Does the Avenger A0045CS have a little brother?

I tried to find this answer on the corporate website but now that Avenger is integrated into the Manfrotto website, it's just a hot mess. I was able to pick up a A0045CS at the used equipment store and I love the overall studryness and the leveling leg for use on hillsides. However, what I do not love is that it weighs 20 friggen pounds before it has anything hung on it. Since this stand goes up to almost 15 feet and I don't need anything close to that for hillside use, I'm hoping that there's a baby brother to it which has all the same features and strength but, being shorter, doesn't weigh nearly as much. Is anyone aware of the part number for such a thing?

I use the Matthews Beefy Baby: 12.5 lb, 8.5' height, levelling leg, steel top riser, sturdy. A 12' version is available, too. Sadly, secure support comes with a weight penalty. Laws of physics and all that jolly rot.

I managed to find an Avenger reseller who had posted an only-slightly-out-of-date catalog PDF on their website. The A0045CS is part of a line of clone products in varying sizes. There's a 0030, 0035, 0040, and 0045. The last two digits are the max height when multiplied by 10cm (so the 0030 is 30*10=300cm tall). If there's a B after the number, it's a black aluminum stand and if there's a CS after the number it's a chrome steel stand. So the A0030CS goes to 118" (barely shy of ten feet) and weighs 13.2lbs, a savings of 4.4lbs. That's not quite as much weight savings as I hoped. However, the A0030B only weighs 7.7lbs, which is a savings of 10lbs, and yet has the same specs as the steel version.

I have to admit I'm a little nervous about getting an aluminum stand. I moved from midrange aluminum stands to high end steel stands, so in my mind the dramatic increase in quality, reliability, durability, and sturdyness that came along with moving up to a higher class of stand is also tied up with the materials choice. I'm just nervous that if I go back to an aluminum stand, even a high end one, I'll end up being pissed off at it because it's frustrating to use just like the mid-range aluminum stands were. I also am not sure how much of the stability on a hillside I'm loving in the A0045CS comes from the weight of the steel stand vs the large footprint and leveling leg.

The Beefy Baby I mentioned has alu lower risers and they did make me nervous. However, they turned out to have substantial tubing, not thin-walled alu crap with rivets. I will presume the Avenger alu stands are similarly constructed, but you should confirm the stand weight. With a good design, alu stands are actually pretty heavy. I would still prefer all-steel for strength and rigidity given the choice.

After using Avenger and then trying Mathews, I like Mathews stands and grip better. Here is one 8.5' at 12.5 lb. Can hold 2lb more than your original stand.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …ood_Beefy_Baby_​Stand.html

Sorry, just saw it, already mentioned by Rico.

I just took a good look at the Matthews Beefy Baby stand. For the same price as the A0030CS, it's 14" shorter and has a 6" smaller footprint diameter while only being a pound lighter. I don't care much about the lost foot and the dropped pound would be nice to not have. However, isn't 6" change in footprint a pretty big deal on unstable ground?

There's really no stand that sits where the vectors cross of lightweight, high load capacity, and booming.

A standard C stand is going to deliver the best return on investment IMO and for the my preference - by a wide margin - is the Avenger with turtle base.

But if you're trying to get the lightest weight, somewhat rugged stand, I go with a heavy duty kit stand with a load capacity of about 20lbs, and add to it a standard C stand arm and knuckle. If you're so inclined you can even find casters that can be screwed on and removed when not needed.

A C-stand isn't even close to stable enough. The footprint on a C-stand is tiny. That's why they're officially modifier stands only, no lights, no booming. I know many photographers (including myself!) misuse them as light stands when we need to pile 5 on top of each other for a table top shoot, but they're not even close to stable enough for what I'm doing outdoors.

If you're complaining about the weight of a 20lb stand but expect to find something lighter - that does a better job than a C stand - you're doing it wrong

What you need is any stand plus an assistant.

williaty wrote in post #18634387
A C-stand isn't even close to stable enough. The footprint on a C-stand is tiny. That's why they're officially modifier stands only, no lights, no booming. I know many photographers (including myself!) misuse them as light stands when we need to pile 5 on top of each other for a table top shoot, but they're not even close to stable enough for what I'm doing outdoors.

Parameters like weight, height and number of risers seem to be specified accurately enough. Footprint, however, is not. I can't even figure out how the measurement is made. Some numbers are ludicrously wrong, while others are inconsistent or ambiguous. MSE is certainly guilty in this matter, and I am forced to make a calculated guess on purchase and then see what I get. As a case in point, B&H says the Reverse is 81cm while Beefy Baby is wider at 85cm. But measuring the stands in my studio gives me Reverse at 103cm and BB at 97cm. This footprint is taken from one leg end to another: seemingly different a definition from MSE but no excuse for the Reverse to exceed the BB. Rollers add another degree or two of interpretation to footprint.