Least Expensive CF Tripod needed. Any Suggestions?

One of the clamps was cracked another had plier marks on it, and one of the legs would slide completely out of the clamp. Looks like someone tried to disassemble it. Didnt even notice this stuff the first time I set it up. I undid the clamps and pulled the legs out together the first time, so the stops on the other legs kept me from pulling it out. I noticed it when I put it away and was trying to figure out why one of the legs was longer then the other. That's when I started looking closer at everything and notced it was a little roughed up. If I had to keep it I could probably make it work, but the seller was ready to ship me a new one the minute I complained.

friz wrote in post #8887310
One of the clamps was cracked another had plier marks on it, and one of the legs would slide completely out of the clamp. Looks like someone tried to disassemble it. Didnt even notice this stuff the first time I set it up. I undid the clamps and pulled the legs out together the first time, so the stops on the other legs kept me from pulling it out. I noticed it when I put it away and was trying to figure out why one of the legs was longer then the other. That's when I started looking closer at everything and notced it was a little roughed up. If I had to keep it I could probably make it work, but the seller was ready to ship me a new one the minute I complained.

It definitely sounds like a return that the seller didn't inspect when they received it. What was the seller, ebay or some online shop?

Ebay. Seller must have known it was a return, because when I suggested it he agreed that it was definately possible. He didn't fight it at all. I offered to send pics and he didn't need them.

BTW this is my first time using a ball head. Wow this is definately the way to go.

makes you wonder why it even broke in the first place you know what i mean? like, did it suffer from normal wear? did he overload it, etc.

I got the replacement mid week. In answer to Riagurl, the tripod did not come ready to use. One of the clamps was loose. I'm sure if you would be ham fisted in tighening the clamps the metal would crack. I'm guessing that's what happened with the last one I got. I would think if someone was selling a product that may be of questionable quality, the last thing you would want is to send something to a customer not ready to use and give the customer the tools to screw it up. Yes, it comes with an allen wrench in the bag! That aside, the seller was very good about replacing the item and even paid for the shipping all the way around.
OK, about the tripod. Once tightened and the ballhead installed, it has been a joy to use. The one I got is the small 3 section version with the Bogen copy ballhead (also from the same seller). This combo comes in at under 3 lbs out of the bag. The bag weighs almost a lb by itself. I have been using it for product photography all week and it does the job well. BTW, this is my first exposure to a ball head. Love it! I know what the fuss is about. I'll post some pics of the set up later.

DANATTHEROCK wrote in post #8884758
Get the Manfrotto 190xb for around one hundred bucks. Weighs 3.7 lbs if I recall correctly. Beat it up and enjoy it.

It's Alum not CF and listed as 5+ pounds (more than twice the weight of the Ebay CF tripod)!

The Dynatran CF line are pretty good too. I compared the two, the weifeng/fancier and the Dynatran $129 version, and they are very similar, the weifeng is taller though. I have a brand-new CF Dynatran up for sale here on the forum for $120 now after the comparison.

Here are some pictures of the Fancier. The model is FT6821T. It's a little lighter then the one mentioned above, but doesn't fold as compact. The weight with the ballhead is under 3 lbs.

nice pics. thanks for the review.

Here is the Amvona competition (Dynatran) CF tripod. This is the one I have for sale here on POTN for $120:
https://photography-on-the.net …t=774328&highli​ght=carbon

This one collapses shorter but also is shorter when extended. It is lighter too.

So there are a couple of decent options out there.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO