The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Travel tripod for a tech cam

ThdeDude

Well-known member
Connor MacLeod often said "there can be only one". We know that is not true when it comes to tripods
Very true but in the context of the question asked by Massive Si in this thread "a new tripod solely for the purpose of travel (hiking) with ... Cambo WRS & IQ back", the advice asked for is for one tripod.

I assume what is wanted is a tripod high enough for being eye-level. I think the critical question not asked is whether Massive Si is a short, medium, or tall person. This may like nothing else boil down the options.
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I didn't think this was worth its own thread, so I'm posting here. Maybe if someone does a review of the Heipi 3 in 1 ... Anyway..

A Tale of Three Heads

I supported Heipi's kickstarter for a travel tripod because I liked their idea for a "center" column. The vertical extension comes from a second small included tripod - so there are three legs to the extension, rather than a single column. In most other respects, it is very similar to the Peak Design tripod. But the biggest difference, and, I think a major design flaw, is in the included ball head. Here you see, from left to right, the Peak Design, the Heipi, and the RRS B30 (which weighs less than 20 grams more than the Heipi).
B0000960.jpg

The Peak Design has the smallest ball, but locks with the large encircling ring. The result is very secure. The RRS has a slightly bigger ball and a full-size lever for tightening. Very stable. The smaller RRS head has a better stiffness to weight ratio, but I wanted the panning base. I keep it on an RRS 1-series and the result, while heavier and shorter than the Peak Design or Heipi, is very rigid (I could put the center column back in the RRS, and maybe I will. It really isn't tall enough.) The Heipi has a much larger ball, and a similar quick-release mechanism to the Peak Design. But look at that locking lever and screw (front and center). I understand the desire to keep all the hardware within a fixed cylinder, but ... maybe a smaller ball?

What's the problem? you say. If it works, it's big enough. Well, it doesn't work. I can't lock the ball. I think this is a manufacturing defect in my unit, but the threads inside the lever may not go deep enough - the screw is fixed and the lever and collar rotate around it. I've written to Heipi and I'll see what they suggest.

In the meantime, unlike the Peak Design, the Heipi head comes off like any other ball head, and I can replace theirs with the RRS. But what a strange design decision!

Matt
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I put the center column back in the RRS. Here they all are as tripods. The RRS is 61" tall and the Heipi is 59". Not a lot to choose from. From a tripod rigidity standpoint, the Peak Design and Heipi are about even (aside from the Heipi ball head as mentioned above). The RRS is significantly stiffer and only 5 oz heavier (That surprised me. It feels like more.)
Weights as equipped: PD 1340g (3 lbs.), Heipi 1325g (2lbs. 15oz.), RRS 1545g (3lbs. 4.5oz).

Fit and finish? Well, you get what you pay for here. From Heipi->PD->RRS, each step doubles the price. The PD is much smoother in operation, especially opening and closing the leg locks. RRS makes maybe the smoothest tripods on the planet. I use Gitzo for the large ones, but that's me.

B0000964.jpg

As for folded size, we have PD 15.5", Heipi 16.5", RRS 21.5", so big difference there. With ballheads removed, the Heipi and RRS drop to 14.5" and 18.5" respectively.

IMG_8441.jpg

Having said all that, if I needed a small, light tripod, I'd probably take the PD. Needing anything heavier, I'd probably go to the Gitzo 3 or 5. But I'm weird. I have an APS-C system and two MF systems, but no FF. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Matt
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jng

jng

Well-known member
I put the center column back in the RRS. Here they all are as tripods. The RRS is 61" tall and the Heipi is 59". Not a lot to choose from. From a tripod rigidity standpoint, the Peak Design and Heipi are about even (aside from the Heipi ball head as mentioned above). The RRS is significantly stiffer. It's also close to a pound heavier.
Weights as equipped: PD 1340g (3 lbs.), Heipi 1325g (2lbs. 15oz.), RRS 1545g (3lbs. 4.5oz).

Fit and finish? Well, you get what you pay for here. From Heipi->PD->RRS, each step doubles the price. The PD is much smoother in operation, especially opening and closing the leg locks. RRS makes maybe the smoothest tripods on the planet. I use Gitzo for the large ones, but that's me.

View attachment 202920

As for folded size, we have PD 15.5", Heipi 16.5", RRS 21.5", so big difference there. With bullheads removed, the Heipi and RRS drop to 14.5" and 18.5" respectively.

View attachment 202921

Having said all that, if I needed a small, light tripod, I'd probably take the PD. Needing anything heavier, I'd probably go to the Gitzo 3 or 5. But I'm weird. I have an APS-C system and two MF systems, but no FF. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Matt
Thanks, Matt. This is an interesting comparison. I picked up the PD tripod earlier this year. In circumstances where weight and packing size are at a premium, it's a reasonable compromise solution. I do, however, miss the precision of the Cube (out of the question when weight is an issue) or the Arca-Swiss L65 or L75 levelers, so there's some loss of precision in composing. It's certainly not as stable as any of my RRS tripods (1-, 2- and 3-series :rolleyes: ), but gets the job done. Note that for a few dollars you can order a regular base plate for the PD, to which you can mount the RRS or any other ball head.

I like the three-legged design of the Heipi's center column. In theory it would seem that it should be more rigid than conventional center columns - do you find this to be the case?

I recently acquired the Novoflex Triobal, onto which I attached a detachable A/S leveler head (picture below). The Novoflex is nice in that it reaches ~60" w/out using a center column (roughly 10" higher than my 2-series RRS sans center column) and can pack down neatly by unscrewing the legs from the apex for packing. However, the angle of the legs is a bit more acute than with my RRS tripods, so it's a bit less stable than its RRS bigger brothers and easier to knock over. I think it will be fine for the X2D, not so sure about the Cambo but will see how it goes.

John

Triobal-L75.jpg
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Thanks, Matt. This is an interesting comparison. I picked up the PD tripod earlier this year. In circumstances where weight and packing size are at a premium, it's a reasonable compromise solution. I do, however, miss the precision of the Cube (out of the question when weight is an issue) or the Arca-Swiss L65 or L75 levelers, so there's some loss of precision in composing. It's certainly not as stable as any of my RRS tripods (1-, 2- and 3-series :rolleyes: ), but gets the job done. Note that for a few dollars you can order a regular base plate for the PD, to which you can mount the RRS or any other ball head.

I like the three-legged design of the Heipi's center column. In theory it would seem that it should be more rigid than conventional center columns - do you find this to be the case?

I recently acquired the Novoflex Triobal, onto which I attached a detachable A/S leveler head (picture below). The Novoflex is nice in that it reaches ~60" w/out using a center column (roughly 10" higher than my 2-series RRS sans center column) and can pack down neatly by unscrewing the legs from the apex for packing. However, the angle of the legs is a bit more acute than with my RRS tripods, so it's a bit less stable than its RRS bigger brothers and easier to knock over. I think it will be fine for the X2D, not so sure about the Cambo but will see how it goes.

John

View attachment 202924
Leg angle was one of the things that bothered me out of Novoflex tripods, but they *are* ingenious and very well made. As you can see from the pics above, the RRS has a wider angle than the other two tripods. But their 5 section legs are VERY flexible, so I don't know if a wider stance would help (other than knock-over risk). In good conditions, I don't think it matters (I'll do a test with some wind, if I can). These three and Gitzos 3 and 5. I think I'll leave the Ries at home :LOL:

As far as center column goes, the leg flexibility is so great that - other than leverage - I don't think the column design matters. The best thing about the Heipi design is that the center extender comes out and is a tabletop tripod WITH adjustable leg stops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jng

jng

Well-known member
Leg angle was one of the things that bothered me out of Novoflex tripods, but they *are* ingenious and very well made. As you can see from the pics above, the RRS has a wider angle than the other two tripods. But their 5 section legs are VERY flexible, so I don't know if a wider stance would help (other than knock-over risk). In good conditions, I don't think it matters (I'll do a test with some wind, if I can). These three and Gitzos 3 and 5. I think I'll leave the Ries at home :LOL:

As far as center column goes, the leg flexibility is so great that - other than leverage - I don't think the column design matters. The best thing about the Heipi design is that the center extender comes out and is a tabletop tripod WITH adjustable leg stops.
My reluctance to use center columns is diminishing with time (a result of old age and laziness taking over). Both the 1- and 2-series tripods are just too short without them. So, I think my 1-series RRS w/center column may be my go-to for travel w/the Cambo. It's not quite as compact as the Novoflex but fits length-wise in my carry-on rollaboard with the head removed. But I'll give the Novoflex a try, in any case.
 

P. Chong

Well-known member
Thanks, Matt. This is an interesting comparison. I picked up the PD tripod earlier this year. In circumstances where weight and packing size are at a premium, it's a reasonable compromise solution. I do, however, miss the precision of the Cube (out of the question when weight is an issue) or the Arca-Swiss L65 or L75 levelers, so there's some loss of precision in composing. It's certainly not as stable as any of my RRS tripods (1-, 2- and 3-series :rolleyes: ), but gets the job done. Note that for a few dollars you can order a regular base plate for the PD, to which you can mount the RRS or any other ball head.

I like the three-legged design of the Heipi's center column. In theory it would seem that it should be more rigid than conventional center columns - do you find this to be the case?

I recently acquired the Novoflex Triobal, onto which I attached a detachable A/S leveler head (picture below). The Novoflex is nice in that it reaches ~60" w/out using a center column (roughly 10" higher than my 2-series RRS sans center column) and can pack down neatly by unscrewing the legs from the apex for packing. However, the angle of the legs is a bit more acute than with my RRS tripods, so it's a bit less stable than its RRS bigger brothers and easier to knock over. I think it will be fine for the X2D, not so sure about the Cambo but will see how it goes.

John

View attachment 202924
I tried the Novoflex with the TruBalance base, and two Alpa Gon gionometers, and pano top. I find the legs too acute at the smallest position to the extent that it feels unstable with a large camera like the Alpa Plus, especially in the low leg extensions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jng

P. Chong

Well-known member
My reluctance to use center columns is diminishing with time (a result of old age and laziness taking over). Both the 1- and 2-series tripods are just too short without them. So, I think my 1-series RRS w/center column may be my go-to for travel w/the Cambo. It's not quite as compact as the Novoflex but fits length-wise in my carry-on rollaboard with the head removed. But I'll give the Novoflex a try, in any case.
me too! Often I wish my Gitzo 3514 Systematic can be equipped with one.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
In addition to my more standard Feisol Tournament and Manfrotto CX190 tripods, I have the PD Travel Tripod. I use it as delivered a good bit of the time as it is convenient and I'm usually not in need of extensive head features—a simple ball head with an A-S quick release is sufficient. But when I am in need, I fit the alternative head platform, on which I have fitted an Arca-Swiss quick lock head mount, and use my Arca-Swiss Monoball P0+Hybrid head. I've found the PDTT to be stable and quick in use, a good and compact field tripod for the size, weight, and focal length range of the equipment that I use.

G
 

Massive Si

Active member
Very true but in the context of the question asked by Massive Si in this thread "a new tripod solely for the purpose of travel (hiking) with ... Cambo WRS & IQ back", the advice asked for is for one tripod.

I assume what is wanted is a tripod high enough for being eye-level. I think the critical question not asked is whether Massive Si is a short, medium, or tall person. This may like nothing else boil down the options.

Sorry I totally missed this - I am fairly short at 5'6"
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
We had wind today! Steady 15mph with gusts to 35mph. So I trudged out to the reservoir with the three travel tripods above. The problem, as always with the X2D, is checking focus. There's no practical way to guarantee that you nailed it. So I trusted the little green square, as it was always overlapping the edge of a distant building. OTOH, with a 1000x filter needed for 1 or 2 second exposures, AF may struggle. Well, that's what I did. Buildings, as usual, 2 miles away.

Conclusion - the RRS was sharp one out of 4 times. The PD and Heipi were never sharp. This was extended to eye level, which was the criterion mentioned above. I didn't lug the big Gitzos out there, as three travel tripods weigh more than a Gitzo Giant. All images with XCD 135mm + 1.7x. I refocused at least every other shot.

First, the no ND filter crop. f/9.5 1/230 sec


The next three are the best of 8, four 1 second exposures at f/5.6 and four 2 second exposures at f/8 for each tripod.

The Peak Design


The Heipi with my defective ballhead replaced with an Arca Swiss L60 leveler


(There is a *very* slight possibility that I mixed up the PD and Heipi results. I had the impression of more camera movement with the PD. I don't think anyone would be happy with either.)

And the RRS 1


Better, but not great.

Moral, I think, is that if there is wind and you're shooting a long-ish lens, these travel pods will REALLY not do the job. Shooting ultrawide? Probably fine.

If I get motivated to try this again, I'll do all my focusing with the ND filter off. It's just a pain to go back and forth. (Not really, I'm just a bad equipment tester.)

Matt
 

dj may

Well-known member
We had wind today! Steady 15mph with gusts to 35mph. So I trudged out to the reservoir with the three travel tripods above. The problem, as always with the X2D, is checking focus. There's no practical way to guarantee that you nailed it. So I trusted the little green square, as it was always overlapping the edge of a distant building. OTOH, with a 1000x filter needed for 1 or 2 second exposures, AF may struggle. Well, that's what I did. Buildings, as usual, 2 miles away.

Conclusion - the RRS was sharp one out of 4 times. The PD and Heipi were never sharp. This was extended to eye level, which was the criterion mentioned above. I didn't lug the big Gitzos out there, as three travel tripods weigh more than a Gitzo Giant. All images with XCD 135mm + 1.7x. I refocused at least every other shot.

First, the no ND filter crop. f/9.5 1/230 sec


The next three are the best of 8, four 1 second exposures at f/5.6 and four 2 second exposures at f/8 for each tripod.

The Peak Design


The Heipi with my defective ballhead replaced with an Arca Swiss L60 leveler


(There is a *very* slight possibility that I mixed up the PD and Heipi results. I had the impression of more camera movement with the PD. I don't think anyone would be happy with either.)

And the RRS 1


Better, but not great.

Moral, I think, is that if there is wind and you're shooting a long-ish lens, these travel pods will REALLY not do the job. Shooting ultrawide? Probably fine.

If I get motivated to try this again, I'll do all my focusing with the ND filter off. It's just a pain to go back and forth. (Not really, I'm just a bad equipment tester.)

Matt
My travel tripod is a Gitzo Systematic 5 XL; for this reason.😉
 

jng

Well-known member
We had wind today! Steady 15mph with gusts to 35mph. So I trudged out to the reservoir with the three travel tripods above. The problem, as always with the X2D, is checking focus. There's no practical way to guarantee that you nailed it. So I trusted the little green square, as it was always overlapping the edge of a distant building. OTOH, with a 1000x filter needed for 1 or 2 second exposures, AF may struggle. Well, that's what I did. Buildings, as usual, 2 miles away.

Conclusion - the RRS was sharp one out of 4 times. The PD and Heipi were never sharp. This was extended to eye level, which was the criterion mentioned above. I didn't lug the big Gitzos out there, as three travel tripods weigh more than a Gitzo Giant. All images with XCD 135mm + 1.7x. I refocused at least every other shot.

First, the no ND filter crop. f/9.5 1/230 sec


The next three are the best of 8, four 1 second exposures at f/5.6 and four 2 second exposures at f/8 for each tripod.

The Peak Design


The Heipi with my defective ballhead replaced with an Arca Swiss L60 leveler


(There is a *very* slight possibility that I mixed up the PD and Heipi results. I had the impression of more camera movement with the PD. I don't think anyone would be happy with either.)

And the RRS 1


Better, but not great.

Moral, I think, is that if there is wind and you're shooting a long-ish lens, these travel pods will REALLY not do the job. Shooting ultrawide? Probably fine.

If I get motivated to try this again, I'll do all my focusing with the ND filter off. It's just a pain to go back and forth. (Not really, I'm just a bad equipment tester.)

Matt
Thanks, Matt. Your test results confirm what I would have predicted, at least in terms of the relative performance of the PD vs RRS tripods. That said, a 2 second exposure using the 135 + 1.7x TC in gusty conditions is asking a lot.

I don't dare ask whether image stabilization was turned on...

John
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Thanks, Matt. Your test results confirm what I would have predicted, at least in terms of the relative performance of the PD vs RRS tripods. That said, a 2 second exposure using the 135 + 1.7x TC in gusty conditions is asking a lot.

I don't dare ask whether image stabilization was turned on...

John
I actually did have it on for the first 8 pictures. They were a hideous mess and I deleted them and started over with IBIS off.

I wanted a situation where every solution would fail so they could be compared. One could work out what exposures with which focal lengths would be acceptable. Or just follow @dj may's example :LOL: .
 
  • Like
Reactions: jng

Godfrey

Well-known member
Happily, I only rarely use the PD TT for medium format work, and I don't own any long lenses anyway. I also don't extend the column more than the minimum since most of my work with medium format equipment is done using a waist level viewfinder...

G
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
With the same images, let's pretend we were shooting a 24mm lens. Here's what the 100% crops would look like. Strong wind. Travel tripods. 1 or 2 second exposures.

First, what the full image would look like (iPhone FTW) Crops are right of center - about an inch from the fountain.

2023-05-01 11.25.36.jpeg

And now simulated 100% crops from the X2D images

Short exposure (perfect sharpness)
B0000966.jpg

Peak Design
B0000978.jpg

Heipi (the blurriest one above)
B0000992.jpg

And RRS 1

B0000995.jpg

Slight visible differences, but if it gets you a shot that would otherwise be impossible, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯...

Matt
 
Last edited:
I already have a travel tripod (Gitzo 1 Series Mountaineer), ……but for something more robust, I was wondering if anyone has any experience of the RRS 2 Series vs 3 Series? Specifically I am looking at either of the taller RRS models, so the TFC-24L or TFC-34L, both are quite similar weights and extend to similar heights. I’d be using it with a 100mp camera (GFX100S), but it’s not clear how much more stable the 3 Series would be?? Thanks for any insight.
 

dchew

Well-known member
I already have a travel tripod (Gitzo 1 Series Mountaineer), ……but for something more robust, I was wondering if anyone has any experience of the RRS 2 Series vs 3 Series? Specifically I am looking at either of the taller RRS models, so the TFC-24L or TFC-34L, both are quite similar weights and extend to similar heights. I’d be using it with a 100mp camera (GFX100S), but it’s not clear how much more stable the 3 Series would be?? Thanks for any insight.
I have both the 2 and 3 series, but they are the Versa versions before they developed the newer "Ultralight" TFC versions. The TFC 24L / 34L carry weights are: 1674 vs 1882. If I were to do it again, I would just buy the TFC 34L. Like you, I also have a lighter tripod; mine is the RRS Ascend with its built-in head. Assuming you will still use the Gitzo 1 in the future, then I think adding the 34L is a better paring than the Gitzo 1 plus the 24L.

If you only had one, the 24L might be the better choice, but it is only 208 grams less than the 34L.

Dave
 
I have both the 2 and 3 series, but they are the Versa versions before they developed the newer "Ultralight" TFC versions. The TFC 24L / 34L carry weights are: 1674 vs 1882. If I were to do it again, I would just buy the TFC 34L. Like you, I also have a lighter tripod; mine is the RRS Ascend with its built-in head. Assuming you will still use the Gitzo 1 in the future, then I think adding the 34L is a better paring than the Gitzo 1 plus the 24L.

If you only had one, the 24L might be the better choice, but it is only 208 grams less than the 34L.

Dave
Many thanks for your comment, it is very helpful indeed. Yes, my plan is to keep the lightweight and compact Gitzo 1, so I would be pairing it with any RRS tripod that I get. I think I'm angling towards the TFC 34L rather than the 24L, given it's slightly taller .... and height is the main purpose for getting it (so every little might help there) ..... and I guess if fully extended a lot of the time, the thicker 3 Series legs might be advantageous.

I'm thinking of keeping the Gitzo 1 for hiking (together with an Arca P0 head attached, its length fits perfectly into the Gitzo GC1101 padded bag) .....then again, the 1.9kg RRS 3 Series + GFX100S & GF50mm lens would remain a lightweight set-up compared to the 5x4 that I used to haul around, so knowing me, I can imagine carrying the 34L everywhere owing to that rationale of comparative weights of former gear! Apparently one can change the TFC top section to transform it vice versa into a Versa down the road if needed, but the last big tripod I had was a Gitzo Systematic and I think I concluded I'm much more a fan of legs that collapse flat, which a Versa / Systematic obviously doesn't allow.

If anyone knows of a padded bag that nicely fits the RRS TFC 34L, that would be very helpful to know. The Gitzo GFC 3101 (designed for the Gitzo 2 and 3 Mountaineers) is certainly long enough, but does anyone know if the RRS 3 Series legs are comparatively too chunky to fit the width of that bag?
 
Top