That is exactly the point. The issue is not whether
they will be a few degrees warmer to hold(which they
wont) A CF tripod can go everywhere with you- hikes in
the mountains, rainforests, glacial ice fields,
deserts..just about anywhere,and after a while you will
barely even know you are carrying one (slight over-
statement..but you know what I mean).
They are as stable(if not more) as the big manfrottos
or gitzos but at a fraction of their weight. If you
are willing to haul a regular tripod almost
everywhere,and do so regularly, then you don't need a CF
tripod. But if you are constantly debating the
usefulness of carrying
a tripod because of its weight then you should consider
one. Pictures taken even with a garden
variety 50/1.8 but mounted on a sturdy tripod will be
of better (technical) quality than those taken with a
fancy 2.8 zoom containing rare-'Jupiter' elements and
UltraUltraUltra low dispersion glass. If you are a
casual snapshooter and image sharpness is not very
important to you , you can altogether forget one.
THe point I am trying to make is not whethere or not
to get a CF tripod, but whether or not to get *any*
sturdy tripod. A tripod not only produces sharper images
but it forces you to slow down and think about
composition. CF tripods certainly help a lot but by
no means are they essential.
-Tim
> I guess the issue is whether you would use a tripod more often if it
> weighed half of what the 3011 weighs and whether the improvement in
> sharpness in the old pics is worth it.
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|