On 11/29/2012 6:39 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
> Stability is a key issue with field macro photography.
Absolutely!
> The combination of wind and my own shakiness has caused many opportunities to
> be spoiled, so I'm heavily pursuing this
> tripod issue.
There are two issues you may not have fully considered. First, aluminum is a
poor material for tripods. Light and rigid
are good, but it conveys every little vibration, sometimes even seeming to
amplify them. In wind, it tends to vibrate,
sometimes humming audibly.
Carbon Fiber is more expensive, but is the opposite, tending to absorb/damp
vibration. In some situations, the
difference is huge.
Second, additional weight in the tripod itself is far less effective in damping
vibration than weight draped over camera
and lens. Very small gauge buckshot may be ideal, but sand it also quite good.
It's not just the weight, but it's
location and the material. I'm not sure, but think it's the nature of the
connections between loose particles and the
friction as vibrations pass through. Liquid is less effective.
There are tripods that have a hook on the spider or the bottom of the center
column for weight, but that's not as
effective as weight draped over the top
Obviously, few of us want to carry a five pound bag of sand on a hike. But one
may easily carry a study drawstring bag,
to fill with sand, dirt, rock, etc. on site, then empty when moving on.
> This last exercised showed me that the inverted column approach is not the
> best overall, though it does work in some
> instances. Ground spikes are nice, provided you're not working in deep sand
> or solid rock. The Cullman arm is
> intriguing, and Manfrotto has a similar 131/3059 accessory. I'll have to see
> if they have one of these at the local
> camera shop.
The problem for me with those solutions is that it's more stuff to carry,
adjust, etc. I use a simple strap, attached to
a QR plate, to sling my tripod down below my right arm. It's out of the way,
yet instantly accessible. Add more gear,
and I'll not have it when I need it. The way the center post does double duty
is wonderful - for me.
On 11/29/2012 2:23 PM, Chris Trask wrote:
> Just got back from looking at one of these, plus a few more items. That
> column does not extend far enough horizontally to suit me, plus it will not
> go beyond horizontal.
I've tried this tripod with 60D and largish lens at full horizontal extension.
It was a little unstable with the legs in
normal position. There's room in the design for a longer column. I assume
length was chosen for stability/safety? In any
case, it has been fine for me.
I'm not sure what you mean by "beyond horizontal". It is strictly horizontal to
the top of the tripod. Angle adjustment,
if necessary, is by leg length and/or angle adjustment.
I've found the combination of multiple leg angle adjustments and quick, easy
leg length adjustment to be very flexible.
This flower was down low on the side of a narrow, muddy trail on a steep down
slope.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/Tilden_Botanic_Garden/March_3_2012&image=_MG_5617croofm.jpg>
It was relatively easy to find adjustments that put the camera at the right
place in a stable stance. Note shutter speed
and ISO; it was very dim there!. It would have been hopeless without an
articulated screen, though. Looking through the
finder, with or without angle finder, would have put me where there was no
land. I wish I had thought to take a shot of
the set-up with my compact camera, but all my attention was on the task at
hand. :-)
Obviously, you know what's best for you. Just passing on some personal
experience.
Stable Legged Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
