Tripod leg shape - how important is it?

I'm thinking of buying one of those old style Velbon tripods, they are very cheap, and they look strudy and stable. My major concern is related to the leg design, they all have rectangular leg design. Is there any major disadvantage of that design over newer tubular leg design?

Thanks.

I wouldn't think so.

Jeff

The material is probably more important. Wood tends to dampen vibration and aluminum can be quite lively.
I haven't made a formal test, but it seems like I get sharper negatives with the camera parked on my wooden tripod vs my compact metal one.

On friends advice, i bought my first serious tripod and got a carbon Sirui. The value for the price is excellent and fully extended, I finally have my speed graphic ground glass right in front of my eyes. Took it on a walk today and it was really efficient and comfortable.

bdial said:

The material is probably more important. Wood tends to dampen vibration and aluminum can be quite lively.
I haven't made a formal test, but it seems like I get sharper negatives with the camera parked on my wooden tripod vs my compact metal one.

Click to expand...

There's definitely something to be said for the mass of the tripod itself, more mass means more inertia and less vibrations (especially in wind), something the newer CF/Al aren't as good at as the old iron / steel / wood / concrete tripods (Heinz Kilfitt famously embedded a tripod head in concrete in his basement for lens testing).

My nice Carbon Fibre Vanguard is very light, but they included a little canvas triangle/bag to hang on the legs and put rocks in, to increase the mass/inertia, lower the centre of gravity, and reduce vibrations. Best of both worlds that way (as long as camera + rocks doesn't weigh too much). Anyone can always stitch up a little bag themselves, it looks like this.

ps, as for the shape, I don't think it makes any meaningful difference past the Marketing Department. Circular legs can rotate, although not all (mine don't). The rest of the shapes don't. It'd be more of a weight thing, as in a stronger shape helps reduce weight, not a stronger shape for the same weight is stronger.

Actually, I think shape does matter. Round is inherently stronger than most other shapes. Of course, that's with all other things equal. And whether is a practical matter for a tripod, I don't know.

mgb74 said:

Actually, I think shape does matter. Round is inherently stronger than most other shapes. Of course, that's with all other things equal. And whether is a practical matter for a tripod, I don't know.

Click to expand...

+1

Strongest shape, for a given weight!

And anyone who has spent extra for a lighter tripod may appreciate this.

Some of the old tripods with spidery wooden legs were stable, partly due to the widely spaced attachment points to the tripod head.

Boris, there's a law of nature to the effect that all cheap tripods are, well, cheap. Flimsy. Unstable. It goes with the price.

How much money are you thinking of spending, how much can you afford to waste, and what (camera, longest lens) do you want to put on top of your tripod?

My first tripod was a Quickset Hobby. Cheap thing, not bad at all. I replaced it after it disappeared in transit.

I now have some decent, they say, metal tripods in the closet and a couple of wooden ones that I use. An all-metal Star-D imitation Tiltall that I retired when I needed a fluid head. I replaced it with a Bogen/Manfrotto 3221/055, retired after serious testing found that it was the reason I had difficulty getting really sharp shots with a Nikon hung on a 700 mm lens. The tripod's big weakness turned out to be torsional vibration. The platform vibrated in rotation if the legs were extended because the bearing sections between the legs were short and allowed the sections to move a little relative to each other even with the clamps as tight as possible.

All three of metal tripods I've had had tubular (circular cross-section) legs. I don't see why they should be less troublesome than tripods with square section legs.

I replaced the Bogen/Manfrotto with a Berlebach 8023 (wooden) that I got on sale. It has much much longer bearing surfaces between the leg sections than any of my metal tripods and is much stiffer in torsion. Its big weakness is the center post. Even clamped down as firmly as possible, it can rock a little relative to the platform. This is a problem only with my longest lens, a 900.

I still use the Berlebach, also use an ancient Ries Model C (wooden). The Berlebach is a good tripod, center post blues notwithstanding, and is much easier to set up. The Ries has no center post and so far I've had no problems at all with it. Setting its platform's height and leg spread isn't as easy as I'd like.

silveror0 said:

Agree that the mass is important regarding vibration. But rather than hauling a bunch of rocks around in case there are none conveniently lying around at the site when they're needed, a better solution would be to have a center column with a hook on its bottom

Click to expand...

Well, they don't have to be rocks, I've put my 1L (1kg) water bottle in it, spare lenses or filmholders, even a wallet full of coins to add a bit more weight when there's nothing else around.

My Alta Pro 283CT also has the hook at the bottom, but I've not used it much (and that's harder to retrofit yourself, anyone can add a rock-bag). Whenever I did use the column-hook, I tried just hanging a bag from it which just induced swaying and made it worse in the wind. The foot-hook sounds like a good idea, but how about instead of having a fixed-length, maybe something like rubber resistance-bands? (ask your local gym fitness shop)

Boris011 said:

I'm thinking of buying one of those old style Velbon tripods, they are very cheap, and they look strudy and stable. My major concern is related to the leg design, they all have rectangular leg design. Is there any major disadvantage of that design over newer tubular leg design?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Hi there,

Whilst high quality solidly built tripods provide a very secure base for your camera they can be damned heavy - especially of you are al;so carrying round a large format camera. However, you do not necessarily need a ten ton tripod to get good results. In fact most reasonably made tripods can be made to be very rigid - including fairly light weight ones (like the old Velbons that you mentioned). The trick is to introduce some tension in the legs so that there is no room for vibration or movement. The simplest way of doing this is to take some nylon cord and attach in the following manner:

1. Set the tripod up with the legs fully extended and fully apart.
2. Just above the first release section (i.e the locking lever/ring/etc that releases the lowest section of the tripod leg) tie the nylon cord to the first leg, then stretch it taught and wrap around the second leg, then stretch it taught and wrap around the third leg and then repeat by stretching it taught and fixing firmly to the first leg.
3. Take another bit of cord and attach it to the same point on the first leg, then attach it to the second leg leaving enough slack cord so that it almost reaches the ground.
4. Repeat for leg three and the return to leg one.
5. You now have three cords hanging down nearly touching the ground.
6. Use another piece of cord to join the three loose pieces of cord that are hanging down just above the ground.

In use, you set up the tripod and when ready to take the shot, you tread on the three cords that have been joined together until they touch the ground. This makes for an incredibly stable platform. I have used this system for many years including photographing the North Devon coast in raging gales with 5" x 4" and 6cm x 6cm (with mirror locked up). All the results were sharp and shake/vibration free.

On my website there are six night images (2 - 4 minutes exposure) all using this technique on a small lightweight tripod.

Best,

David
www.dsallen.de

There's another thing not neglect : the ball head. I bought one that I thought would be strong enough for a press camera + aero extra lense : I am going to need to find a bigger one with a firmer grip! This is something that could easily be oversized and I should have gone with the bigger model that was 30€ more.
I found out yesterday the hard way that an undersized tripod head will just not keep your camera steady and firm. I tried tightening the main screw with excessive force and did not like the sound I heard...