• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

stability of carbon tripods? (1 Viewer)

lima

lima

Well-known member
I currently have Kowa TSN-823 angled scope + CP4500 and now need a tripod. I am totally new to scopes and digiscoping. As I live over 200km from the city I can't get to try them out so I'm relying on the net for most of my research. Do the lightweight tripods flex under the weight? Are there any particular features I should be looking for in a tripod besides weight? The 443 gets good reviews but costs $A804 (1.6kg) compared to Pro190NAT at $A306 (2.2Kg). The Pro190 is only 1.7kg so is it important to get a natural green colour? The shop I rang recommended the MF200 head with a load of 4.5kg. Is this OK?
Lima
 
You have to remember that the use of carbon fibre in tripods isn't solely to make them lighter in total weight...what it does allow, as it is so light, is for the wall thickness of the legs to be considerably thicker and thus allow far better vibration dampening.

If money isn't a particular concern, you'd be looking at the Gitzo mountaineer range of carbon tripods, together with one of their Fluide heads.
On a tighter budget you could go for that Manfrotto carbon together with the pro501 head. Substitute the 501 head for the Manfrotto 128rc head to cut the price down further.
Certainly look for a tripod with varying leg angles to allow you to work at very low levels (which most of the good legsets have these days)
Regards,
Andy
 
Hi Lima,

I used the 055NAT / 128RC head with this scope model and found it very stable indeed. The downside is the weight if you intend to carry the set up for longish walking distances.

I like the design of the 501 head but apart from being dearer it's also a good bit heavier than the 128RC.

I moved onto a 443 myself witht he 128RC head and whilst a lot lighter to carry around, it's nothing like as stable as the 055 in windy conditions. In still conditions it's a good as the 055.

To me the main feature of a tripod to look for is stability in all conditions that you may be using it. The colour of the tripod doesn't really matter as for scope use you are usually quite a distance away from the birds. I know guys who actually wrap bright orange fluorescent tape around the legs and it doesn't affect their birding. Still I'm inclined to steer clear of the metallic chrome finishes where sunlight may glint off them and scare the birds.

From my experience other than weight saving I don't think the CF ones have that great an advantage over the metal ones.
 
Thanks Andy and Ian,
In case you didn't realise, it was me who bought your scope Ian. Would hanging a weight overcome the stability problems with the 443? What about the 4-section 444, I read somewhere that 4-section tripods aren't as stable. Am I right to assume you think the 055 is much more stable than the 190? I'll post a thread on the MF 200 head. The guy in the shop says he uses it to photograph motor bike racing and has recommended it. Sorry to ask all these questions but have no one else to ask.
Lima
 
Hi Lima,

I twigged ;) Don't get me wrong, the 443 is a stable enough tripod and I am very happy with it, but my feelings are the 055 is a better scope tripod due to it's weight and solidness. I have seen other people's CF tripods get blown over with scope attached whilst my 055 stayed upright.

Adding a weight certainly helps with stability by reducing the centre of gravity. I'm just not so certain that a CF tripod is worth the added expense unless weight saving is a really big issue as it was for me.

In Summer I used to get away with using a Manfrotto 390, a lightweight tripod - in calm conditions but was no good at all if windy and you had to be wary of vibrations from adjusting focus / camera.

The 190 certainly looks up to the job, but I have no experience of that one myself. A review I came across says -
As the 190 is a small tripod with thinner diameter leg sections, you are not going to want to mount heavy-duty artillery lenses of the super telephoto variety. I don’t own anything larger than an 80-200mm f2.8 lens and this is the comfortable maximum.
Click to expand...

- which would tend to make me discount it for scope use.

Likewise the 4 section CF tripods. I too looked at the 444 and it was nothing like as stable as the 443 even in the shop. I put that down to it having the 4 sections instead of three.

Hopefully someone else will chip in as thre are other brands to consider too - I simply prefer the Manfrotto design.
 
Thanks again Ian,
I think I'll probably go for the 055 and do some weight training to build up the muscles! Don't think I can justify the expense of carbon in view of the above. Also have a big expense, just now, as my dog dislocated his hip (hit by car) and will be having his operation on Monday to wire it in, as it keeps popping out. At least if I narrow it down I can try these tripods out in shop and choose more quickly.
 
lima,

Like Ian, I agree that the 055 tripod is more stable. I wouldn't let the weight difference become an issue unless I were planning to do some major back-country hiking. Even then, I think properly distributing the carry weight would be more important than the the 2.5lb difference between the tripod legs.

I'm not familiar with the MF200 head, but I personally use the 128RC and find that it suits my needs; you just need to dog the thumbscrews down fairly tight.
 
I find my 443 very stable - at least comparable with the 190, which is what I used before (and which is still for sale). It certainly held up to some gusts up Cairngorm.

I also use the 128RC head, but after last weekend in Scotland, I am thinking of changing it - what to, I haven't decided yet. The tightening screws don't seem quite up to the job with the Canon 10D and long lens as they did with a scope.
 
They certainly sound ideal for scope use, though I found it hard to judge tripods just going by the specs. The downside is the price - far more expensive than the 'older' models.

I look on the leveling ball for scope use as a nice addition but not an essential. For video cameras I can see the benefit but scopes you just need to get them about level rather than spot on.
 
Ian,
I thought this was the case because I'd read in some other thread that levels weren't essential but thought I'd check - did you look at the mini gyro - used for astronomical viewing. Guy who suggested it said this was probably because only astro viewers know about them and thought it would be good for digiscoping.
Thanks Ian.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

C
Manfrotto 190GOA4 + 128RC compatibility with Kowa 883, plus backpack/transport question
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Chris C
C
yarrellii
Ultralight tripod/head for a 400 g (14 oz) scope
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
has530
has530
D
Seeking advice on tripod for Kowa TSN99-A
Replies
11
Views
960
Gary5Bellies
G
S
Fast and lightweight tripod + head for ATC
Replies
10
Views
769
Jason Bugay Reyes
Jason Bugay Reyes
S
New tripod and head for Kowa TSN-66A
Replies
9
Views
1K
fazalmajid
fazalmajid

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top