Fast and lightweight tripod + head for ATC (1 Viewer)

[Tracker12]

I stopped in to Scheel's who carry the Tricer.
It seemed like all or nearly all of the display tripods has been put through the wringer by customers.
They had a bunch of other similarly priced models, as well as the Swaro Compact "Kit" (which is marked down in store $500 from list).

The Swaro Compact kit seemed both noticeably sturdier and noticeably heavier.
The Tricer did not have any head on it, so take that into account - I believe the Swaro is about 3.3 lbs to the Tricer's 2.1 lbs - add a head to the Tricer, and its still likely at or less than the Swaro Tripod alone.

The Tricer's smallest leg section was wider than all of the others in its price range; and the widest section seemed wider as well.
Because of this - it seemed to have the least amount of flex.

However... Its standard leg angle (at which it achieves its tallest height) - is narrower than any of the ones I compared it against.
Also, (this may be because it has already taken a lot of abuse), the leg position lock seemed to have a lot of give to it, it didn't seem to lock positively (had a lot of slop), and yet, it also seemed to be surprisingly hard to manipulate and adjust the position. I did a test where I set one leg about 8" longer than the other two, pointed the long leg straight forward, and give a push down on the tripod's center column. Instead of the legs flexing, they just splayed more and the tripod effectively lost a lot of height. Also, the Tricer video describes the twist locks as "quarter turn". The model I examined (both AD and BC) - the locks turned substantially further than that, at full loose - they were more than a full rotation. Would a quarter turn make them go from fully locked to moveable? I guess?

As evidence of the abuse these floor models have taken - even the Swaro Compact wasn't in perfect working order - the smallest leg section pulled straight out / off after I loosened the leg lock and pulled. This was surprising as I expected it to reach some sort of stop. Again, floor models and who knows how abusive customers have been to these. But, when set up to the same height as the Tricer - the Swaro was noticeably stiffer and steadier (and wider). It didn't budge when I did the uneven leg test. And the leg locks were easier to operate and was easy to know when they were in the desired position.

They didn't have a unit in stock - but multiple salesmen at Scheels were singing the praises of the Tricer head. We can take them at their word or take it with a grain of salt - with no unit for me to display, I'm not able to share my thoughts.

One small tripod that seemed to be a bit better quality than the others they had there - was a Leupold Alpine CF-425. It seemed to operate easily and be more stable than the other display models at its price point. It didn't seem to have any parts that were malfunctioning - everything worked. As I can't speak to the age or abuse of one floor model to another - this may or may not be indicative of the relative quality amount the models.

I always ask the salesman if he has extensive use with any item they are pushing. Usually it’s limited to fulling around with it in the store or non at all. The Tricer does seem to have a following within the hunting crowd who are always looking for a mini head that actually works. Im still looking for one of those also. If my Manfrotto 128RC was Arca Swiss I could be happy.

 

[tx2ad]

And gimbal vs video vs ball head: worth the extra weight?
Per

I do not know, going to have a go of it and see what I think. Will report back once I have some field use.

If we take the Swaro CTH + CCT combo as an example. Its 3.3 + 1.3 = 4.6 lbs or 1.5 + .6 = 2.1 kg
The GT1545 is 2.39 lbs / 1.06 kg , looking at various heads:
Slik Gimbal @ 1.8 lbs / 816g
Slik Fluid @ 1.2 lbs / 500g
Gitzo or average Ballhead @ 13.8 oz / 390g

Puts the package between 4.2 lbs / 1.876 kg at high end and 3.265 lbs. / 1.45 kg at the low end.
Any of these setups are essentially lighter than the Swaro Tripod alone.

I considered picking up the Slik Pro CF633, but when I saw the deals, I decided I would try a few things out.
The 633 weighs 2.1 lbs / 950 g - so you can make trade offs in one place for something in another,
I think 3 sections would be nicer to set up and take down than 4, I expect the Gitzo to be more stable.
The weight difference doesn’t seem wll that great, though I expect the slik to have taken less packed volume.
Also, the Slik doesn’t use inverted folding stored legs - so I could end up wishing I had got the slik.

If I like the Gimbal performance but want less weight, the RRS PG-01 is only 1.1 lbs / 490 g.

Have seen lots of comments from people that gave up on ball heads. I am curious to know if any of them ever used it in gimbal mode, if the tripod is stable enough, that seems like its the simplest way to go. I don’t have much experience with the technique, can’t say how well various models perform that way.

For a truly lightweight head - Wiser Precision has a very well reviewed pan head that weighs a total of 6.0 oz / 170 g, including the carbon fiber handle. Site says they have recently sold out their current inventory.

 

[Hermann]

And gimbal vs video vs ball head: worth the extra weight?

Gimbal: Overkill, plus gimbals don't work so well with scopes. Good ones are also heavy. Not worth it.
Video head: Still the gold standard when it comes to use with scopes. Choose one that fits your scope.
Ball head: May be quite useful as a lightweight alternative to a decent video head. Light scopes only. Good light heads aren't cheap (RRS, Markins and so on).

Hermann

 

[tx2ad]

Gimbal: Overkill, plus gimbals don't work so well with scopes. Good ones are also heavy. Not worth it.
Video head: Still the gold standard when it comes to use with scopes. Choose one that fits your scope.
Ball head: May be quite useful as a lightweight alternative to a decent video head. Light scopes only. Good light heads aren't cheap (RRS, Markins and so on).

Hermann

There is another well known member on the forum who has said in several posts they believe a gimbal is very good with a scope. I have not tried it myself, but I suspect that a straight scope and a side mount gimbal might be a great pairing. Some people like tomatoes,I do not. Now, maybe a gimbal is generally heavy and on the large side, so it might not be a great idea for fast and light setup. But if weight and size were not the primary concern, they might be good. Swaro only sells two heads that I know of, and one of them is a gimbal.

 

[4John]

There is another well known member on the forum who has said in several posts they believe a gimbal is very good with a scope. I have not tried it myself, but I suspect that a straight scope and a side mount gimbal might be a great pairing. Some people like tomatoes,I do not. Now, maybe a gimbal is generally heavy and on the large side, so it might not be a great idea for fast and light setup. But if weight and size were not the primary concern, they might be good. Swaro only sells two heads that I know of, and one of them is a gimbal.

What advantage does a gimbal have over a video head ?

A video head provides fluid damping/friction for panning and tilting, and the pan and/or tilt can be locked. Does a gimbal have the same facilities ?

 

[tx2ad]

What advantage does a gimbal have over a video head ?

A video head provides fluid damping/friction for panning and tilting, and the pan and/or tilt can be locked. Does a gimbal have the same facilities ?

A gimbal can be fluid damped, but it doesn’t need to be. It has both pan and tilt lock, but its designed to keep the optic pointed where you left it without need of locking it. With the typical dual arm setup, the heavy optic can never tip over, it woks like a swing and the optic at worst just sits at the bottom - a fluid head not locked or properly tensioned or set up and the optic tips over. Fluid heads are intended for video and many want to try to return to center - something I do not want on my scope. No gimbals do that - they stay pointed where you point them.

If anyone wants to use their equipment for astro viewing, a side mount gimbal works very well on a telescope as well. I have never seen a video head and a telescope used together.

There are two kinds of gimbals - the active and very complicated video ones, and the simple photo/optic ones. I am specifically referencing the simple ones here. The typical one I think most people know looks like a U inside of a Y. The U and Y are connected at the top of their arems, and the optic sits at the bottom the U. In practice, most gimbals sold look like half of that - because of the weight saving without any performance penalty. Oddly, a gimbal can work almost exactly equally as well without the balance arm where you mount the optic directly to the pivot point - I see this generally referred to as a side mount gimbal. This may be the most common type people have seen as it is often used with telescopes and really huge camera lenses at sporting events or wildlife photography. Neither of those use cases are using video heads - they mount their massive and expensive glass to a gimbal.