New Really Right Stuff Carbon Fibre tripod!

That's a good idea. The trick is in getting the sensors to detect the small vibrations and the equipment to generate the vibrations. It's expensive stuff.

This is getting frustrating enough, that I'm willing to back something like that. I'm tired of these threads where we debate this stuff over and over. Either the stuff is good or it's not. Either it justifies it's price or it doesn't.

j.

justrussfm wrote in post #8757695
Yes, the vibration dampening graph is surely a step in the right direction... and surely we can't take RRS's word on it without an open methodology that others can repeat.

You know, we as a community (and I mean DSLR shooters, not just on this particular forum) have a lot of prowess with engineering, physics, and photography... and I bet we could start a thread in which we discuss what kind of testing suite would be appropriate for tripods/heads/general support.... we could have someone in charge of compiling it all, making final decisions about what to include... and we could publish the methodology and reporting standards...

Then, we start asking retailers we have a close relationship with (say, Really Big Cameras) to start testing limited lines of gear. Of course, we could also test our own setups and develop a database (not everyone has the time, gear, eetc, but some do)...

The point is, we've been griping about this for a while, but I wonder if we can get the ball rolling ourselves?

Great idea, have often thought this myself, the forum as a whole must have considerable knowledge and by now respect, not to mention great buying power. This all combines to drive our credibility to receive equipment loans for tests. But where to start......

argyle wrote in post #8757251
Comparing the RRS tripod to the Gitzo 3531 Mountaineer:

Max Load: Gitzo 39.6#, RRS 50#
Weight: Gitzo 4.7#, RRS 4#
Max Height: Gitzo 52.4", RRS 58" (neglecting any center column)
Min Height: Gitzo 17.3", RRS 4.5"
Folded length: Gitzo 26", RRS 26"

For the extra $200 difference in price, I don't think the RRS model is worth it. Made in the USA, unfortunately, does mean higher labor and material costs (especially when not mass-produced). Like other RRS items, I'm sure that it'll be of the highest quality and workmanship, but good luck selling at that price differential.

It carries 26% more but is 15% lighter in weight. It goes 10% taller, yet it also goes 74% closer to the ground. Folded up it is identical to the Gitzo. Those are pretty impressive credentials, if you ask me. Is it worth 1/3 more...that is an individual decision, but I speculate some would find those characteristics and premium to be worth it. After all, look at the premium paid for carbon fiber vs. aluminum!

The RRS tripod appears to be a hybrid with regard to specifications. It is closer to a 5 Series Gitzo in load ratings, but weightwise it resembles a 3 series. The RRS info doesn't mention the size of the tubes. However, RRS talks about a "big and thin" philosophy. That makes me wonder if the tubes are as large as the 5 series. The RRS tripod has a number of features that addresses some of the criticisms leveled at Gitzo as well as some new features.

I'm wondering about the vibration comparison. If the RRS tripod is structured like a 5 series Gitzo, then a comparison against a 3 series Gitzo may reflect greater vibration damping because of the size of the tubes. IMO, a 5 series-sized tripod weighing in at a 3 series weight is a good thing. Also, the price would be comparable to a 5 series.

I assume RRS did not include g-locs because of patent issues. Personally, I think g-locs add to the strength of a tripod/monopod design. It is ashame RRS could not add it to its design. I wait to see how the RRS legs turn out.

ed rader wrote in post #8755920
bold move pricing their tripod well above the industry standard (gitzo). good luck with that one !

ed rader

I agree. For the price of the RRS tripod, I'd rather get a Gitzo tripod and get the Gitzo jacket while I'm at it.

jhom wrote in post #8758543
I assume RRS did not include g-locs because of patent issues. Personally, I think g-locs add to the strength of a tripod/monopod design. It is ashame RRS could not add it to its design. I wait to see how the RRS legs turn out.

How do G-Locks work? What is their advantage?

NicolasRubio wrote in post #8758788
How do G-Locks work? What is their advantage?

Here is a link for Gitzo's explanation and illustration of g-locks, http://www.gitzo.com …gitzo/cache/off​/pid/15934.

Essentially, they are shims in the twist locks that increase the stability of the joints. The more vertical pressure, the greater the force on the shims causing more rigidity at the leg joints. Anything that increases the stiffness of the legs the greater the vibration damping. The leg joints are a very vulnerable area because of the gaps between the leg segments. The engineers out there probably can explain it better.

Did anyone notice that the design of this tripod is similar to the Feisol CT-3342? Looks like an improvised version of it.

Wilt wrote in post #8758353
It carries 26% more but is 15% lighter in weight. It goes 10% taller, yet it also goes 74% closer to the ground. Folded up it is identical to the Gitzo. Those are pretty impressive credentials, if you ask me. Is it worth 1/3 more...that is an individual decision, but I speculate some would find those characteristics and premium to be worth it. After all, look at the premium paid for carbon fiber vs. aluminum!

I don't concern myself too much with the weight/capacity ratings. Most claims are pretty dubious at best. When a mfr claims 40#, and a competitor claims 50#, to me its pretty much a wash. Just how often does one have upwards of 40# of gear on the tripod, even if using a weight bag for extra stabilization? The Gitzo 3-series does include a short center column (total height 65"), so the height advantage from the taller RRS is pretty much negated. And with Gitzo's G-locks, using a short center column really isn't a disadvantage and won't have much of an effect on stability. Gitzo does use 6 layers of CF...no mention by RRS of a similar spec. I'm sure that its a quality piece of gear, but at that price I doubt that RRS will cut much into Gitzo's market share. But I'd definitely give one a look should the prices come down a bit...God knows I have enough of their gear already.

ray_stinger wrote in post #8759423
Did anyone notice that the design of this tripod is similar to the Feisol CT-3342? Looks like an improvised version of it.

A knockoff of a knockoff? Now that's blasphemy...

ray_stinger wrote in post #8759423
Did anyone notice that the design of this tripod is similar to the Feisol CT-3342? Looks like an improvised version of it.

I see your point. they both have three legs.

j.

argyle wrote in post #8759515
I don't concern myself too much with the weight/capacity ratings. Most claims are pretty dubious at best. When a mfr claims 40#, and a competitor claims 50#, to me its pretty much a wash. Just how often does one have upwards of 40# of gear on the tripod, even if using a weight bag for extra stabilization? The Gitzo 3-series does include a short center column (total height 65"), so the height advantage from the taller RRS is pretty much negated. And with Gitzo's G-locks, using a short center column really isn't a disadvantage and won't have much of an effect on stability. Gitzo does use 6 layers of CF...no mention by RRS of a similar spec. I'm sure that its a quality piece of gear, but at that price I doubt that RRS will cut much into Gitzo's market share. But I'd definitely give one a look should the prices come down a bit...God knows I have enough of their gear already.

I agree it is very difficult to do any comparison based upon any claims of load bearing, with no test standard. You did ignore (conveniently?! ) the low level capability of the two tripods, and the weight savings.

Wilt wrote in post #8759610
I agree it is very difficult to do any comparison based upon any claims of load bearing, with no test standard. You did ignore (conveniently?! ) the low level capability of the two tripods, and the weight savings.

I wouldn't say 'ignored'...maybe 'overlooked' is a better word. Plus, I never shoot at that low of a position (or just haven't had the need to). Can't dispute the weight savings, though. If you're a hiker like me, any weight reduction is a blessing. Time will tell if RRS has a good seller on their hands...

JohnJ80 wrote in post #8759584
I see your point. they both have three legs.

j.

They are also both black and made of CF

Bottom line is that people will pay for performance. If the RRS tripod performs to spec then there are pro's who will see the value. From my experience with RRS they manufacture quality products. Though they may not have G-Lock ala Gitzo, I'm sure they've engineered a similar system that could equal or possibly outperform Gitzo. I'll wait for reviews before I pass final judgement on the Versa because the only way you'll get my 3530 away from me is to pry if from my cold dead fingers (but if RRS wants to send me one to compare to my Gitzo, they should feel free )

It would take a lot to get me away from my 3540LS too. What I'm really happy about though is their detailed information on performance. Long, long overdue in this industry. Gitzo will respond with similar data and performance information and then maybe we can put some pressure on some of these other guys selling the great paint jobs.

J.