New tripod: Want!

[dorift]

how sturdy are they fully loaded up?

These things are awesome

Build quality is phenominal, there's enough strength in it to easily hold an SLR and a decent lens, but its still small enough to throw in my bag for the point and shoot.

Only downside is that the ballhead needs to loosen up a bit.

[daBOODA]

Yeah but there are lenses that are heavier than your bag of gambling stubs.

[iano]

not what I meant. I didn't think the legs were long enough. the actual frame may be stiff as but it looks like it could topple over quite easily with the slightest bump if holding 2ish kg which is what a typical semi pro body and short range 2.8 zoom would weigh. Am I wrong?

[dorift]

Yeah but there are lenses that are heavier than your bag of gambling stubs.

I realise that.

But I thought Cameron's comment was specific enough to answer that question. And after a re-read, I still do. Unless I'm missing something?

You obviously aren't going to see pro's with a 1000mm lens on a 1D body using this to prop it all up and shoot the next US president's inauguration from the bleachers, or Usain Bolt running a 9.1... but Cam made clear suggestions that it is strong enough to easily hold an SLR and a decent lens.

[daBOODA]

Bah I typed up a whole rebuttal but honestly, what the hell am I arguing about/for?

[dorift]

Lol

[iano]

ffs ok I'll put it in lackeys terms because I'm obviously cranky today:

Is the bloody thing top heavy when fully loaded up? The actual material could probably hold about 10kg but a tripod is fkg useless if the whole thing falls over if you bump it. Again: those legs look too short and stubby to hold a DSLR + big lens, and I am wondering if it tips over too easily.

[Eu-GenixX]

Stability as apposed to strength

[cGr]

But I thought Cameron's comment was specific enough to answer that question. And after a re-read, I still do. Unless I'm missing something?

I was missing something too.

How's this then? 2.6kg worth of kit (excl the tripod)

fr_425_size640.jpg (113.01 KiB) Viewed 9300 times

To be pedantic about it, for what it is designed for, it is fine, strong, and sturdy enough to use in most normal situations. The one big advantage it has is that it doesn't get the flex/wobble up that flimsy legged big tripods get with having spans that are ~1.5m long. Short legs don't wobble, and to be honest, the only movement in the whole design is from the little rubber feet on each foot of the legs. Without these, it would be extremely sturdy - but also probably slip off the first surface you put it down on in the slightest of breezes.

For its design purpose (iPhone/P&S/SLR and walkaround lens), you are never going to have a problem with it.

[iano]

well and truly answered my question cheers

Awesome design... I saw these things called bean pods, essentially just an expensive rice filled cotton bag that someone decided they can make a quick buck on.

For the same money this little pixie kills it

[daBOODA]

mmmm ... we should do another photo geek day

[cGr]

boods, I reckon the pixi would make a neat little tripod for an off camera flash

[daBOODA]

Indeed, and I'll probably get one. I've recent bought a macro lens for detail shots (rings etc) and I'll need to use my flash for it. That little tripod looks like it'll be able to angle the flash (or my shitty little video light) so that it points down over the subject that I'm shooting.

It might be useful for holding the flash upright. Even though the flash comes with a foot that you can slot the flash into, the foot probably would slide off an angled surface where as that little tripod might be able to handle it.

[cGr]

Which macro did you buy?

The little rubber feet on the bottom of each leg are soft grippy rubber, so would hold on to a slipper surface. I just tested my 430EXII with the yongnuo transmitter and the flash foot (has the tripod thread in it) on the pixi, and it holds it fine so long as you don't use the ball mount to have the flash between two legs of the tripod.

If you tilt the flash to either its full fore/aft position on the ballhead, you do need the leg under the flash to stop it tipping over. That said, if you position the flash body upright (or just not at the extreme of the ball head range) and then use the adjustment in the flash head, you'd never have a problem with the location of the flash legs.

[daBOODA]

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro for $369 at DigitalRev. I wanted the Canon 100mm f/2 IS macro but I decided to save $600. Plus I'm only using the lens for 20 minutes per wedding. If I were to do true macro I'd have bought the 60mm MP-E mmm

I like how the tripod has rubber feet. When you tilt the flash over the leg for support, does the leg extend as far as the flash head?

[iano]

you'll be pleased with the tammy 90 - big big following in the macro community

[cGr]

Have heard really good things about the 100mm f/2.8 IS, but they aren't cheap. I love my 100mm f/2.8.

Not quite sure what you mean about the 'leg extend as far as the flash head' comment...

The flash will hold itself up without the leg directly underneath it, but a little bump/shake, and it would topple over. The legs don't extend as such, just splay outwards. Anyway, maybe pics will show more betterer...

fr_429_size640.jpg (88.52 KiB) Viewed 9256 times

fr_430_size640.jpg (92.21 KiB) Viewed 9256 times

fr_433_size640.jpg (93.43 KiB) Viewed 9256 times

fr_434_size640.jpg (121.23 KiB) Viewed 9256 times

[daBOODA]

The pictures answer the question