# Tripods - CF or Aluminum...?



## CurtL5 (Dec 4, 2014)

So, after years of owning the various "budget" tripods, I'm looking at upgrading to something more stable and long-term. Aside from the whole discussion that 4 of the "cheaper" tripods wind up costing far more than a single quality one, what benefits have you found in terms of the material. I'm looking at two brand-name units that seem to be virtually identical except for one being Carbon Fiber and the other is Aluminum. That seems to account for a 50% difference in cost!

In terms of my usage, I do a fair amount of landscape photography currently (both wet and dry conditions) as well as other nature but I also do some portraiture and sports. The monopod option that detaches from both would be utilized from time to time but again - they both offer this ability. Both come with a basic ball head and both extend to about the same height. I'm tall so it really doesn't matter - both are going to be a bit short but I'll deal with that.

I realize that price is (sometimes) indicative of quality, but for tripods in particular what is the fuss about the CF versus the aluminum? In looking at this as a longer term investment, should I really consider CF or is it not really necessary...? Or...?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 4, 2014)

All of my tripods and Monopods are Aluminum. If you buy high quality, they will last. Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic tripods are lighter. But cost more.

For some photographers lightness is important, for other photographers not so important. Who is right? They both are. Some photographers are bothered by the coldness that a metal tripod leg can be in the winter, others are not so bothered. It really is a matter of personal choice. 

Plastic tripods cost more than metal ones and that can be a significant difference depending on the photographer's budget. 

But in no case should one assume that one must get a plastic tripod. It really depends on what is important to the individual photographer. If lightness is important, go plastic. If cost is important, go with metal.

Just besure to get a quality one. Not all carbon fibre reinforced plastic compositions are the same. Don't think that just because something uses "carbon fibre" that it must be good. That's what the marketing department wants you to think. 

Like pretty much anything in photography, there is no best, only what is best for the needs of the individual photographer. 

Me, I am happy with Aluminum. Other photographers may be happy with only CFRP Neither one should try to convice the other that they are "wrong". 

Both have their advantages and disadvantages and it is up to the individual photographer to determine how important each are when compared. 

I think one area we can agree on is that going cheap (quality not price) is a poor choice. 

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2014)

CF is lighter, something that can make a big difference if you have to carry the tripod around over distance/time. CF is easier on bare hands in cool/cold temps, and damps vibration better. Aluminum is cheaper. 



CurtL5 said:


> Both come with a basic ball head



Red flag, there. A good ballhead is often more important than the legs. 




CurtL5 said:


> ...both are going to be a bit short but I'll deal with that.



Then you've picked the wrong tripod. 


As a general comment, it sounds like you've done the el-cheapo tripods and gone through several, and now you're moving up to the mid-range...and you'll likely go through several of those, too. I'd step back, and consider doing it right this time, and be done. Get legs from Gitzo or RRS, with a suitable height (taller than you, for comfort and for flexibility to set up on a slope), and get a good ballhead with an Arca-Swiss type clamp (RRS, Kirk, Markins, Acratech, or Arca Swiss, _not_ Gitzo). 

Some relevant reading: http://www.bythom.com/support.htm


----------



## tayassu (Dec 4, 2014)

I'd buy Carbon fiber over Aluminum everyday, just for the weight. 
For me, that is crucial, especially as when I do landscapes, they are rarely on sea Level, but on hills or mountains and I can't afford a Sherpa


----------



## Click (Dec 4, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I'd buy Carbon fiber over Aluminum everyday, just for the weight.



+1


----------



## CurtL5 (Dec 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> CF is lighter, something that can make a big difference if you have to carry the tripod around over distance/time. CF is easier on bare hands in cool/cold temps, and damps vibration better. Aluminum is cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the input - Exactly what I'm trying to do for the most part!
Just cannot decide if CF is truly a value for where I'm current and potentially at. Holding both, within an ounce or two they seem to be essentially the same weight. If temp were the only other consideration and not wear/tear then maybe CF is not worth the $150 or more additional. Vibration dampening may be a good consideration as well however...

Thanks all, so far!


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 4, 2014)

I had the same decision and decided for carbon fibre because
I like to walk around a lot to find a good place/scenery so weight
is a concern. Another reason was the good damping of vibrations,
essential for long exposures with tele photo lenses.

[EDIT:
IMO (just guessing) a alumium tripod with the same vibration damping
is 2x the mass of a carbon fiber tripod - good CF materials are vastly
superior in this discipline. Add a good ball head (500 grams) we go with a 
1500+500 gr CF tripod (2000 gr) versus
3000+500 gr Al tripod (3500 gr.)
which is essential after 20 km of trekking!
]

I replaced my Manfrotto 190B (Al) with a Sirui 3204 (CF compound):
The Sirui 3204 is lighter than a (25 year old) Manfrotto 190B but gives
much more native height and is a vibration sucker compared to
the old Manfrotto. Using the Manfrotto (aluminum) tripod in direct sunlight
was of no concern. With the Sirui I think about a "radiation protection" made
of white clothing for the legs ...

Another concern is: How fast can you set up the tripod - the right choice of 
the leg locks is essential for this! I like the approch with a lock ring around
each leg section: stable and fast!


*CarbonFibre: Aluminum*

moderate weight higher weight

very good vibration damping moderate vibration damping

less influence of weight distribution load deforms structure/legs
of mounted camera-lens-combo

max 100°C over short periods. virtually no temperature limit within
Sounds exotic, isn't in the standard conditions
summer sun

Cannot be repaired if leg cracks Easier to repair, some bumps don't influence useability

Expensive moderate cost


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 4, 2014)

I've gone through the same process as you, and a few years ago, I finally decided to invest in quality pods. Lots of good advice given already, but I'll throw in my two cents.

I own two good pods, one each aluminum and CF. (I like how AcutancePhotography has pointed out that "CF" is actually "CFRP"!) 

My aluminum pod is heavier, not only because of the material, but also because it's a bigger unit. It's my "studio pod," so weight and its "feel" in cold or damp conditions isn't an issue. I have a geared head attached to it, rather than a ball head, because that's what I prefer for making adjustments for composition in its environment.

My CF pod is for travel / hiking, and so it is smaller / lighter, and one of my main criteria for it was compactness when folded. It still had to meet my other criteria for maximum height, stability and maximum load. It's fitted with the ball head which I bought at the same time, and after almost two years, I'm "kinda sorta" in the market to upgrade the head. As I've learned, it's penny-wise / pound-foolish to buy good legs and then cheap out on the ball head.

I agree with Neuro's comment that if it's a bit short, it's the wrong 'pod for you!


----------



## nmorey (Dec 4, 2014)

Hi, first post here 

I asked myself the same question a few years back. I do only landscape picture and mostly hiking or climbing. So weight was a bit of a factor, but I'm used to carry a lot so it wasn't that critical...

I finally opted for the aluminum tripod for one simple reason:
- Aluminum bends (up to a point)
- CF breaks...

As I also go rock/ice climbing with my gear, my pack tends to "crash" (more often than I'd like) into things.. Like a huge slab of rock...
And IMHO, Aluminum can handle more that CF in that case.

If you don't intend to throw rocks on your tripod, CF is probably good. Just make sure you can weight it down for windy days !


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 4, 2014)

nmorey said:


> Just make sure you can weight it down for windy days !



Welcome to the forum!

That is a good point. The very lightness that is attractive about CFRP tripods can actually hinder the stability if there is any wind. If one were to consider a CFRP tripod, I think it should come with an equipment hook on the underside to hang your bag for added weight. But then you have to worry about your bag swinging in the wind.

Nothing is free in the weight/stability equation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> If one were to consider a CFRP tripod, I think it should come with an equipment hook on the underside to hang your bag for added weight. But then you have to worry about your bag swinging in the wind.



Good CF tripods have a bag hook. Simply attach your bag via an adjustable cord/strap so the bag rests on the ground with the tension of the weight on the cord - stable legs, no swinging bag. 

In actual wind, the modestly additional weight of aluminum legs is unlikely to provide enough stability in any case, I'd hang a bag from either type of legs.


----------



## CurtL5 (Dec 4, 2014)

nmorey said:


> ... As I also go rock/ice climbing with my gear, my pack tends to "crash" (more often than I'd like) into things.. Like a huge slab of rock...



HOLY COW! If it's a concern for the tripod, that can't be good for the other (read: more expensive) gear in the camera bag either!!


----------



## ray5 (Dec 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > If one were to consider a CFRP tripod, I think it should come with an equipment hook on the underside to hang your bag for added weight. But then you have to worry about your bag swinging in the wind.
> ...



Any suggestions for the adjustable cord/strap?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2014)

ray5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



I went to REI and found a long, narrow nylon webbing/strap with an adjustment buckle and a split (key) ring on the end.


----------



## Joey (Dec 4, 2014)

I've recently bought a third tripod to complement my other two, and decided rather differently than the consensus here. My new tripod is a Manfrotto 190 in aluminium, with a three way head XPRO-1. The head was chosen to help me make smooth video pans, and it alone weighs about 1kg I think so the 2Kg of the legs (against 1.5Kg for the 190 in CFRP) is not so significant. 

A saving of 500g seems a lot, but it doubles the price of the tripod, and 500g out of a whole kit weighing maybe 10Kg is not so significant for my purposes that it's worth an extra £200 on the price of the legs. This tripod isn't going to get hiked up mountains with me, I have another tripod for that...


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Dec 4, 2014)

If you can afford it, take CF. 
Head: ball quicker, not soo exact; friction head very exact, heavier.
Good luck they are interchangeable.


----------



## nmorey (Dec 4, 2014)

CurtL5 said:


> HOLY COW! If it's a concern for the tripod, that can't be good for the other (read: more expensive) gear in the camera bag either!!



Crash may be a bit exaggerated. But between slamming the bag against the rock or getting hit with ice boulders, everything on the outside of the bag gets hit a bit.

My camera is safely kept inside my pack. I have a small camera bag to protect it inside the pack. There are often carabineers or ice crews next to it so a bit of protection is required here. But mostly I protect it by the way I make my pack. Big down jacket stuffed in the bottom, under the camera. SO when I fall on my ass, it's nice and cosy. And stuff gloves/jacket/hat and stuff above. The tripod protects the side ! 
Anyway I had an aluminum Manfrotto stuck to my pack for nearly 4 years now. And apart from scratches it still in perfect shape !




ray5 said:


> Any suggestions for the adjustable cord/strap?


Use a shoe lace. It's always good to have an extra one and strong enough to put a few kilos of weight on the tripod


Harder question: How do you weigh your tripod when your waist deep in snow?
I guess you could dig to suspend your pack but I just couldn't be bothered the one time it happened...


----------



## lo lite (Dec 4, 2014)

*Re: Tripods - CF or Aluminum...? Wood!*



CurtL5 said:


> So, after years of owning the various "budget" tripods, I'm looking at upgrading to something more stable and long-term. Aside from the whole discussion that 4 of the "cheaper" tripods wind up costing far more than a single quality one, what benefits have you found in terms of the material. I'm looking at two brand-name units that seem to be virtually identical except for one being Carbon Fiber and the other is Aluminum. That seems to account for a 50% difference in cost!
> 
> In terms of my usage, I do a fair amount of landscape photography currently (both wet and dry conditions) as well as other nature but I also do some portraiture and sports. The monopod option that detaches from both would be utilized from time to time but again - they both offer this ability. Both come with a basic ball head and both extend to about the same height. I'm tall so it really doesn't matter - both are going to be a bit short but I'll deal with that.
> 
> I realize that price is (sometimes) indicative of quality, but for tripods in particular what is the fuss about the CF versus the aluminum? In looking at this as a longer term investment, should I really consider CF or is it not really necessary...? Or...?



I bring a third alternative to the table: wood. Why wood? Wood has pretty good dampening characteristics and is the number one material up to today for surveying instruments. I own a wooden tripod made by http://www.berlebach.de/?sprache=english and I am very much satisfied with it.


----------



## anthonyd (Dec 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> CurtL5 said:
> 
> 
> > Both come with a basic ball head
> ...



+1

I have a medium range aluminum tripod with a crappy head. The legs have never given me any grief, but the head drives me crazy quite often.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 4, 2014)

No reason at all not to bring up wood as a viable material. When it comes to stability I don't know if you can get better than a high quality wood tripod. But part of that stability is that it is frickin heavy!!! Good for when you are set up, but not so good when you are moving to set up. 

For my "home studio" (boy that sounds classy), I was seriously considering a good wooden tripod. But they are not exactly cheap.

And yeah, there is a good reason survey teams use them. 

And of course if apperance is important, I have seen some beautiful wood tripods out there. :drool


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 4, 2014)

Speaking of weights

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/04/waterweight-makes-carrying-around-sandbags-a-thing-of-the-past/


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 4, 2014)

+1 for wood. Wood does not resonate vibrations like other materials. And yeah, they're friggin heavy -- I have a Berlebach for astro work but I wouldn't want to be setting it up, taking it down for landscape unless I'm gonna stay in one spot for awhile.

CF is light, dampens vibrations quickly - but is prone to becoming brittle in cold weather (as in night or astro photography).

Anywho -- I have all tree: Aluminum, CF & wood ;D



AcutancePhotography said:


> No reason at all not to bring up wood as a viable material. When it comes to stability I don't know if you can get better than a high quality wood tripod. But part of that stability is that it is frickin heavy!!! Good for when you are set up, but not so good when you are moving to set up.
> 
> For my "home studio" (boy that sounds classy), I was seriously considering a good wooden tripod. But they are not exactly cheap.
> 
> ...


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 4, 2014)

nmorey said:


> I finally opted for the aluminum tripod for one simple reason:
> - Aluminum bends (up to a point)
> - CF breaks...
> 
> ...



I will second this... CF - VERY strong for it's weight, until it gets chipped/scratched etc. 

Related but not exactly apples-to-apples comparison - I used to build golf clubs... the CF shafts that came back to me broken always had 2 clear failures... either the hosel (the point where the club enters the club head) had a sharp edge and nicked/abraded the CF shaft, or the user caught the club in their trunk closing mechanism on their car - thus inducing a very significant point-stress. CF shatters when stressed. There's some pretty spectacular youtube videos of it happening during bicycle races - with CF bike frames, forks and especially aero-wheels - for the same reasons as golf clubs... any small blemish/damage can equal catastrophe. Edit: I'll give this as a caveat - golf clubs and bike frames/wheels are under a way different type of strain/stress than a tripod is... and their weight has normally been shaved down to the absolute minimum for performance reasons... however the axiom of CF's inherent brittle nature is still true and still applicable.

http://www.bustedcarbon.com/



Aluminum isn't without faults, but in my honest opinion (and granted there's many more people here that have way more experience with tripods), if you're not worried about weight and can handle wearing gloves in the winter (coming from a lifetime of living in Minnesota)... aluminum is the way to go if you're going to be doing virtually any activity that requires you to put your gear in damage-prone situations.


----------



## Coldhands (Dec 5, 2014)

It seems to me that CFRP's tendency toward brittle failure is being greatly exaggerated. It is true that the failure mode for most carbon composites is brittle, rather than ductile, and that it has a low impact toughness compared to aluminium. However, the failure mode says nothing about the stress required to trigger a failure.

It's difficult to obtain figures for the mechanical properties of CFRP because they are so many factors that affect them (different fibres, different polymer matrices, different weaves), but a representative example of CFRP should have an ultimate tensile strength of around 600 MPa. Compare this to 6061 aluminium (a very widely-used alloy) with a T-4 heat treatment which has an ultimate tensile strength of 241 MPa. This means that the an aluminium specimen has suffered total failure (not just bent) at less than half the stress of a CFRP one. Also note that the aluminium has a yield strength (point at which deformation becomes permanent) of just 145 MPa.

Obviously this gives no consideration to the design of a product manufactured from either material, and of course an under-built carbon part can fail before a better-designed aluminium one. But it shows that saying a material "shatters" does not tell you anything about how it will actually hold up to stress.


Further, in regards to the commonly held belief that CFRP becomes weak at low temperatures, I present some figures from a Lockheed-Martin study on carbon fibre composites:

@23 C: tensile strength=474 MPa ; compressive strength=478 MPa ; shear strength=92.8 MPa
@-40 C : tensile strength=474 MPa ; compressive strength=526 MPa ; shear strength=110 MPa

I don't think these figures require any explanation. Note that the lower strength than what I quoted above is likely due to their use of a low fibre volume (40%) compared to most modern composites with 50-70% fibre volume.


And as for the suggestion that having a chip or scratch in a CFRP part renders it extremely fragile, this has a basis in truth but is also blown out of proportion. Having a sharp edged blemish will create stress concentrations that have a significant impact on the fatigue life of ANY material, not just CFRP. The whole point of the polymer matrix in a composite material is to transfer the stress between fibres, so just causing a break in one of the fibre "tows" will not necessarily lead to catastrophic failure. 

The myriad anecdotal evidence in which a bike frame or similar component fails spectacularly are extreme examples and not representative of the wider applications of CFRP. They feature highly-stressed parts, made as light as possible using very thin-walled sections which are only possible due to CFRP's vastly higher elastic modulus (stiffness) compared to aluminium.

But for those that prefer anecdotal evidence, here's a video segment from our friends at DigitalRev TV which includes some "testing" of a CFRP tripod. http://youtu.be/G9S9jZW3Jxc?t=8m57s
Be aware this video contains graphic images of an innocent Gitzo being hideously abused. Notice how this "brittle" material reacts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> It seems to me that CFRP's tendency toward brittle failure is being greatly exaggerated.



I've read several claims on these boards about people exaggerating the benefits of various pieces of expensive gear in order to justify what they spent. If true, then the converse also applies – people exaggerating the disadvantages of expensive gear in order to justify _not_ spending the money on it.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that CFRP's tendency toward brittle failure is being greatly exaggerated.
> ...



All the more reason to take advice from an Internets Tubes Forum with at least one medium sized grain of salt.


----------



## tolusina (Dec 5, 2014)

Richard Hammond's video reportage of F1 driveshaft testing to destruction, steel vs. carbon fibre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjErH4_1fks


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 5, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Richard Hammond's video reportage of F1 driveshaft testing to destruction, steel vs. carbon fibre.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjErH4_1fks



I am sure that it gets boring like any other job, but being involved in destructive testing just sounds like way too much fun. ;D


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 5, 2014)

I'm not an engineer, so I don't know what the heck I'm talking about but IMHO, Kai's demonstration (I'm hesitant to refer to it as a test), would be more convincing, if he had subjected the Gitzo to low temperatures for a few hours before his tripod throwing escapade. Not to say that the Gitzo would not have endured the thrashing after being subjected to cold --but subjecting the Gitzo, to say temperatures in the low to mid '30's (temperatures that are not uncommon during long imaging sessions e.g., nightsky, astrophotography), would for me anyway, given a far more convincing test of the Gitzo's CF sensitivity to temperature change and tensile toughness. 

I doubt that CF tripods are constructed entirely of 100% CF. Most likely there are composite materials and polymers used to reinforce the CF; it may be that these other materials become brittle. 

At best, Kai's demonstration served to point out that --"you get what you pay for."





Coldhands said:


> It seems to me that CFRP's tendency toward brittle failure is being greatly exaggerated. It is true that the failure mode for most carbon composites is brittle, rather than ductile, and that it has a low impact toughness compared to aluminium. However, the failure mode says nothing about the stress required to trigger a failure.
> 
> It's difficult to obtain figures for the mechanical properties of CFRP because they are so many factors that affect them (different fibres, different polymer matrices, different weaves), but a representative example of CFRP should have an ultimate tensile strength of around 600 MPa. Compare this to 6061 aluminium (a very widely-used alloy) with a T-4 heat treatment which has an ultimate tensile strength of 241 MPa. This means that the an aluminium specimen has suffered total failure (not just bent) at less than half the stress of a CFRP one. Also note that the aluminium has a yield strength (point at which deformation becomes permanent) of just 145 MPa.
> 
> ...


----------



## ray5 (Dec 5, 2014)

ray5 said:


> Any suggestions for the adjustable cord/strap?


Use a shoe lace. It's always good to have an extra one and strong enough to put a few kilos of weight on the tripod

[/quote]

That would be one hell of a shoe lace to reach up over 6ft when the tripod is fully extended!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2014)

lilmsmaggie said:


> I'm not an engineer, so I don't know what the heck I'm talking about but IMHO, Kai's demonstration (I'm hesitant to refer to it as a test), would be more convincing, if he had subjected the Gitzo to low temperatures for a few hours before his tripod throwing escapade. Not to say that the Gitzo would not have endured the thrashing after being subjected to cold --but subjecting the Gitzo, to say temperatures in the low to mid '30's (temperatures that are not uncommon during long imaging sessions e.g., nightsky, astrophotography), would for me anyway, given a far more convincing test of the Gitzo's CF sensitivity to temperature change and tensile toughness.
> 
> quote author=Coldhands link=topic=23997.msg470332#msg470332 date=1417780616]
> Further, in regards to the commonly held belief that CFRP becomes weak at low temperatures, I present some figures from a Lockheed-Martin study on carbon fibre composites:
> ...



Apparently, those figures do require an explanation. What they mean is that CF is no weaker when subjected to temperatures well below freezing.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 5, 2014)

Hi Neuro,

I personally have not had an issue with my RRS CF tripod but then I don't use it in cold weather. Here are a couple of examples of Gitzo owners experiencing failure in cold weather:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1505147

http://www.latogaphoto.com/2009/12/photo-broke-gitzo-tripod


In either of the situations above, there is no indication of undue stress or abuse of the tripods. May be just one of those freaky things that happen now and again. ???

And to be fair, these incidents attributed to cold weather failure don't seem to be common occurrences. 




neuroanatomist said:


> lilmsmaggie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not an engineer, so I don't know what the heck I'm talking about but IMHO, Kai's demonstration (I'm hesitant to refer to it as a test), would be more convincing, if he had subjected the Gitzo to low temperatures for a few hours before his tripod throwing escapade. Not to say that the Gitzo would not have endured the thrashing after being subjected to cold --but subjecting the Gitzo, to say temperatures in the low to mid '30's (temperatures that are not uncommon during long imaging sessions e.g., nightsky, astrophotography), would for me anyway, given a far more convincing test of the Gitzo's CF sensitivity to temperature change and tensile toughness.
> ...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 5, 2014)

lilmsmaggie said:


> http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1505147
> 
> http://www.latogaphoto.com/2009/12/photo-broke-gitzo-tripod



Thanks for posting these.

These two references bring up a very important point. A CFRP tripod only has most of its parts made of CFRP. It does not matter if the company uses a very high quality and well designed CFRP design, if a cast AL attachment point fails. 

That could be something to consider. If a company is trying to lower costs by using cheaper attachment parts but trying to cash in on the advantages of using CFRP, it might not be, overall, a good tripod. 

I am sure some smart guy once said that a tripod is only as strong as its weakest part. 

Moral: Don't focus on one part of a tripod "ohh CFRP legs", but look at the entire tripod system when making your purchasing decisions.


----------



## Coldhands (Dec 5, 2014)

lilmsmaggie said:


> I doubt that CF tripods are constructed entirely of 100% CF. Most likely there are composite materials and polymers used to reinforce the CF; it may be that these other materials become brittle.



In nearly 100% of circumstances, when someone says on object is made of carbon fibre, they mean carbon fibre reinforced polymer/plastic (CFRP), a composite material. On its own CF is a flexible strand usually woven into a textile, so is not much good for anything that requires any rigidity.


----------



## Coldhands (Dec 5, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> lilmsmaggie said:
> 
> 
> > http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1505147
> ...



I'd also like to address these links. As Acutance points out, in these cases it was the cast aluminium components that failed, rather than the CFRP tubes. A large number of metals have what it called a ductile-to-brittle transition temperature where, as you might guess, its ductility is reduced when it gets cold. Obviously I don't know the exact alloy composition of these parts, or their heat-treatment so I can't say whether it was because of the cold temperatures that they failed, but it is a possibility. It can often be difficult during manufacturing to control the microstructure of cast parts making them more susceptible than forged or machined ones.

I must say I find it particularly ironic that after so many reports of CFRP becoming fragile in the cold, the only examples of failure so far are of the non-composite parts.


----------



## dcm (Dec 5, 2014)

Speaking of weakest links, as an engineer it has always bemused me that Gitzo 'pods are grouped in series by the largest diameter tube, rather than the smallest diameter tube. I would expect the smallest tube size to determine the overal strength and rigidity when extended, not the largest. Fewer connections/sections should also help. It might be something to consider when you are looking at your next tripod.

The 2014 catalog lists the tube sizes in mm for both the 6X and EX (new Mountaineers) series tubes so I threw together a quick comparison when I was recently selecting a new tripod. The following table shows the current Gitzo offerings ordered by smallest tube size. The in-brand comparison may be reasonable for tubes of the same type (6X or EX), but less applicable across tubes of different brands/types. It's interesting to see the series that share the same smallest tube, which is also usually the longest. 

I've been getting by on my GT1542T Traveler for quite a while and needed something a bit more stout. I went for the GT3532LS which has been plenty sturdy for my purposes and should handle anything else I get in the future.


----------



## tolusina (Dec 5, 2014)

lilmsmaggie said:


> ......... Here are a couple of examples of Gitzo owners experiencing failure in cold weather:
> 
> http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1505147
> 
> http://www.latogaphoto.com/2009/12/photo-broke-gitzo-tripod


Another Gitzo reviewer......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8t9XRiYStg
Looking at the leg retainer damage that he shows, I wonder about how much force he applies when operating these simple devices.
I don't allow much credibility to this particular review.


----------



## tolusina (Dec 5, 2014)

ray5 said:


> ....Any suggestions for the adjustable cord/strap?.....


Shop sporting goods, hardware and/or fabric and crafts type stores, look at rope and web strap, web buckles and such, add a little creativity.

For a few dollars, I used 6' of 1" web strap and two buckles like that shown below to assemble a tripod carry sling that doubles as a stability strap.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 5, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> It seems to me that CFRP's tendency toward brittle failure is being greatly exaggerated. It is true that the failure mode for most carbon composites is brittle, rather than ductile, and that it has a low impact toughness compared to aluminium. However, the failure mode says nothing about the stress required to trigger a failure.
> 
> It's difficult to obtain figures for the mechanical properties of CFRP because they are so many factors that affect them (different fibres, different polymer matrices, different weaves), but a representative example of CFRP should have an ultimate tensile strength of around 600 MPa. Compare this to 6061 aluminium (a very widely-used alloy) with a T-4 heat treatment which has an ultimate tensile strength of 241 MPa. This means that the an aluminium specimen has suffered total failure (not just bent) at less than half the stress of a CFRP one. Also note that the aluminium has a yield strength (point at which deformation becomes permanent) of just 145 MPa.
> 
> ...



Using this logic, I could use the argument that Bamboo is stronger than steel and therefore we should build all of our buildings out of it. Having real world experience with a product sometimes outweighs the math used. (ever see that you can mathematically prove that a helicopter cannot fly, yet I see them all the time). 

As for comparisons to damage to any other material, your point is true in that any material, once damaged, will lose section properties, potentially leading to weakness. I will counter by saying that CF's strength comes from it's fiber bundle strength... it isn't an isotropic material like aluminum or steel who's material properties allow for interruptions in their sectional makeup. CF strands are akin to a pre-stressed concrete tendon... the structure is strong as long as the tendon remains in tact... once it is severed, all you have is brittle concrete - the same is true for a CF fiber in a resin matrix. 

Argue what you want about empirical/anecdotal evidence, failures due to damage do exist. I personally trust aluminum's ability to bend over CF's potential for section failure in both my bicycles and in my camera gear. Your results may be different as is always true as my usage tends towards extreme locations (mountains, cliffs, hiking, biking, canoeing etc were my gear may see more rigorous use). My money saved was spent on other things I care more about than a pretty negligible amount of weight savings in my tripod... given that this post was about CF vs Aluminum... several people here, including you have given their thoughts on the topic.


----------



## justsomedude (Dec 5, 2014)

CurtL5 said:


> In terms of my usage, I do a fair amount of landscape photography currently (both wet and dry conditions) as well as other nature but I also do some portraiture and sports. The monopod option that detaches from both would be utilized from time to time but again - they both offer this ability. Both come with a basic ball head and both extend to about the same height. I'm tall so it really doesn't matter - both are going to be a bit short but I'll deal with that.



After years of trial and error, I ended up getting one of each in my gear bag, and a separate monopod. FWIW, I'm not a fan of the tripods that have the detachable monopod. Monopods can be had on Craigslist/Ebay for very cheap. I got my Manfrotto monopod for $40 on Craigslist for track days. Get the right tool for the job, not a half-assed tool that kinda does everything OK.

Back to your primary question: I use my lightweight CF tripod for mobile portrait-studio/photobooth work due to its light weight, and my aluminum tripod for landscapes and startrails. Seems a bit backwards, I know, but the weight of the aluminum tripod just gives me a sturdier feel when setting up my camera, especially when it's for a 2 hr. exposure in the woods. When it comes to startrails/landscapes I want my tripod to hold my camera perfectly still; if it's at a cost of an extra couple of pounds, I'm happy with that.

Yes, the CF tripods do have a hanger hook for hanging your gearbag for extra ballast, but if you are putting your tripod in a wonky low-to-ground configuration, it may not be practical/feasible to place a massive gearbag directly underneath it. Now you're talking about packing an extra sand-bag just to hold down your CF tripod, and any weight benefit you paid for just went out the window. That's why aluminum solves all problems at once; heavy, and stable.

In my opinion, the cons to lighter-weight CF tripods (when used in the field) outweigh their benefits. Save up, get one of each. If you can only have one, go aluminum. Of course, YMMV.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 5, 2014)

I also have both Al and CF tripods, and my experience with them is that the CF tripods settle down much quicker than Al ones after making adjustments to the camera.
If I have my 5D3 and 100-400 aimed at the sky, my large and heavy Al tripod will take around 3 seconds to stop shaking after I touch the camera, where my smaller, and much lighter Cf tripod is settled in less than a second.

I much prefer CF to Al anyday.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2014)

Might be worth a read, compares vibration damping between the 055 and 190 series aluminum vs. CF. 

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Manfrotto_055XPROB_tripod/


----------



## justsomedude (Dec 6, 2014)

Bennymiata said:


> I also have both Al and CF tripods, and my experience with them is that the CF tripods settle down much quicker than Al ones after making adjustments to the camera.



My advice... stop bumping into your damn tripods!  

Honestly, Neuro's links sums it up well. Although, their summary leaves a lot to be desired:



> Digging deeper, if you want a tripod which dissipates vibrations as quickly as possible, then the carbon fiber versions are again much preferred, although if you're operating in strong winds, the heavier aluminium models may have the edge. If you shoot in very cold conditions, the carbon fiber models won't become anywhere near as chilly to the touch, although leg warmers on the aluminium versions will equally make them easy to handle.



Now, you're probably thoroughly confused, but look at it in a positive light... you can't really go wrong with either.


----------



## Coldhands (Dec 6, 2014)

mnclayshooter said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that CFRP's tendency toward brittle failure is being greatly exaggerated....
> ...



I'm not sure what logic you are referring to. All I have done is present some information on the properties of the two materials in order to help people better understand how they perform. I have not said that everyone should be buying a CFRP tripod or that this is the best material for all purposes.

Regarding building materials, here are some figures from a University of Aachen study, in which bamboo is compared to structural steel:
Bamboo: elastic modulus=2,000 kN/cm^2 ; compressive strength=6.2-9.3 kN/cm^2
St37 steel: elastic modulus=21,000 kN/cm^2 ; compressive strength=14 kN/cm^2
So no, I wouldn't recommend using bamboo to construct all our buildings, even if the _only_ consideration was strength.

And for the record, I have quite a bit of "real world experience" designing, building, testing, and *breaking* carbon fibre composite parts including motorsport applications. I've never seen someone try to mathematically prove that a helicopter can't fly, but I imagine they are the same people spending years trying to create a perpetual motion machine.

Next, the term anisotropic means that a material's properties vary depending on the direction of the applied stress, not that it doesn't "allow for interruptions in their sectional makeup". This is a characteristic that is managed in the design of composite components by manipulating the orientation of fibres in consideration of the load case.

Your analogy with the pre-stressed concrete is flawed, because composite parts are not pre-stressed and the roles or the matrix/reinforcement are different. In a tendon, the purpose of the stressed cables (ductile reinforcement) is to keep the concrete (brittle matrix) in a constant state of compression. This is because concrete has very little tensile strength and would crack when a bending moment is applied to it since in bending, the top half of the section is compressed while the bottom half is in tension. In fibre-polymer composite, the matrix is a ductile material that transfers stress between fibres which would otherwise only be able to resist tensile loads.

Again I want to emphasize that I am not trying to say that carbon fibre is all things to all men, or that it's the best choice for tripods in every case. I am simply trying to correct misinformation, and give people a better understanding of it's properties.

One final loosely-relevant tidbit: Early next year I will be flying ~10,000 m above sea level at Mach 0.85 in a big carbon fibre tube, the Boeing 787. I'm quite looking forward to it. If CFRP is good enough for that, I'm pretty sure it'll work for my next tripod.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Hmm...


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 7, 2014)

dilbert said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes. Exactly why I used it as another anecdotal example.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 7, 2014)

dilbert said:


> nmorey said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Thanks for that post! I have, unfortunately, been in the same situation several times - having slipped on wet rocks and ice. All I can say is that I thank god I had the sense to buy decent quality carbon fiber tripods! Despite my ineptitude, poor balance and 240lbs weight I have yet to even mark one of my Gitzos despite quite a few mishaps - though I have damaged them a little getting them in and out of the house! I did manage to junk my last aluminium tripod when using it as a walking pole, whilst crossing a river, and I didn't even fall - it just bent with about half my weight.
As always dilbert if you decry a product I will buy it as then I know I will be getting the best!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> As always dilbert if you decry a product I will buy it as then I know I will be getting the best!



Lol. Dilbert and facts are ships passing in the night.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 8, 2014)

Carbon fibre is very delicate.... NOT!!!!!
Carbon fibre is brittle in the cold.... NOT!!!!!

We launch communications satellites with carbon fibre dishes.... Space gets very cold and very hot, yet somehow they survive.

People ride the tour de France on carbon fibre bicycles.... yet somehow they survive.....

I have a carbon fibre canoe paddle that has survived four years of hard use....far more stress than ANY tripod is going to see, yet somehow it has survived.....

Apologies for the picture... I had to take it with an iPad because there are black and there are light elements in the photo.... I could not use my canon because it doesn't have enough DR.


----------



## CurtL5 (Dec 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> CurtL5 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Well, in Kauai this past fall we hiked 8 miles over boulders the size of Volkswagens, forded several creeks and climbed a few 15' vertical muddy embankments using only tree roots as handholds - all with gear on my back. I didn't bring a tripod, knowing the hike was going to be brutal. This is probably the most severe case, but in general it will often be more than a casual stroll 5 mins from the car so your inference is well taken 



> Now, you're probably thoroughly confused, but look at it in a positive light... you can't really go wrong with either.



THIS is the best response yet, in a set of replies that is FAR more in depth than I planned on, but in retrospect, should have expected!!!


----------



## LovePhotography (Dec 9, 2014)

I love Quickset tripods from the 1950's. Pretty light, absolutely indestructible, and stable. And, as nobody knows about them anymore, crazy inexpensive compared to new high end. I inherited my first one from my dad, and have collected all them them... small, medium and large. I've compared them with ultra-light, ultra-strong, and ultra-expensive, and they hold their own against all of them. Just my $0.02. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1311.R1.TR9.TRC1.A0.H1.Xquick+set&_nkw=quickset+tripod&_sacat=0


----------



## lo lite (Dec 13, 2014)

dilbert said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The bamboo could be spliced and bend over hot steam so you're able to give it any form you want. Maybe a bamboo tripod would be an idea worth pursuing …

regards


----------



## dcm (Dec 13, 2014)

lo lite said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > mnclayshooter said:
> ...



I don't see why it couldn't be done. *A local shop* makes bicycles using bamboo.


----------

