eye-level for me when opened. I had not removed the center column, but it was not extended. I am 6'2" tall and using a 7D. That being said, I recently sold said 'pod and got a Gitzo 3541LS. When fully opened, it is slightly higher than the 055 was. Also, it is shorter when folded, and welght is about the same.

It is definately more stable than the 055, and there is less camera movement due to the lack of a center column. One thing I found when using the 055 was that even with the center column down, I would get shift in the composition after locking the ball...I couldn't figure out why this was happening, and then I realized that there was a slight bit of give in the column itself, and it was not the ball that was causing droop, but the everything including the column was "drooping" when I let go of the camera. I am pleased to say that I no longer have this problem with the Gitzo.

I do sometimes miss the ease of changing the height by an inch or 2 with th 055, but overall, I like the Gitzo a lot better. I did get a great deal on the Gitzo when they were clearing them out before the 3542LS came out, and I don't know if I would pony up the $900ish for the new model, but at $525 it was a no-brainer, as I was able to sell the 055 for $350.