Novoflex TrioPod Modular Tripod System (1 Viewer)

Some months ago I purchased a Novoflex TrioPod as a lighter alternative to my Sirui M-3204. I was also attracted by Novoflex' standard of manufacturing, which in my opinion is unequalled in this sector.

Heart of the tripod is the TrioPod base, actually the apex, which has three leg stubs adjustable to 20°, 40°, 60° and 87° and is a mere 60 mm in diameter. There is no room for a centre column and when the (28 mm) legs are folded, their neoprene sleeves make contact with one another, making the TrioPod very slim.

A variety of 3, 4 or 5-section tripod legs in either aluminium or carbon fibre are available and all parts can be purchased separately. The legs are screwed into the TrioPod base and the attachment is very rigid. I decided on the 160 cm 3-section carbon fibre legs, which have diameters of 28 mm, 25 mm and 22 mm and result in a total weight of 1450 g. With these the TrioPod extends to a height of 151 cm, so it would even be suitable for straight scope users up to a height of about 180 cm.

I bought the TrioPod as a kit, if only for the included carrying bag, whose quality is not on a par with that of the tripod and looks as if it were designed to accommodate the much bigger TrioPod PRO75, but it is serviceable and long enough to take the TrioPod plus head (in my case a Berlebach 510, reported on in another thread). Also included were three 20 cm solid aluminium legs for use as a table-top tripod and an adapter, which allows use of one of the legs as a monopod. Personally, I would need the 50 cm extension for this but am well satisfied with my Manfrotto 685B.

The TrioPod base has a 1/4" screw, which I replaced with the 1/4" to 3/8" stud provided. The legs have long threaded stainless steel spikes with removable rubber caps, which sit very firmly. This is IMO a better solution than the screw-out spikes on my Sirui, as the feet will clog up in the field if the spikes are not extended.

Like the Sirui the leg angle is a nominal 20° but at the same height the TrioPod has a smaller footprint and I would have preferred a little more. However, at heights around 135 cm I can detect no significant difference in stability between the two; both have 22 mm bottom leg sections.

I carry my scope and tripod horizontally in one hand in the field and the TrioPod is more comfortable than the Sirui (with Berlebach 552), not only because of the total weight saving of about 450 g, but because the centre of gravity, even with the big Kowa, falls within the neoprene sleeve. The centre column and its twist lock on the Sirui places the scope higher up and that places my hand up against the spider.

Criticisms? Yes, apart from the the unworthy carrying bag, there are six 3 mm wide concentric markers at 7 cm intervals on the middle tube sections! These can just be felt and I suspect that a layer or two of carbon fibre has been sacrificed to incorporate these. While I don't think they impair the rigidity to any significant extent, it does seem silly. It is always advisable to collapse the bottom leg sections to achieve the desired height and I contacted Novoflex on this pointing out that the 25 mm middle sections should be about 50% stiffer than the 22 mm bottom sections. They agreed but thought many photographers wanted the convenience of achieving a reproducible height via the middle sections. One can mark one's own personal height with a soft pencil.

The TrioPod is not cheap but through sacrificing the centre column should provide similar performance to a Series 2 Gitzo Mountaineer at lower cost and weight. The quality is IMO unmatched and the modularity facilitates changes or repairs.

John

Nice review John. Thanks for sharing that information. Interesting about the default leg angles. 20° seems a bit narrow, since I've read 'concerned' comments from other folks when other manufacturer's angles are creeping lower, sometimes than what they are spec'ced at: 22, 23. But if you feel confident with the scope on top, then I guess its ok. In terms of steadiness, is it better than what you were using, or relatively the same, but much lighter in weight?

I also have a question about the Berlebach 510. I watched a video of it being demonstrated (in german), and noticed the mount was oriented 90° opposite from how a scope might mount (side to side, instead of front to back) Is there a provision for rotating the clamp 90°?

-Bill

Nice review. Thank you. I’d not been aware of Novoflex until now. They look very good.

Bill & Boogieshrew,

Many thanks for the positive feedback.
If my indoor laser rangefinder can be trusted, the default leg angles are 23° for the Novoflex, 24° for the Sirui M-3204 (also specified as 20°) and 26° for an older basalt fibre Gitzo Series 2.
I don't use my tripods indoors but the (age-hardened?) rubber feet of the Gitzo slip on a smooth floor. The leg angle might be partly responsible, but also the flexibility of the basalt fibre tubes.

At heights around 130 cm I can't really detect any difference in stability between the Novoflex and the Sirui. At 150 cm (only of interest for straight scope users) the 4-section Sirui might have the edge, if only because its 22 mm bottom leg sections would not have to be extended as much.

The Arca-Swiss clamp on the Berlebach 510 can indeed be rotated 90°, I suppose so that photographers could change to vertical format. In my comparison with the 552 I missed the counterbalance of the latter, but the single clamp for altitude/azimuth is a useful feature and with the big Kowa at a steep inclination there is no creep. In retrospect, perhaps I should have considered the Berlebach 520/130. It perhaps lacks the CNC precision of the 510 and 553 but is considerably cheaper, is lighter, has a counterbalance spring, a larger Arca clamp and a QR plate is included.

John

Although this is an old thread I'd like to add that the Novoflex TrioPod pairs nicely with the Gitzo GHF2W fluid head that shares the same 60mm diameter. (BTW the head knobs and tripod legs shown here are covered with nonslip shrink tube and hence look different to the standard finish.)

Hi Forent,

A couple of questions:
What is the cable in the 3/8" hole of the TrioPod base, and does one of the holes in the Swaro Arca foot align with the pin on the GHF2W for safety retention if the clamp gets inadvertantly loosened?

John

Tringa45 said:

Hi Forent,

A couple of questions:
What is the cable in the 3/8" hole of the TrioPod base, and does one of the holes in the Swaro Arca foot align with the pin on the GHF2W for safety retention if the clamp gets inadvertantly loosened?

John

Click to expand...

Hi John,

that's not a cable but a thin, very strong nylon rope sold as a kite flying accessory. I ran the rope through the 3/8" hole at the side and the center hole at the bottom of the TrioPod shoulder (and hid the knot inside) to obtain an attachment point for a stabilising weight.

And yes, the hole in the Swaro foot fits the safety pin of the GHF2W just fine. (Well, it should! After all, the Swarovski CTH compact tripod head is essentially a re-badged Gitzo GHF2W.)

For more details please see the following thread from post #29 onwards: Swaro DH101 or Gitzo GHF2W

Thanks, Forent.

John

@ Tringa45: I have been looking at the TrioBalance with 3 segment carbon legs. Going by your own experience with the TrioPod, how would you say the TrioBalance compares to the Berlebach UNI 16C as far as stiffness and vibration handling goes?

Ignatius said:

@ Tringa45: I have been looking at the TrioBalance with 3 segment carbon legs. Going by your own experience with the TrioPod, how would you say the TrioBalance compares to the Berlebach UNI 16C as far as stiffness and vibration handling goes?

Click to expand...

Hi Ignatius,
I bought the Novoflex TrioPod because I considered it to be about the lightest (1400 g) tripod stable enough for use with my Kowa 883 in relatively calm conditions.
In windy conditions my old 4 kg Gitzo Studex is better and I would expect a Berlebach UNI 16C to be considerably better than both as regards vibration damping.
I wouldn't want to carry it far though!
Btw, if this is for use with the BTX, why would you want a levelling head?

John

Tringa45 said:

...
Btw, if this is for use with the BTX, why would you want a levelling head?

John

Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer. It was very helpful.

Question: why wouldn't I want a leveling base? A head like the Berlebach 553 only moves in two planes. I quite like it when the horizontal is actually horizontal and not at an angle. It makes sweeping from one point of interest to another ever so much more convenient.

Ignatius said:

@ Tringa45: I have been looking at the TrioBalance with 3 segment carbon legs. Going by your own experience with the TrioPod, how would you say the TrioBalance compares to the Berlebach UNI 16C as far as stiffness and vibration handling goes?

Click to expand...

Although I am not Tringa45 I dare to answer anyway: I owned the TrioPod with the 2830 aluminum legs. These are slightly heavier than their carbon counterparts but surprisingly at least equivalent concerning stiffness and vibration. It's a really nice tripod but in windy conditions equipped with a large scope IMHO barely up to the task when fully extended. I would rank it slightly weaker than a Gitzo systematic 2 series while a Berlebach UNI 16 easily outperforms a Gitzo 5 series - at the expense of weight...

The German-made TrioPod and TrioBalance shoulders are beautiful pieces of art and ingenious engineering but the legs, unfortunately, are not. In fact, they are East Asian bought-in parts that limit the capability of the whole setup. Admittedly, I doubt that Novoflex had serious long lens or scope users in mind when they designed their TrioPod line. In the end, it is a tripod with 28 mm legs and that is marginal for my personal needs (YMMV!). For anything else, the extremely versatile TrioPod system is just great. And if you like the idea but want something more substantial maybe the big Novoflex Triopod PRO75 might be just right.

Ignatius said:

Thank you for your answer. It was very helpful.

Question: why wouldn't I want a leveling base? A head like the Berlebach 553 only moves in two planes. I quite like it when the horizontal is actually horizontal and not at an angle. It makes sweeping from one point of interest to another ever so much more convenient.

Click to expand...

Same with me. Therefore I use the FlexShooter Mini on my Leofoto LS-364C tripod (that replaced the TrioPod). A small, light, sturdy and darn expensive all-round kind of a ball head with built-in leveling base and two-way feature.

forent said:

Although I am not Tringa45 I dare to answer anyway: I owned the TrioPod with the 2830 aluminum legs. These are slightly heavier than their carbon counterparts but surprisingly at least equivalent concerning stiffness and vibration. It's a really nice tripod but in windy conditions equipped with a large scope IMHO barely up to the task when fully extended. I would rank it slightly weaker than a Gitzo systematic 2 series while a Berlebach UNI 16 easily outperforms a Gitzo 5 series - at the expense of weight...

The German-made TrioPod and TrioBalance shoulders are beautiful pieces of art and ingenious engineering but the legs, unfortunately, are not. In fact, they are East Asian bought-in parts that limit the capability of the whole setup. Admittedly, I doubt that Novoflex had serious long lens or scope users in mind when they designed their TrioPod line. In the end, it is a tripod with 28 mm legs and that is marginal for my personal needs (YMMV!). For anything else, the extremely versatile TrioPod system is just great. And if you like the idea but want something more substantial maybe the big Novoflex Triopod PRO75 might be just right.


Same with me. Therefore I use the FlexShooter Mini on my Leofoto LS-364C tripod (that replaced the TrioPod). A small, light, sturdy and darn expensive all-round kind of a ball head with built-in leveling base and two-way feature.

Click to expand...

I will leave the tripod question on the back burner for a while because I would rather start off with my old Gitzo and a better head. Which is where your answer comes in. I have never heard of the Flexshooter. Investigated it online and it now looks as though i am torn between the Berlebach 553, the FlexShooter and the Novoflex CB 5II-TQB. Once that is decided, I can still get a Berlebach tripod if the fancy or need grabs me. Thanks for the heads-up regarding the Triopod Pro75.

Ignatius said:

(...) I have never heard of the Flexshooter. Investigated it online and it now looks as though i am torn between the Berlebach 553, the FlexShooter and the Novoflex CB 5II-TQB. (...)

Click to expand...

Very different concepts. Two remarks:

1. The regular FlexShooter Pro is still light and compact but unfortunately the built-in balance "spring" (a plastic buffer actually) is suited to heavy supertele lenses like 2.8/400 and 4/600 but too strong for even a large scope. Hence, the Mini is the only option in the FlexShooter lineup. But I wouldn't pair this little head with a big series 5 Gitzo, not to mention a Berlebach UNI.
2. If you are interested in a Novoflex CB 5II-TQB, you should by all means also consider a Markins BVQ22K or BVQ22L. Markins invented this concept and their ballheads are second to none.

If you want that head for a scope, I would definitely get a video head. Everything else doesn't work as well. Stay away from ballheads!

Hermann

Ignatius said:

Question: why wouldn't I want a leveling base? A head like the Berlebach 553 only moves in two planes. I quite like it when the horizontal is actually horizontal and not at an angle. It makes sweeping from one point of interest to another ever so much more convenient.

Click to expand...

I can understand that it's more important to get the BTX level than with a monocular scope, but on uneven ground it's usually enough to extend or retract one tripod leg. A levelling base is really only a requirement for panorama photography or a video camera and is additional weight and cost and just another unnecessary interface.
I don't think the Novoflex CB5-Tilt is a good idea either. It is more of an aid for panorama photography, has limited tilt and no counterbalance.
Most amateur astronomers with heavy binocular telescopes seem to favour large professional video heads on a tripod with geared centre column, but for the BTX85 I'm sure a Berlebach 553 would be more than adequate. I have its predecessor, the 552 on my old Studex.

John

forent said:

If you are interested in a Novoflex CB 5II-TQB, you should by all means also consider a Markins BVQ22K or BVQ22L. Markins invented this concept and their ballheads are second to none.

Click to expand...

I agree with Hermann that ballheads are suboptimal for scope use but think that FLM's method of locking out lateral tilt on their ballheads is simpler and would also allow 90° vertical tilt, a consideration if one takes an occasional look at the night sky.

John

Tringa45 said:

I agree with Hermann that ballheads are suboptimal for scope use but think that FLM's method of locking out lateral tilt on their ballheads is simpler and would also allow 90° vertical tilt, a consideration if one takes an occasional look at the night sky.

John

Click to expand...

I agree in general but many people like me can get along with a compromise.
However, I would not recommend the FLM ballheads for regular use of the pan/tilt function: I owned the FLM CB-43FT and the simple rubber ring screwed against the side of the ball did not prevent slipping. The ballhead itself is top notch but the 2-way option really is only an emergency solution. (In contrast to the FlexShooter: true pan/tilt function with counterbalance and adjustable friction.)
Just as you said: fine for "an occasional look". Admittedly, the optimum solution still is a 2-way fluid head.

BTW and back to topic: The FLM Centerball CB-43FT with its 60mm base fits the Novoflex TrioPod seamlessly.