Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wooden tripods: what are the disadvantages?  (Read 3800 times)
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 383


WWW
« on: May 25, 2011, 03:32:53 AM »
ReplyReply

If wooden tripods have less weight, less cost and less vibration than other types why doesn't everybody use them?

What are the disadvantages?  Huh
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 03:45:05 AM by lowep » Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 713


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2011, 04:23:52 AM »
ReplyReply

They can get woodworm!  Smiley
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2011, 04:42:49 AM »
ReplyReply

They can get woodworm!  Smiley


Damn! You were too fast for me!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7528



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2011, 05:15:20 AM »
ReplyReply

amazing, that was my first though as well!  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710


« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2011, 05:34:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Less weight? They're really heavy aren't they? That and decidedly bulky.
Logged

Clearair
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2011, 05:36:45 AM »
ReplyReply

They catch fire, ahh an idea!
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2508


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2011, 05:41:09 AM »
ReplyReply

They catch fire, ahh an idea!
Actually thats an advantage if you get caught in a snowstorm ....
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2011, 06:58:14 AM »
ReplyReply

If wooden tripods have less weight, less cost and less vibration than other types why doesn't everybody use them?

What are the disadvantages?  Huh

Going traditional are we?? Smiley

Do they have less cost, less weight and less vibrations combined? Or to have less vibrations they become bulky and heavy and also cost?

Carbon fiber cost, but a good sturdy cabon is also low comparative weight. I followed advise by John Shaw in his books of a 3-section Gitzo without telescoping column. No need to look for any new one again; sturdy as rock and stick into anything above I want my support Smiley

Regards
Anders
Logged
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 383


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2011, 09:06:45 AM »
ReplyReply

"Less weight? They're really heavy aren't they? That and decidedly bulky."

Yes, but (not much more than a classic Manfrotto alu tripod like this one):

Manfrotto 055XPROB Aluminum Tripod Legs
Material    Aluminum
Maximum Height    70.3" (178.5 cm)
Maximum Height w/o Column Extended    55.9" (142 cm)
Minimum Height    3.9" (10 cm)
Folded Length    25.8" (65.5 cm)
Load Capacity    15.4 lbs (7 kg)
Weight    5.3 lbs (2.4 kg)

Berlebach Tripod Report 3032
Material: wood
Maximum height: 142 cm = 56 inch
Minimum height: 9 cm = 4 inch
Transportation length: 90 cm = 35 inch
Load capacity: 12,00 kg = 26,46 lb.
Weight: 3,20 kg = 7,05 lb.

As with everything else, which is best depends on your priorities. My main concerns are cost and damping.

As far as I can figure out carbon costs significantly more than wood -- and dampens less?

Point taken about usefulness of wood as firewood in the snow however you also forget to mention than in case of a nuclear apocalypse the metal and carbon tripods would probably not fare much better than the wooden ones (though have not had opportunity to test this theory yet).
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 09:11:56 AM by lowep » Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2011, 09:47:59 AM »
ReplyReply

My rock solid carbon Gitzo weights in at just about 2kg per memory, and ROCK solid. It cost me but is also a keeper...

(nope, not at all think solid carbon dampens less than wood... Depends on member sizes, joints, solid )


It is my second tripod since serious into photography. Heads? On my 4th: Markins. That same as my Gitzo... finally a keeper. Works for me, yet we are all tad different.

All gear is a weighing of priorities, and preferences Smiley
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 09:51:44 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
Cineski
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2011, 08:19:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I have 2 wood tripods and I'd never use them.  One is antique and far too pretty and the other is very bulky and heavy.  Conversely I never understood people who use carbon fiber as it's way too light and I've seen two instances of other photographers having their carbon fiber tripod w/ a camera on top tip over.
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2508


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2011, 09:15:23 AM »
ReplyReply

When I hang my photo bag at the hook in the middle my Gitzo carbon tripod is quite stable and vibration free, even with a tech camera on top.
Logged

Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 530



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2011, 10:51:00 AM »
ReplyReply

They catch fire, ahh an idea!

Ya. Keep them away from Iceland Wink
Logged

AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2011, 11:21:22 AM »
ReplyReply

The biggest disadvantage is the image a wood tripod infer on the photographer; this must be an awkward back-ass, oldtimer  Grin.

There is more weight than aluminum and carbon, but the questions should be is there better stability of camera given the same weight? Compared with carbon I would assume no, for aluminum yes. The other question is do wood give better stability of camera given same price? For this I would say yes, there is a better price/performance ratio of wood versus carbon / aluminum.

In terms of handling the only wood tripod I have owned outperform others by a far.
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2508


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2011, 11:30:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Yup. If I hadn't problems with my hip and carrying a lot of bulk I'd have chosen a wooden tripod over the carbon. 
Logged

24x36
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2011, 09:42:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Mold. Mildew. Rot. Termites. Carpenter Ants.  Grin
Logged
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 383


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2011, 04:45:02 PM »
ReplyReply

"Mold. Mildew. Rot. Termites. Carpenter Ants...." all delicious but what about the disadvantages?
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2011, 05:51:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Why not use them?  Because I prefer Carbon Fiber.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 05:55:31 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2011, 08:41:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Compared to aluminum I think it's less a weight issue than a bulk issue. Wooden tripods tend to have two-section legs, which not only limits their maximum height, but also means that fully collapsed they're still quite large (too large to travel with, if travel means flying).  That pretty much rules them out for me.

Compared to CF, the weight difference is pretty substantial. A 56" tall CF tripod would most likely weigh less than half what that above Berlebach weighs. That can be a pretty important consideration if you're hiking in rough terrain such as the mountains.

Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2011, 08:43:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Conversely I never understood people who use carbon fiber as it's way too light and I've seen two instances of other photographers having their carbon fiber tripod w/ a camera on top tip over.
I don't think this has so much to do with weight as other design issues such as leg spread. For instance it's a real issue with the Gitzo 1- and 2-series because they're trying to get as much height as possible out of the shorter legs, and they therefore use a fairly narrow spread for the legs. But it would take a fair amount of stupidity to knock over my 3541XLS legs.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad