From: Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: CF tripods
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:26:36 -0800
on 11/1/02 9:57 AM, Winsor Crosby at wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Let me repeat:
>>
>> Subtract the weight of the CF tripod from the weight of the equivalent
metal
>> model. Subtract the price of the metal tripod from the price of the CF
>> tripod. Calculate the cost per ounce saved. get light headed. Buy
aluminum
>> tripod.
>>
>> Bill Pearce
>
> One could use the same argument against anything of high quality
> including our single digit OMs compared to the double digit ones for
> instance. Certainly lightness as well as rigidity is a measure of
> quality in a tripod. If a couple of pounds make the difference in
> whether you take it out of the back of the car and carry it a quarter
> of a mile to get a shot, then perhaps it is worth it.
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
This comes up all the time on my motorcycle lists... and I suspect it is
also on all the bicycle lists. The guy wants to know if spending the extra
$200 for the titanium or CF slip-on muffler is worth it over the aluminum
or
the OEM stock can...
Pound for pound, $ for $, the best performance weight-saving is for the
*rider* (or photographer... <g>) to drop a few pounds. Costs less and
benefits are much more likely to be beneficial.
I guess I don't use a tripod enough to understand why someone would pay
$300
or more for a CF one... but that said, I guess I'd take one if someone
gives
one away. My old Bogen 3011 works OK otherwise, and its no lightweight!
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >