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!
The great tripod & head thread!
- Thread starter danlindberg
- Start date
weldonbrewster
Member
I know this is the "tri"pod thread but has anyone used the RRS QVC44 Quadpod? I'd never heard of such a thing. https://reallyrightstuff.com/qvc-44-quadpod/
rdeloe
Well-known member
Never! It's against nature.
Hah. I'd welcome the additional stability but imagine this would be offset by the extra leg for me to trip over. Also according to their specs the darned thing weighs in at 8.19 lb / 3.72 kg so I'd need to hire a porter (or acquire a son in law) to haul this thing around in the field!
John
Doppler9000
Well-known member
The beauty of the tripod is that three points define a plane. Three-legged stools can’t wobble, four-legged stools can.
I believe that from a stiffness to total mass perspective, three fatter tubes are going to be stiffer than four thinner tubes, since stiffness increases at ~ the cube of diameter while mass increases at a linear rate.
From my perspective, the extra leg hurts more than it helps.
drunkenspyder
Well-known member
In their description, they make a good point about the advantages of 4 legs when it comes to being less tip-prone. I could see in the right use case where this could be useful and not inherently inferior to a tripod.
Doppler9000
Well-known member
There are, no doubt, cases where the quadpod or tetrapod beats a tripod. There are no free lunches, however, so each person has to weigh the tradeoffs.
wallpaperviking
Active member
Thanks for this, this might be perfect for me. Would this support a GFX 100S and 110mm and a light weight panoramic head? Roughly 2.5kgs at a guess. Thanks so much!A Compact Ultralight Tripod and Head Setup at Workable Height under $150: Marsace XT-26S + Highlights S2QX
I am always on the lookout for a functional, lightweight, and compact setup, especially when it comes to a support system. Zodiacphoto has conducted a thorough three-way comparison between the Heipi, Benro Cyanbird, and Peak Design—definitely worth checking out. After exploring numerous options, I'm eager to share what I believe could be a fantastic find.
Let's dive into a quick overview of the specs. The Marsace XT-26S boasts an eccentric tube design, ditching traditional leg locks for friction locks, significantly reducing its weight. Weighing in at a mere 21.2 oz (600 grams) without the head, it's truly a featherweight. In comparison, the Benro Cyanbird is around 742 grams, Heipi 1070 grams, and Peak Design 1196 grams—all with center columns.
Notably, the Marsace is the only eccentric tube design with 28mm top tubes (likely resulting in a more rigid tripod) and a compact, column-less apex. The Heipi has a 26mm top tube and a larger folded girth than the Marsace. Achieving a compact folded length of 13.7” (347mm), it requires 6 sections; Heipi, Peak Design, and Benro have 5 sections each, but the Marsace's last section has the same diameter as the Heipi’s. A comparison shot next to my Gitzo, RRS, and FLM drives the point home.
Another notable feature is the 24-degree primary leg angle, compared to the 22-degree of the Benro and Heipi and 23-degree of the Peak Design. For an ultralight tripod, every stiffness advantage counts. For the max height without raising the center column, the Marsace matches the Peak Design, with a height taller than both the Benro and Heipi.
Now, onto the Highlights S2QX, the lightest ball head with a 20mm ball size that I could find, weighing in at a mere 2.8 oz. (80 grams). Other mini ball heads I came across, like the RRS BPC-16 and Leofoto MBC-20, have similar or smaller ball sizes but significantly higher weights. The Highlights head features a panning base sharing the same lock with the main ball and a functional Arca Clamp. Despite my attempt, I couldn't manage a reverse mount.
In the field, the eccentric tube design took a bit to get used to, but I quickly adapted. The key is using the right amount of force and double-checking every 2 sections for tightness before setting up the camera. It's not a race for me, so the slightly slower setup time isn't a drawback. Due to the friction lock design, extending and collapsing the legs requires more resistance than the conventional tripod. There are no spike feet, making it suitable for a day hike. The clever ¼” accessory ports incorporated into the spider-leg joints are excellent for space and weight saving. The angle tabs aren't auto ratchet but still easy to control. In practice, the tripod feels sturdy enough for its purpose. The Highlights head securely holds my Sony A9 and GM135 at any angle, making it perfect for my ultralight setup. In short, at a price of less than $150 (I paid around $120 for my combo during the recent sale), this offers excellent performance value.
For example, studio setting?
In the studio, I prefer a camera pedestal stand. It takes about the same floor space as a large tripod, is very easy to move around and height adjustment is a breeze. Stable, heavy and expensive.
Last edited:
drunkenspyder
Well-known member
FWIW, I recently picked up a Majestic 1200 head to go on top of my Gitzo 5 series for the Arca field 8x10. In my experience. with heavy lenses, the Cube was being pushed to its "self-locking" limits with heavy lenses when the rail was angled more than 10-15 degrees from level. Also, when carrying the rig [short distances!], it did not inspire confidence when I occasionally felt it moving around. The Majestic is with PCW right now along with a long RRS clamp being modified to fit it properly. I had hoped my Kessler Quik Release Clamp would be usable in this situation, but oddly, the Arca 8x10 rail flopped around in it.