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!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

New to MF digital with 100mp camera - benefits of big/heavy tripod, given electronic shutter?

dchew

Well-known member
Hi Jon,
As you point out, there is little difference in the overall size. The published weight is a bit confusing because the 34L says in one place 4.15 lb / 1882gms and in another place 4.56 lbs / 1.79 kg.
4.56 lbs is not 1.79 kg, it it 2.07 as you listed. However, I wonder if the 4.56 is where the error is, since the other three numbers are all close (4.15 lb / 1882 gm / 1.79 kg). That would mean the weight difference between 24L / 34L is even less. If that is correct, I see little point in choosing the 24L over the 34L.

I have both, but in the older Versa design, not the "F" Ultralight design. I have different heads on mine (ArcaSwiss L60 vs Cube), so the 24L package is quite a bit lighter and smaller. But if I only had one, I would choose the 34L.

Dave
 

dchew

Well-known member
Hi Jon,
As you point out, there is little difference in the overall size. The published weight is a bit confusing because the 34L says in one place 4.15 lb / 1882gms and in another place 4.56 lbs / 1.79 kg.
4.56 lbs is not 1.79 kg, it it 2.07 as you listed. However, I wonder if the 4.56 is where the error is, since the other three numbers are all close (4.15 lb / 1882 gm / 1.79 kg). That would mean the weight difference between 24L / 34L is even less. If that is correct, I see little point in choosing the 24L over the 34L.

I have both, but in the older Versa design, not the "F" Ultralight design. I have different heads on mine (ArcaSwiss L60 vs Cube), so the 24L package is quite a bit lighter and smaller. But if I only had one, I would choose the 34L.

Dave
I just checked with RRS. The correct weight for the TFC-34L is indeed what Jon had: 4.56lbs/2.07kg

Dave
 

ThdeDude

Member
Order both and test or use them carefully side-by-side as not to leave any marks. Keep the favored one, and return the other within the return period.

If in doubt, keep the lighter one; we are not getting any younger.

Hope being of assistance.
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I tested the RRS 1-series vs the 2 and found the 2 a surprisingly small increase in stability for (relatively) a lot more weight. Since, as stated somewhere above, my current interests are height moderated by weight (A Gitzo Giant with center column gets to 11 feet or 16 feet with the telescoping column, but weighs more than my pack mule would carry. The RRS 45L is about 7 feet, but weighs 6.8 lbs), I settled on a Gitzo 3543XLS (5 lbs.) with optional center column (1 lb.). This gets to 8 feet and seems to work well for "only" 64MP. Granted, my exposures aren't long and I use a wide angle lens.

An unexpected benefit of a center column is that I can lower it and *just* reach the camera to make changes in its angle and settings, and then hoist it back up. This would not be possible with either the RRS 45L or the Gitzo Giant.

My "ultralight" solution is the RRS 4-series monopod - one leg of the 45L, it seems, which goes to almost 8 feet and weighs only 2 lbs. This is a great compromise, as it avoids tripod sticky foot syndrome and doesn't block traffic.

I am not suggesting that this in any way answer's the OP's question, but these solutions a) surprised me and b) work extremely well.

Matt

PS. Did the Great Tripod Thread vanish?
 
Last edited:
Top