Short vs standard column for better stability? (1 Viewer)

[Saxatilis]

Hi all,
I have, among others, a solid Berlebach Report 3022 tripod with a Sirui VH-10 head on which I mount my Oberwerk BT-70 angled binoculars (4,3kgs) a combo that satisfies me.
The Berlebach wooden tripod has a rather long, standard 50cm column, which I do not use, because with that binoculars and for my kind of observations I do not need to raise the column and therefore I always keep it retracted.
The image itself is stable thanks to the binoculars' weight but I was thinking of a possible solution as if I could have a model without a column. That’s why I was wondering if changing the provided 50cm column to a shorter 10cm one would have any advantage regarding a gain in additional rigidity.
Thank you for any appreciated suggestion you can give me and happy New Year

 

[Mike Crawley]

I have no empirical evidence for this but in my humble opinion raising any column (50cm or 10cm) will induce some extra instability
Having the column fully retracted will lower the centre of gravity of the whole set-up and reduce instability - as I said IMHuO

edit for spelling

 

[Saxatilis]

I have no empirical evidence for this but in my humble opinion raising any column (50cm or 10cm) will induce some extra instability
Having the column fully retracted will lower the centre of gravity of the whole set-up and reduce instability - as I said IMHuO

edit for spelling

Hi Mike
thank you, I try to explain better: in neither case (50/10cm) I would raise the column of an cm, always keeping it retracted, but I was wondering if a column longer and more exposed - for example - to wind can not induce more vibration than a shorter and almost all inserted in the hub of the tripod

 

[kabsetz]

I think that in practice there will be no observable difference in stability if you keep the column retracted. I can see the theoretical disadvantage of the bottom of the longer column vibrating in wind, but doubt that it would show up under conditions where observing would otherwise be okay. The column does not offer much wind surface compared to the tripod and scope as a whole. The small weight saving you would get with a short column is more of a real advantage.
Having an extendable column, even if you usually don't use it, has its benefits in situations where there is a bird in the sky high above you and you need to get to it quickly.

 

[Mike Crawley]

Hi Mike
thank you, I try to explain better: in neither case (50/10cm) I would raise the column of an cm, always keeping it retracted, but I was wondering if a column longer and more exposed - for example - to wind can not induce more vibration than a shorter and almost all inserted in the hub of the tripod

As kabsetz says, I doubt that there would be any observable difference.

 

[jring]

Hi,

in my opinion the difference between a normal size column down and a shortened one down will be negligible. No column will be better than with any column as a head directly mounted on the tripod will be more stable than a column clamping mechanism.

Joachim

 

[Elkhornsun]

The problem is with the design of the center column mount on tripods. There is no way to have a geared mechanism and a strong lock down of the column. Avoiding a tripod with a center column is the easiest solution. For photography I use a Feisol CT-3472 that can be modified with a center column kit. The difference with the Feisol is that the diameter of the column is nearly double that of geared center columns and it can be tightened to provide a very stable platform. I have used mine extended by 7 inches and supporting a 3 lb gimbal head and 11 lb lens with a 2 lb camera and this was very stable.

Anther problem is with the legs on lightweight tripods in general. With a new tripod I extend the legs all the way and then push down on the top of the tripod and look to see if there is any flexing of the legs. More often than not the legs flex a great deal and I return the tripod.

 

[Hermann]

in my opinion the difference between a normal size column down and a shortened one down will be negligible. No column will be better than with any column as a head directly mounted on the tripod will be more stable than a column clamping mechanism.

I agree. I can't find any difference between a "normal" and a short column. And no column will definitely be more stable. However, how much depends on the clamping mechanism. I find there are differences between different manufacturers. Some tripods become almost unuseable when you extend the column, even if you extend it only by 10-20cm. Others do much better.

I personally find tripods with an extendable column more convenient in the field for the reasons Kimmo gave.

Hermann

 

[Saxatilis]

Thanks to everyone for your opinions. I already have a 36mm-leg carbon tripod with no column (Innorel NT364C, see pic together with my Nikon ED82 spottingscope alongside) but comparing it to the sturdy Berlebach Report 3022, the latter is better in vibration-damping with the Oberwerk BT 70-45 mounted: I use this at a fixed height to look for migrating raptors at great distance; for depth-in observations I switch to the spottingscope. This is why I wondered if I could obtain futher stability with a very short column. But at this point, taking into account the usefulness of a column available for every situation, and the limited or no margins for additional stability, I remain with the current setup.

 

[Elkhornsun]

There are two very different types of center column setups on tripods. The ones that have a rack for a gear to raise and lower them are not going to be stable when clamped. The ones that need to be manually raised and lowered usually have a larger diameter tube and a stronger mechanism to tighten the center column in place.

Many tripods I have bought in recent years had legs that flexed with far less of a load than they were rated to handle, and some have a problem with axial stability as a result of a power spider design where the legs connect. Especially with a large and heavy scope this axial stiffness is important as any amount of wind is going to move the scope.

If one is going to carry a tripod around then the extra weight of optically stabilized binoculars would be of no concern and a definite advantage. Something like the Sig Sauer Oscar8 would merit consideration.

 

[Saxatilis]

Hi all
Here is my current gear in the field for raptor migration counts: the Oberwerk BT 70-45 and the Sirui VH-10 video head with the Berlebach Report 3022 (standard 50cm column) for greater stabilty in a windy location west of Genoa.
Best

 

[wllmspd]

A fellow big bino user, what eyepieces and magnification are you mainly using?

Peter

 

[William Lewis]

I agree with all of the above. It would make a difference in weight but not in stability to have a shorter column providing none are extended.

As you have a berlebach though one thing that might help would be to just change the column out for one of these - Module insert 0 from Berlebach ® Tripods
You would have a weight saving and better stability.

 

[Saxatilis]

A fellow big bino user, what eyepieces and magnification are you mainly using?

Peter

Hi
I use a couple of 20mm Plossl eyepieces giving a 19× magnification for raptor migration counts. They are OK to me.
I also have the 16mms and 12mms but are only occasionally of use and not for this purpose

 

[Tringa45]

As you have a berlebach though one thing that might help would be to just change the column out for one of these - Module insert 0 from Berlebach ® Tripods

Unfortunately that would not work with Saxatilis' 3022 tripod.
Only the latest Berlebach Report tripods with 3-digit numbers allow interchangeable modules.
I have considered getting this Moduleinsatz 9 from Berlebach ® Tripods for my 302. The 40 mm dia. centre column should be very rigid but it would add another 2 kg and costs more than the 302 tripod!
If I need the height and stability (stargazing) I have an old Gitzo Studex.

John

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Hi all
Here is my current gear in the field for raptor migration counts: the Oberwerk BT 70-45 and the Sirui VH-10 video head with the Berlebach Report 3022 (standard 50cm column) for greater stabilty in a windy location west of Genoa.
Best

Awesome!

 

[Elkhornsun]

It depends on the overall design. I avoid racking center columns completely as there is not good way to lock them in place and have them rigid. I have a Feisol tripod that can be used with the Feisol center column kit and it is a solid CF tube that has double the cross section area of geared columns and is incredibly rigid. I have used it with a 11 lb camera and lens setup and there was no movement at all.

For a scope or binoculars, something like the Benro CLT203 for example would be worth a try.

 

[Saxatilis]

Thank you all for the appreciated opinions concerning the short/standard column topic at which I was and am interested. Sincerely, I'm currently okay with my current equipment, as far as tripods and video heads used for the two instruments (spottingscope and angled binoculars). A more than good alternative to the Berlebach Report 3022 would be the fine combo Gitzo G1327 + G2380 head (see my pic in the post #11) that I already use for the Nikon Fieldscope ED 82, but for continuous use with the Oberwerk BT 70-45 binoculars I prefer the Sirui VH-10 head, very smooth and pleasant to use: however both carbon and wood tripod are very steady. I have the opportunity to park the car a few meters from where I place the tripods and the rest of the equipment, so the weight and bulk of the Berlebach are not a problem when I do the raptor migration counts. The carbon tripod Innorel NT364C (without column) that I talked about in post #9 and that I used before with the Oberwerk, I can think of using it for seawatching where the absence of column does not represent a serious limitation with the spottingscope.

 

[chill6x6]

So I've tried a lot of scopes, tripods, and heads over the years and in a lot of different conditions. So I suppose the primary stability questions are static stability and stability in the wind.

The heads I have used exclusively lately are the Gitzo GHF2W, Leofoto BV-5, and the Leofoto BV-10. The two tripods are the Leofoto SO-282C(no center column) and the(2) Gitzo GT-2532(center column). Scopes are a Meopta S2, Kowa TSN-883, and a Kowa TSN-88S going between the tripods/heads.

I like all of these combos.....the Leofoto SO-282c is an unexpected breeze to set up. It's a beefy design and setup adjusting only the three legs is lighting fast. Static stability is excellent. Yes, STATIC stability is excellent. When the wind picks up beyond a breeze, the Gitzo GT-2532 regardless of head or scope will eat the SO-282c's lunch and it's not even close. Of course at first I didn't believe it and tried swapping scopes, taking off scope covers, and moving heads between tripods and the outcome did not change. In fact the Gitzo GT-2532 is amazingly stable on a windy day regardless of head or scope. The reason IMO is 100% wind resistance. The taller, beefier legs of the Leofoto SO-282c are more affected by the wind. The shorter, smaller diameter legs of the GT-2532 even with the center column extended are less affected by the wind.

Conclusion:

I think the quality between the Leofoto and Gitzo tripods are about equal.
I really like the Leofoto BV-10 head. It's a little smoother in operation than the GHF2W IMO. Either are very good heads IMO. I haven't used the BV-5 long enough but I like it as well.

It if's not a breezy/windy day which is sometimes unpredictable, the Leofoto SO-282c gets the nod. It's so much easier to get up and take down. If the possibility of a stiff breeze OR needs to be able to collapse to a smaller package the Gitzo gets the nod.