Best tripod test thus far (1 Viewer)

This is to inform all interested that the indefatigable Dutch birding optics expert Jan Meijerink has posted beautifully conducted tripod and head tests on the Twentse vogelwerkgroep site: http://www.tvwg.nl/ You will find it under "testrapportten," one of the site tabs on the left of the main page.

The test is in Dutch, but he has photographic data on each tripod and head, where you can see the vibrations induced by either a single tap on a mounted scope or a swinging pendulum attached to the scope to test torsional rigidity of the setup. He uses a single light point target placed a distance away, and has digitally photographed this target through the telescope set on a tripod. Several of the relevant Manfrotto, Gitzo and Berlebach models are included, but of course not all the models one might wish to see. An interesting and important part of the test is the timing with a stopwatch of how long it takes for vibrations to dampen after a single impulse. Here, one can see very clearly how aluminum continues to "ring" much longer than carbon fibre or wood. Another thing that interested me was how between the two Manfrotto 128 heads tested, the non-QR long-plate version was significantly more stable than the QR-version which is otherwise identical.

I don't recall any tripod tests from the recent years that would have been conducted with anything like this level of consistency, precision and thoroughness. Take a look and post your impressions.

Kimmo

Thanks for that, Kimmo - very interesting.

Thanks Kimmo. Just working my way now through a Babelfish translation :
"The number of leg segments influences also on firmness. How smaller the number of parts, how stabiler the statief. Moreover a statief with a small number of leg parts has been more rapidly established, which can be important for bird arse." :-O

Edit : Yep looks just like the sort of testing some folks here have been looking for. Great shame the newer Manfrotto heads weren't tested, of course.

Thanks for the link, Kimmo! I find myself in the happy position of already owning the Manfrotto 128 LP and Gitzo 2380 heads, just the one's I would have wanted from reading the test. A few days ago I bought a new Gitzo GT2530 tripod (not the LVL version tested) and have been conducting some much less sophisticated tests for torque and ringing. I've found that vibration and stability are slightly improved by removing the center column and by substituting spiked feet for the rubber ones.

Henry,

As it happens, I have owned the 128LP (and also thought it was better than the QR-version) and now own and use the 2380 on a very old and somewhat modified Manfrotto 028. On most surfaces, having the spikes extended increases stability and shortens vibration times over rubber feet, so they are worth having on any tripod that can take them.

Norm,

I can see why it is called Babelfish. That is sure some fishy babble it churns out. Let me improve on it a bit...

"The firmnes of a tripod is also influenced by the number of leg segments. [all else being equal,] Fewer parts make a more stable tripod. Moreover, a tripod with fewer extensions is quicker to set up, which can be important for bird watchers." Therefore, I would not recommend a tripod with more than three extensions.

Of the two Berlebach models tested, the lighter version has three-part legs while the other model has two-part legs. Unfortunately, the three-part series uses considerably thinner wood, which probably largely accounts for the longer damping times and poorer stability. The most popular model here, used by quite a few birders these days, is the 3042, which is the same as the 3032 tested by Jan except that it adds an extendable centre column and 300g more weight. The centre column is rather thin, so if it is extended it compromises the stability a fair amount. Having a centre column is almost indispensable when viewing migration with a scope, though, because if you suddenly spot something very high, extending the column for a comfortable viewing angle is so much faster and more convenient than adjusting each leg.


I'm glad you are finding the test a good read...

Kimmo

This is fascinating stuff. It's a bit difficult to follow the text with the Babel Fish translation but the photos are very clear.

From the tested models it looks like the Manfrotto 128LP head on a Berlebach tripod say the 3022 (not tested but v.similar) would be the most stable cost effective solution.

Kimmo do the birders using the 3042 then put a head on this tripod or use it with the existing "mounting head with ball/socket"?

I have three scopes that I use for both observation and photography.

I use a Bogen 3246 (AKA 028B) tripod with two configurations.

1. With a Bogen 3421 "Long Lens" fork mount
or
2. with a Bogen 3043 conventional three way head.

Both configurations use a bogen 3273 sliding plate assembly to achieve balance.

The long and short of it.
The fork mount far out performs any other head I've have tried (and I tried many) when it comes to vibration. So much so that I would rather have the fork mount on a mediocre tripod than a conventional head on a good tripod.

In fact I tried that. I put the fork mount on my Bogen 3223 tripod (a much lighter tripod than the 3246) and put the 3043 head on the Bogen 3246 and the fork mounted tripod was still much more vibration free.

So stability is much more than just the tripod.

SF

Dipped,

The tripod is always used with a head. With the Berlebach, the most common solutions used here are the Manfrotto 501 (which, regrettably, Jan did not include in his first test, but hopefully that will come later) and the Gitzo 2380. This is because the well-informed salespeople at the two most popular birding optics stores here recommend stable heads for stable tripods, and perhaps partly because the 128LP is hardly available anymore with everybody wanting the QR-version (before Jan's test, nobody really realized how much more stable the LP is).

The ball joint in the Berlebach is good for levelling the head quickly (without having to fuss with uneven terrain/leg length) and also for tilting the head towards you if you are using the tripod with large binoculars and wish to view very high up. The ball joint of the tripod centre column does not tilt enough to allow viewing at large vertical angles up or down if used without a head.

SoutFork,

I'm sure the fork mount makes a big difference if you have a heavy and long rig where the centre of gravity moves a lot when tilted with a conventional fluid or photo head. However, as Jan's photos of the heads reveal, with a normal and reasonably balanced scope rig the best video heads add very little to the overall instability of the tripod-head combination.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

.....and perhaps partly because the 128LP is hardly available anymore with everybody wanting the QR-version (before Jan's test, nobody really realized how much more stable the LP is).

Click to expand...

I managed to pick up a used, but mechanically good 128LP from a local camera store. Looks a little shabby but at less than 1/2 the cost of new I'm not going to complain too loudly

I'd originally purchased a SLIK 504 QF II video head but found the plastic construction was pretty flimsy and transmitted vibrations to the scope in a breeze. In comparison the 128LP is built like a tank, and I can appreciate why it fared so well in the testing.

The lack of QR doesn't seem to be as much of an issue as it is made out to be, as the Manfrotto mounting screw appears to be extremely well designed. I'm able to scope to mount my scope of the head reasonably quickly, and I can't see this creating a problem in day to day use.

cheers
Paul