Carbon Fibre Tripod for Large Format?

N

Nomad Z

Suspended / Banned
Messages
549
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm considering getting a carbon fibre tripod for 5x4 large format (Shen Hao camera). I currently have an oldish Manfrotto 055Pro aluminium one with the MN410 geared head, and it's pretty heavy. I'd like to keep the head because I like the adjustments. The legs weigh about 2.8kg, and I think there is some weight saving to be had here.

The tripod I'm interested in is the Calumet 8145...

https://www.calphoto.co.uk/product/Calumet-8145-3-Section-8x-Carbon-Fibre-Tripod/CK8145

A good kilo lighter at 1.5kg, and plenty of load capacity (much more than the camera and lens). The height without extending the centre column is also fine (134cm takes the camera screen to comfortable eye level with the MN410 head). Price also looks good. About the only competition I can see is the 055 Manfrotto version, but that's 2kg. Another option might be the 4-section Calumet 8157...

https://www.calphoto.co.uk/product/Calumet-8157-4-Section-8x-Carbon-Fibre-Tripod/CK8157

...but I don't know how that would compare for rigidity (I assume the bottom section is a smaller diameter than on the 3-section one). The leg section diameters look pretty substantial on the 8145, but the 4-section one has the wrong photo, so don't know what that has.

If there is a choice to be made between 3-section and 4-section, better stability comes before something that packs down a bit smaller.

Any thoughts on these for large format? Are carbon fibre legs generally robust and reliable? Any thoughts on the Calumet ones in particular?
 
Last edited:
I'm currently at work so can't provide a detailed response yet, however, I can say that I have a 4 section, CF tripod from manfroto and I've never found it to be a problem at all: it's perfectly sturdy, and indeed I also upgraded from an 055 Pro.

I think you've linked to the same thing twice in your post as well btw.
 
Thanks for pointing out the error - link edited.

I think, unless I'm warned off the Calumet ones, I'll be popping into the shop to have a good look at them. Never used the Calumet tripods, but I do have a few of their Manfrotto-compatible quick release plates, and they have been fine. I found that the 8157 goes quite a bit higher than the 8145 (another 15cm), which would mean less extension of the thinnest leg sections. On the other hand, a bit of extra height for sloping or uneven ground can be a good thing, so the 8157 may well be in the running if it still has good stiffness.
 
I don't use LF, only very large MF, but hopefully this will still be of use.
I have the same 4 section manfrotto one as @Woodsy (I think...) and it's very stable, it's held my RB67 at near head height in reasonably strong winds before. If you weigh the tripod down with the bag hook, it's not going to be moving around much.

The calumet ones you have linked to have twist locks on the legs, which IMO are not as sturdy as locks with a clip action (example https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61OrecuUGpL._SL1181_.jpg) . It's easy to tell when a clip lock is not engaged properly, less so with a twist lock.
 
Is your current tripod broken then?

Or are you seriously wanting to pay £239 just to lose 1.3kg of weight?

That sounds mad to me; but if you need a new tripod for more sensible reasons then the Calumet ones I suspect will be fine

Dave

PS - before i even consider lighter gear I'd be looking to address my own fat belly :D
 
•

The larger segment diameter is, as I found out, to be
as big as affordable.

On location, from the P2, through the RZ67 to end with
small format, I use the same beefy 4 segment 42,5mm ∅
CF tripods. Two equipped with a levelling base for the
gimbals and the P2, the other with a centre column for
the RZ and the small format.

I studio, I still use two old Triaut by Manfrotto.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Is your current tripod broken then?

Or are you seriously wanting to pay £239 just to lose 1.3kg of weight?

That sounds mad to me; but if you need a new tripod for more sensible reasons then the Calumet ones I suspect will be fine

Dave

PS - before i even consider lighter gear I'd be looking to address my own fat belly :D
Click to expand...

I've never met the OP, however some folk who shoot LF or carry heavy kit may, like me, not have a fat belly to address and at 8 stone 10 wet through, carrying an unnecessary kilo or more can make a climb in the hills darned hard work

Being obsessed about keeping the weight of kit to a minimum if its a couple of hundred grams or so maybe a bit silly , however being a cyclist I am fully aware of how it can make a considerable difference when lugging in excess of a kilo more than needs be

If the OP wishes to spend £239 to potentially make life easier for himself then that's his choice and in his opinion is a sensible reason

Returning to the OPs queries, I use a 2 section carbon Ghiotos ( I think that,s how it is spelt)........It will take a large payload and is as sturdy as any of the alu, or wooden tripods that I've used with heavy kit

The two section can be awkward for carrying at times so a 3 or 4 section would be more practical if carrying it in hand r strapped to a rucksack
 
Well if you have a girlfriend or wife then problem solved.
Man%20lets%20his%20wife%20carry%20the%20heavy%20load.jpeg
 
Been there done^^^ that^^ more than once.....it works for a while then it backfires and you end up like me.................Single, again!:rolleyes::D

Edit. Thinking about it, weighing up the options of having a wife/ girlfriend as a Sherpa or lugging umpteen kilos oneself, I wonder which is harder work :exit::D:D
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
I've never met the OP, however some folk who shoot LF or carry heavy kit may, like me, not have a fat belly to address and at 8 stone 10 wet through, carrying an unnecessary kilo or more can make a climb in the hills darned hard work

Being obsessed about keeping the weight of kit to a minimum if its a couple of hundred grams or so maybe a bit silly , however being a cyclist I am fully aware of how it can make a considerable difference when lugging in excess of a kilo more than needs be

If the OP wishes to spend £239 to potentially make life easier for himself then that's his choice and in his opinion is a sensible reason

Returning to the OPs queries, I use a 2 section carbon Ghiotos ( I think that,s how it is spelt)........It will take a large payload and is as sturdy as any of the alu, or wooden tripods that I've used with heavy kit

The two section can be awkward for carrying at times so a 3 or 4 section would be more practical if carrying it in hand r strapped to a rucksack
Click to expand...


Some of my mates are super keen (nutter) cyclists and obsessive about weight, which if you are already skinny I can understand (they aren't). In my experience most people who buy carbon tripods for weight saving could easily afford to lose that from their bellies, and that £239 for them would be best spent in the gym either losing 1.3kg or growing a bit more muscle to carry it and for additional health benefits

My attempt at humour, sadly bypassed it seems, was to suggest the OP really questions if it will make an appreciable difference. When I'm shooting Weddings or Landscapes I typically carry around 10kgs of kit all day long, 1.3kg either way wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to me nor most people I'd guess. Its a bit like suggesting people only shoot in summer to save the weight of a coat, hat & gloves

(That last sentence was an attempt at humour also - feel free to bypass that too)

Dave
 
robhooley167 said:
The calumet ones you have linked to have twist locks on the legs, which IMO are not as sturdy as locks with a clip action (example https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61OrecuUGpL._SL1181_.jpg) . It's easy to tell when a clip lock is not engaged properly, less so with a twist lock.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. I was looking at a couple of Vanguard tripods at The Photography Show on Saturday, and they had twist grips. My ancient Vanguard (charity shop £5 job) has clips which I've found a little awkward to use (*), and I was thinking of the twist grips as an upgrade. Do others agree with Rob's assessment?

* I've been happy using clips on my old Manfrotto monopod, in fact they gave a very satisfying click when snapped together after shutting the monopod... a click that said "job done". But sadly I left that monpod in a plastic bag at a bus stop in Birmingham, and when I got back the Brummies had bummed it away... :( The replacement, slightly larger monopod is much stiffer. But on the old tripod, I think it's the three legs all being (obviously) at different angles that makes the clips harder.
 
Just to add, reasons for looking for a new tripod include losing weight, but also a centre column that can be angled to help with taking still life and macro shots that I enjoy. I've seen the Manfrotto tripods where you can set the centre column either vertical or horizontal, but the Vanguard is potentially more flexible. Are there other reasonably priced tripods with centre columns that can be either horizontal or angled?
 
I prefer the Manfrotto clamps to twist grips. Never quite sure which way to turn them and there's always the potential for not fully tightening them.
I use a MT190CX three section tripod. Quite a bit lighter than OP's original tripod but approx £100 more expensive than his suggested buy. Solid as a rock and having three sections makes the bottom legs thicker. Plus fewer clamps to tighten/untighten.
 
I prefer the twist locks, means I can loosen/tighten all of the sections in one motion. As always, lefty loosy righty tighty.

I use a Gitzo 1-series, despite it being quite light and thin it holds my 5x4 and heavier Pentax 67 kit with ease. Packs down nicely and the leg locks are solid.
 
ChrisR said:
Just to add, reasons for looking for a new tripod include losing weight, but also a centre column that can be angled to help with taking still life and macro shots that I enjoy. I've seen the Manfrotto tripods where you can set the centre column either vertical or horizontal, but the Vanguard is potentially more flexible. Are there other reasonably priced tripods with centre columns that can be either horizontal or angled?
Click to expand...

Well, I just weighed my ancient aluminium tripod and it was 1.4 kg including the (small) Manfrotto ball head, 1.2 kg without! So there's no weight saving to be made, just the convenience of the angled centre column. I wonder if there's another way to achieve a similar effect...

When I removed the head I remembered that in the field it often seems to come a bit loose, and I wondered if there is something I could put between the head and the base plate on the tripod that would help it grip a bit better?
 
ChrisR said:
When I removed the head I remembered that in the field it often seems to come a bit loose, and I wondered if there is something I could put between the head and the base plate on the tripod that would help it grip a bit better?
Click to expand...
Does the plate at the top of the centre column not have grub screws in it? Tighten them up to stop the head coming loose.
 
mickledore said:
Does the plate at the top of the centre column not have grub screws in it? Tighten them up to stop the head coming loose.
Click to expand...

The head screws onto the top plate of the tripod; the top plate isn't loose, but I don't seem able to screw the head on tightly enough to stop it working loose. Probably at least partly because I'm a bit inept at remembering which control on the head does what so trying to turn the ball when it's actually still tightened. :( I just wondered if I could put in some sort of thin, large washer that might give a bit more grip at the head/tripod interface.
 
Apologies if this is teaching granny to suck eggs, but does your tripod not have grub screws like these marked in red?
tripod head.JPG

The idea is that they are screwed up from underneath and stop the head from coming loose.
 
ChrisR said:
I just wondered if I could put in some sort of thin, large washer that might give a bit more grip at the head/tripod interface.
Click to expand...
A large washer might work if you've no grub screws.
Thread lock????
 
mickledore said:
Apologies if this is teaching granny to suck eggs, but does your tripod not have grub screws like these marked in red?
View attachment 98313

The idea is that they are screwed up from underneath and stop the head from coming loose.
Click to expand...

I was pretty sure the grub screws worked the other way to hold the top plate onto the column, but I think you're right! They are deeply recessed and I can't even see what sort of screw head they are, but I'll find a way to find out, thanks!

Now, if I can find a way to attach a RC2 plate to the side of my monopod I might be able to solve my :point downwards from a tripod" problem... although almost certainly not adequately stable.
 
ChrisR said:
can't even see what sort of screw head they are,
Click to expand...
Normally they are just a slotted head. They don't need a lot of tightening or you run the risk of straining the head. Just screw them up enough to grip the head.
 
In answer to the OP. I think the weight saving you are trying to get is not worth bothering but that is just me. I have 055s and what I find a bit of an issue is the column which is tightened in effect by a single screw. Even with the column down , you still raise the head from the sturdiest part of the tripod, and the head is heavy and then the camera on top of it. The calumets you are looking at are the same design. A much better design is that of the Gitzo systematic (which I don't have) where the head fits on top of the tripod without any column involved.
 
DG Phototraining said:
My attempt at humour, sadly bypassed it seems, was to suggest the OP really questions if it will make an appreciable difference. When I'm shooting Weddings or Landscapes I typically carry around 10kgs of kit all day long, 1.3kg either way wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to me nor most people I'd guess. Its a bit like suggesting people only shoot in summer to save the weight of a coat, hat & gloves

(That last sentence was an attempt at humour also - feel free to bypass that too)

Dave
Click to expand...

Depends what you carry and how far! When I sold my Canon 600 F4 L IS and bought the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS it cost me a wee bit of cash! Forgetting the different performance of the lenses, what difference did that 800 (approx) grams weight reduction make? Well I can tell you - it is at least 1 mile. Yes my 35lb load changed to a 33 and a bit pound load and that gave me a comfortable range increase of 1/2 mile plus on an out and back excursion. In other words it opened up a number of locations that I would not otherwise visit.

Load carrying is a very individual thing!
 
Last edited:
Thanks all.

The choice of getting something lighter is mine to make and not something I was asking about. I'd like to claim that the Manfrotto upsets the front/rear weight distribution in my Ferrari, but that would be a lie. Truth be told, it's a muckle lump and I want something that feels less burdensome. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good enough reason.

I popped into the shop and got a look at the 3-section one. The twist locks seemed to work well - when I first had a play, I extended the legs and nipped up the locks without doing them up especially tight (far less tight than I'm capable of). With that tightness, I tried pushing down fairly heavily on each leg individually, and there was no slippage. Pressing down on the top when standing as a tripod, it felt solid - absolutely no give. Holding the top down while pressing sideways against a leg near the bottom lock, there was some flex (more than I'd get with the ally 055). The general feel wasn't as smooth as the Manfrotto. With that, I undo the leg locks, hold it by the head, give it an uppy-downy shake, and the legs all slide out to their end stops, then I lock them. With the Calumet one, there was still a slight bit of friction with the locks loosened, meaning the legs needed to be drawn out. The centre column was similar until I found that it would slide more easily if the clamping thing was unscrewed a bit more (it was draggy trying to get it to go back down until I did this). Again, the Manfrotto column is immediately free and loose when the screw is turned a small amount. The rubber/pointy screw-out feet thingies were better than on the Manfrotto - mine have never really felt like they fitted terribly well in the ends of the tubes. The Calumet ones felt much more secure. The actual use of them on either tripod feels about the same.

The feel of more friction in the sliding parts isn't a big deal for me - a handful of seconds more to set up and stow makes no odds. Also, I only really use the centre column to make a quick gross rotating adjustment in the direction of view before using the head for finer adjustments when I'm composing the shot. If it gets raised at all, it's only an inch or two, and that's rare. The Gitzo Systematic clamping method is interesting, but I can't say that I've ever noticed any flexing from the Manfrotto with the column down. I'd agree that the Gitzo setup will be more stiff, but that's not the same as saying that conventional clamped column setups aren't stiff enough - and both systems are still subject to flex or slop in the legs and in the hinges and angle stops where the legs join to the top.

They didn't have the 4-section one in stock, but are getting one in for me to have a look at, hopefully this weekend. I'll also take the head and camera in and try them out with the gear actually fitted.
 
Last edited:
I went with a feisol CT-3342 which is a nice light and sturdy 3 section tripod. It's supported my RZ67 in all sorts of places with ease and it's lovely and light, even with a big old manfrotto 488RC2 ball head fitted. Compared to my old Cullmann Mod. 2930 it's a huge difference in weight. Feisol make a nice range of drop in accessories for the head too.

 
Quick update: I got the 3-section one. It turned out that the 4-section hadn't arrived and wasn't due until Monday, but I decided to go in with my gear and try out the 3-section anyway. In the end, I think the 3-section was really what I was after and it was more about just checking out the 4-section, but not keen on the latter due to the thinner bottom section (the top section is the same diameter on both). It all seemed pretty good to me. On the flat floor of the shop, extending the legs fully and keeping the column down, the centre of the camera's screen is a smidge higher than my eyeline unless I deliberately stand up straight rather than slouch a bit. I also checked the fit in a Manfrotto 75cm padded bag, and it's perfect. This bag looks to offer better protection than the Calumet ones - it has noticeably better padding. The Calumet bag to fit is also longer at 81cm. I decided to take the 3-section and the Manfrotto bag and asked the nice man how much discount I could get as was ringing it up, and he gave me 10% off the tripod.

The change in weight does make the overall thing more top heavy, which was expected, so I'll probably sort out some cord to carry as a guyline for use in windier conditions. I went out and took a couple of photos after buying it, and the handling and carrying is much better. The twist locks are fine and I found that the legs will slide in/out about half way with an uppy-downy shoogle. I also did the leg flex thing on the Manfrotto 055 (erect it, press down on the head, press against the leg near the bottom lock), and there was more flex than I previously suggested - roughly the same as the new carbon one.

A couple of other things: The column doesn't rotate when you unclamp it. There's a groove that engages with a pin of some sort, so it can only move up and down, meaning I have to use the adjustment on the head to set the gross direction of view (not a problem). There are three grub screws on the underside of the plate for locking the head in place, but they need a hex key rather than a screwdriver.

Overall, I'm happy with this. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top