Carbon or Alloy?

E

eeverson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,090
Name
Euge
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I have made the choice to get a new tripod and from what people are saying the Red Snapper one seems to do everything i need it to do. Now the question is, do i pay the extra for the Carbon or go with the Alloy version?

I understand the carbon will absorb vibration better and is lighter than the alloy version. Am i actually going to notice any difference between the two (apart from when i pick them up!)? Does the carbon cope better when its windy because it absorbs the vibrations better?

I mainly use a tripod for a 50/50 mix of landscapes and macro, neither really require me to walk long distances or lug bags of kit about so weight is not an issue.

Cheers
Confused.com
 
I had that problem and decided on the Carbon

reason was mainly due to the weight would save with also carrying heavier lenses around to
 
I've got both and if you ain't walking far and no heavy gear then I would certainly go for a heavier tripod.....much more stable.

If it's windy then a carbon tripod will blow over very easily indeed...and I mean easy. I have to hook my camera bag on mine in anything stronger than a gentle breeze....
 
Alloy all day long for me, and only cos a nice heavy steel one would rust !!!

Last year at Focus I played with 2 Manfrottos - basically the same spec (size, etc.) all that differed was their weight due to materials

The alloy one was 1lb (that's less than 1/2 kg to you youngsters) heavier and £300 less

1lb FFS - if weight matters that much to you have a Senokot the night before and you'll lose more than that down the bog

I can never see a case for light-weight being a good thing for something that's supposed to be sturdy, seems :nuts: to me

My Top-Tip for tripods... keep off the beer & kebabs for a month and put that weight saving towards a proper = heavier tripod; and the £s saved from the beer & kebabs & not buying that Carbon tripod into a new lens, or a weekend away to actually Shoot something !!!

DD
 
mick johnson said:
I've got both...
If it's windy then a carbon tripod will blow over very easily indeed...and I mean easy. I have to hook my camera bag on mine in anything stronger than a gentle breeze....
Click to expand...
Do you have both Red Snapper pods, or both styles by other manufacturers? If the latter, which carbon fibre pod is it? Decent ones (that aren't for a compact camera) won't be blowing over in the wind.
DiddyDave said:
Last year at Focus I played with 2 Manfrottos - basically the same spec (size, etc.) all that differed was their weight due to materials
Click to expand...
The carbon Manfrottos are not only lighter than the alloy models, but are rated to hold more weight.
I can never see a case for light-weight being a good thing for something that's supposed to be sturdy, seems :nuts: to me
Click to expand...
Weight obviously helps stability, but so does rigid material, and it's about getting the balance right. Carbon pods are often lighter, and support more weight, than their alloy equivalent.
 
blinkerz said:
go carbon, a good tripod should be the last one you ever need:)
Click to expand...

Didn't realise you worked for a tripod manufacturer !!! :lol:

And being 'sturdy' has nothing to do with how much a tripod can hold

However, looks like you've made your choice to go Carbon

This argument is a bit like having one on 'designer' goods, yes we all know a Casio for £20 will tell the time, do it's job perfectly well and last years etc. but it's not as 'cool' and thus desirable as a Tag etc. so we waste money on unnecessarily expensive goods; in Photography there aren't as many opportunities to flatter our spending egos as generally the better it is the more you pay, but this breaks down at tripods/monopods where the same manufacturer is offering different (and especially lightweight) materials

Oh well

DD
 
Aly all the way, there is no need to spend so much on a carbon one even if you did loads of walking with it the weight gain that you get is just as if you had a good go on the loo before you went out.
 
DiddyDave said:
Alloy all day long for me, and only cos a nice heavy steel one would rust !!!

Last year at Focus I played with 2 Manfrottos - basically the same spec (size, etc.) all that differed was their weight due to materials

The alloy one was 1lb (that's less than 1/2 kg to you youngsters) heavier and £300 less

1lb FFS - if weight matters that much to you have a Senokot the night before and you'll lose more than that down the bog

I can never see a case for light-weight being a good thing for something that's supposed to be sturdy, seems :nuts: to me

My Top-Tip for tripods... keep off the beer & kebabs for a month and put that weight saving towards a proper = heavier tripod; and the £s saved from the beer & kebabs & not buying that Carbon tripod into a new lens, or a weekend away to actually Shoot something !!!

DD
Click to expand...

LMAO @ DD

For once you make sense AND I agree with what you say...;)

Who is having a bright moment, me or you?:lol:

Back on topic...Go for alloy if you haven't bought the carbon one yet. Price difference... the compound one is simply stupidly expensive and the weight difference is of academic value, ie of no consequence in the real world!

The only difference I could see the compound one making is if you are a U.S. Navy seal living on a house boat in the harbour and you lug your kit with you on your daily 5 mile swim to work.

That way the compound one MIGHT last longer...
 
antonroland said:
LMAO @ DD

For once you make sense AND I agree with what you say...;)

Who is having a bright moment, me or you?:lol:
Click to expand...


:razz::razz::razz:

Well - there has to be a first time for everything

:lol::lol::lol:

DD
 
eeverson said:
Thanks for all the advice... Think its going to be Alloy then. With the money saved i am going to treat myself to a shiny new camera bag :)
Click to expand...

:woot::woot::woot:

Now THAT makes sense

:clap:

Apart from the shiny bit :nono: :D

DD
 
I just like things that are carbon, magnesium or titanium. Just ordered myself up a Manfrotto 190CX3 c/f tri-pod and a Manfrotto 460MG head :D
 
DiddyDave said:
Alloy all day long for me, and only cos a nice heavy steel one would rust !!!

Last year at Focus I played with 2 Manfrottos - basically the same spec (size, etc.) all that differed was their weight due to materials

The alloy one was 1lb (that's less than 1/2 kg to you youngsters) heavier and £300 less

1lb FFS - if weight matters that much to you have a Senokot the night before and you'll lose more than that down the bog

I can never see a case for light-weight being a good thing for something that's supposed to be sturdy, seems :nuts: to me

My Top-Tip for tripods... keep off the beer & kebabs for a month and put that weight saving towards a proper = heavier tripod; and the £s saved from the beer & kebabs & not buying that Carbon tripod into a new lens, or a weekend away to actually Shoot something !!!

DD
Click to expand...


I know it's been quoted already but that really is the most sense I've seen in a single post around here, hell, around anywhere for while. :thumbs::lol:
 
I have a heavy Manfrotto that I would use all the time but I do a fair bit of hill stuff & recently spoiled myself to a Carbon Manfrotto. I like it for its lightness up to a point but I always use my metal one for hide work etc where I do not have to carry it too far. Carbon is also a wee bit warmer to hold onto on cold frosty days! There is however quite a difference in the weight of my two tripods. Good cable release is very handy too.:thumbs:
I should also say that very rarely do I have either tripod extended to full height.
Well if you have trauchled up a hill with all that gear it is nice to sit down to the job!:lol:
 
Carbon pods are better. They're lighter and more sturdy (if you compare equivalent models). Maybe not as good value for money, so if there's something else you could put the money towards, fair enough. But suggesting alloy pods are better is just nonsense.
 
Triggaaar said:
Carbon pods are better. They're lighter and more sturdy (if you compare equivalent models). Maybe not as good value for money, so if there's something else you could put the money towards, fair enough. But suggesting alloy pods are better is just nonsense.
Click to expand...



Must be why my m8 who's a surveyor carries around a nice yellow stick insect of a carbon tripod :thumbs:

Ooh hang on, just realised... that was gonads - his tripod weighs a ton

I know a landscape tog who uses a wooden tripod as he doesn't feel alloy ones are strong/sturdy enough - I'll tell him he's wrong too

And then there was that nice hurricane programme recently where the size 6 model was lifted up into the air and never seen again while her 20st bodyguard looked on aghast

P-taking aside - of course Carbon is rigid, even more rigid perhaps, but when there's that stuff called wind about - weight wins every day. Weight can simply be added too though, an old trick was to carry that netting that oranges came in and fill it with stones to hang off your tripod; others simply hang their camera bags on them

So if weight's good and can be found/added anywhere - what we're left with is paying possibly hundreds of £s more for the 'same' product to save a pound or two in the weight of that product. In a nation of increasingly fat people that 1-2lb savings matters not one iota - and the £200+ saved by buying an alloy one means more burgers, beer & curries (or even more/better lenses too :thinking:)

Some peeps have more money than sense in my book :cuckoo:

DD
 
Now I'm no expert on tripods.......but i do know a fair bit about carbon fibre having worked with it for quite a while;) If you want a fast, strong, lightweight ocean going racing yacht then go with carbon every time:thumbs: Mast for the above?......same rules apply;) If however you are in the market for a strong, sturdy tripod it's alloy all the way!

Mines a Slik master classic D3, it weighs the same as a Range Rover....and it would take one to knock the damn thing over:lol: It would seem that I'm in agreement with DD:eek: I'm off for a lie down........
 
Triggaaar said:
Do you have both Red Snapper pods, or both styles by other manufacturers? If the latter, which carbon fibre pod is it? Decent ones (that aren't for a compact camera) won't be blowing over in the wind.
The carbon Manfrottos are not only lighter than the alloy models, but are rated to hold more weight.
Weight obviously helps stability, but so does rigid material, and it's about getting the balance right. Carbon pods are often lighter, and support more weight, than their alloy equivalent.
Click to expand...

I have got the Manfrotto 441 carbon.

I also have the Manfrotto 055 pro.

Of the two the carbon 'will' easily blow over in a modest wind, the 055 won't.

I usually use the carbon because of it's light weight when walking but it's nowhere near as steady as 'any' heavier tripod.

I have also tried the carbon tripod in hides that I have and found it totally and utterly useless when using a long lens. You can easily test this by setting up both and putting your face to the camera and see which is the most steady.
 
mick johnson said:
I have got the Manfrotto 441 carbon.
I also have the Manfrotto 055 pro.
Click to expand...
The difference between those pods isn't just the material. Manfrotto actually rate your 055 to carry more weight than your 441. But they rate the carbon 055 to carry more than the alloy version.
 
DiddyDave said:
Must be why my m8 who's a surveyor carries around a nice yellow stick insect of a carbon tripod :thumbs:

Ooh hang on, just realised... that was gonads - his tripod weighs a ton
Click to expand...
As a surveyor he takes a lot of photos with 30 seconds exposure does he? And comparing his tripod that weighs a ton to a stick insect carbon pod isn't a great comparison.

I know a landscape tog who uses a wooden tripod as he doesn't feel alloy ones are strong/sturdy enough - I'll tell him he's wrong too
Click to expand...
Why is he wrong? He's telling you alloy tripods are not strong/sturdy enough. He's not said anything about carbon.

when there's that stuff called wind about - weight wins every day
Click to expand...
Yes, weight helps make a tripod stable. As do certain materials.

Here's a quote from Thom Hogan on the subject (you can add him to list of people you're going to correct):
"The old rule of thumb was that your tripod/head needed to be 1.5x (or more) the weight of what was on top of it. These days, new materials and designs let you get down to about 1x--assuming that have a disciplined technique"
So yes, weight helps stability. But so does certain materials, like carbon. And a carbon pod that is a little bit lighter than its alloy brother (same manufacturer) is also a little more stable. That doesn't mean that an ultra light weight travel carbon pod is as stable as a very heavy alloy pod.
 
Triggaaar said:
Here's a quote from Thom Hogan on the subject (you can add him to list of people you're going to correct):
"The old rule of thumb was that your tripod/head needed to be 1.5x (or more) the weight of what was on top of it. These days, new materials and designs let you get down to about 1x--assuming that have a disciplined technique"
So yes, weight helps stability. But so does certain materials, like carbon. And a carbon pod that is a little bit lighter than its alloy brother (same manufacturer) is also a little more stable. That doesn't mean that an ultra light weight travel carbon pod is as stable as a very heavy alloy pod.
Click to expand...

Oh bo***cks, what to do now...

Would anyone want to take some kit off my hands? 1D body or 70-200/2.8 IS...maybe both. That body lens combo weighs more than my (sturdy enough) alloy 055 XPro.

This is a real problem, what body/lens combo will I shoot with now that weighs 1.6 kgs and no more than 2.4 kgs...:help:




:D:D:D
 
As much as a heavy tripod is better when its windy and maybe more stable, i just dont see the point myself carrying all that extra weight for a 'just in case' when most conditions dont call for it. Also if i only had a heavy tripod i would probably hestitate in taking it out most of the time, where as a light tripod is part of my core kit i take, and also better than nothing.
 
Being 55 and weighing in at 15.5 stone weight is no issue for me, I'll carry whatever you throw at me all day long and not mutter a bad word, some of the people on her moan about carrying something which is little more than the weight of a digi slr and a good lens, for me it will always be alloy, I don't abuse my camera's or lenses but my tripod gets a fair bit of abuse, so alloy is better suited for me.

For the jessies there is always carbon or the alternative to stay at home indoors with the heating, slippers and cardigan on:shrug::thumbs:
 
I really hate to try and add more sense to a thread that's had more than it's fair share of the quota but there is no BEST tripod, or best tripod material.

Never has been and there never will be. I have three of the things ranging from an oil rig support down to a light and handy Neotec thingy and they are all equally great or equally useless at some point.

If you only ever shoot one kind of shot in one kind of situation then you could tailor one to your needs almost perfectly. Otherwise it's all about the best compromise between many factors. :)
 
dazzajl said:
I really hate to try and add more sense to a thread that's had more than it's fair share of the quota but there is no BEST tripod, or best tripod material.

Never has been and there never will be. I have three of the things ranging from an oil rig support down to a light and handy Neotec thingy and they are all equally great or equally useless at some point.

If you only ever shoot one kind of shot in one kind of situation then you could tailor one to your needs almost perfectly. Otherwise it's all about the best compromise between many factors. :)
Click to expand...

Now there is even more sense than DD's historic post somewhere^^^;)

I thought I bought my last tripod when I got my 055 XPRO a while back but you soon find that one size does NOT fit all...

Sense also has to kick in somewhere as I could easily spend GBP 100 000 in a matter of minutes and I am positive that I will be wanting something more the next day...:lol:
 
all things considered I would go carbon and add weight as needed in-situ. However, given the price difference I'd stick to alloy and save a bundle to spend elsewhere. So for me DD's argument works. But if I was a really rich git it wouldn't :D
 
antonroland said:
what body/lens combo will I shoot with now that weighs 1.6 kgs and no more than 2.4 kgs...:help:
Click to expand...
Doesn't your 055 weigh 2.4kg? You could start by adding a head to that. Then you can write to Thom Hogan and tell him what you think of his advice.
 
For the record, I agree with DD.

The only time I would buy anything in carbon Fibre, is if its a cf body for my RC helicopter.

The cf is better because its lighter and makes the chopper more nimble in the air. If I wanted my chopper to stay on the ground and be steady as a rock, I would leave the alloy body thats on it !

A cf tripod is, in my opinion, a waste of money and little more than willy waving.

Were all entitled to our own opinions though arn't we ?
 
Triggaaar said:
Doesn't your 055 weigh 2.4kg? You could start by adding a head to that. Then you can write to Thom Hogan and tell him what you think of his advice.
Click to expand...

Nahhh, wouldn't bother, Googled him, he shoots Nikon so that destroys any and all credibility he could have had...:D

Seriously,

Adding the 700 grams which my 322 RC2 is good for is a good way of nearly getting there...now the total weight limit of my camera/lens combo is 3.1 Kgs...but this cuts both ways as the same 700 grams need to be taken off the 7kgs it is supposed to be able to carry according to the good people at Manfrotto.

Know what, these peeps have been building ace tripods and stuff since 1972 so I reckon I will take my chances in believing them over Lord Hogan;)
 
Borats Baby said:
For the record, I agree with DD.


Scary...


Were all entitled to our own opinions though arn't we ?
Click to expand...

So we are...and who is right and who is wrong?

Well everybody is right of course...and nobody is wrong...for their own unique situation...not all decisions have to make sense when measured up against a vanilla ice cream type of boring standard.

For me it came down to price after I considered that (a) the 3 section C/F carries 1kg more - big deal as I will sure as hell NEVER put a 600/4 or summit similar on a 055 tripod - (b) I bought it as a decent general purpose tripod, not as the solution to all photographic needs...see (a)...and (c) yes the C/F is lighter...by 700 grams...another big deal.

I am no Tarzan but I am not the world's biggest wussy either and weight, to me, is always a benefit.

IIRC the C/F was practically double the price (ZAR 2.1K vs ZAR 3.7K or something close to that) and that instantly made me forget the 700gm "weight benefit".
 
Borats Baby said:
Were all entitled to our own opinions though arn't we ?
Click to expand...

Yes, the world would be a boring place if we all agree on things

i am hoping my CF Tripod arrives today. i hadn't thought of the lightness when out in wind etc, its not something i have been out in much of, but a camera bag can hang from the tripod to give the extra weight if needed i am sure.
 
I think this is down to personal choice and what will do the job for you, I have had more than my fair share of tripods doth aly and carbon, my first decent one was a 055pro and it did a prety good job with landscapes as long as the column was right down as I found it crap with the column right up. Then I started to hang a Kirk gimble 1dmk2 and a 300f2.8
I found it very flimsy and now I am using a gitzo 3540LS
**** is lighter and will hold nearly twice the weight and its rock solid so its down to what you need not what its made of.
 
antonroland said:
according to the good people at Manfrotto...
Know what, these peeps have been building ace tripods and stuff since 1972 so I reckon I will take my chances in believing them
Click to expand...
I believe them too. They say that their lighter carbon pods can take more weight than their alloy pods.
For me it came down to price...
IIRC the C/F was practically double the price (ZAR 2.1K vs ZAR 3.7K or something close to that) and that instantly made me forget the 700gm "weight benefit".
Click to expand...
Yes, fair enough. I agree that the alloy pods are better value and they can hold enough weight. I'm just saying that they're not more stable than carbon. And the carbon pods that wobble in the wind are the really light weight explorer models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top