Question on Tripod Designs at DVinfo.net

Shawn Redford · October 19th, 2005, 11:15 PM

What is the main reason for the difference in tripod design between tripods with a) three or more rods making up a single leg, such as this type versus b) the more typical design of single rods that collapse/fit inside one another, such as this type.

Is it primarily a matter of how much weight each tripod design can hold (a-type tripods seem to have much higher weight ratings) or is there more to it than that? Is there an advantage to one design or the other for video work in remote wilderness regions (other than the weight of the tripod itself)?

Mark Utley · October 20th, 2005, 01:12 AM

The tripods with more poles in the legs are more stable. It's like a straw to a pencil.

Robert J. Wolff · October 20th, 2005, 06:57 AM

Good Morning, folks.

In general, I use the fewest "rods" as possible in the boondocks. You have to take into account, that the more sections (rods), that you are exposing to the elements, the more the chance of trouble: jamed leg elements, etc. While it adds weight, a case, or cover is highly recommended.

I can't see that it matters if you use "a" or "b". Get the TP that holds the weight (and than some more!) that works for you.

No matter, one section, two, or three, the lower the tripod setup, the greater the stability.

Tim Le · October 20th, 2005, 01:31 PM

I think the main reason is torsional rigidity. Because of the drag from the fluid head, the tripod will want to twist as you pan, forcing the camera to "spring back" at the end of the move. This spring back makes it hard to make very precise framing or minor adjustments, especially at long focal lengths. So to make the tripod more rigid (torsionally), you could just make a single tube bigger and thicker but then the tripod gets large and unweildy. So apparently the best compromise it to put smaller tubes parallel to each other.

October 19th, 2005, 11:15 PM	#1
Shawn Redford Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 158	Question on Tripod Designs What is the main reason for the difference in tripod design between tripods with a) three or more rods making up a single leg, such as this type versus b) the more typical design of single rods that collapse/fit inside one another, such as this type. Is it primarily a matter of how much weight each tripod design can hold (a-type tripods seem to have much higher weight ratings) or is there more to it than that? Is there an advantage to one design or the other for video work in remote wilderness regions (other than the weight of the tripod itself)?

October 20th, 2005, 01:12 AM	#2
Mark Utley Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 479	The tripods with more poles in the legs are more stable. It's like a straw to a pencil. __________________ Mark Utley

October 20th, 2005, 06:57 AM	#3
Robert J. Wolff Major Player Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Adirondacks of New York Posts: 210	Good Morning, folks. In general, I use the fewest "rods" as possible in the boondocks. You have to take into account, that the more sections (rods), that you are exposing to the elements, the more the chance of trouble: jamed leg elements, etc. While it adds weight, a case, or cover is highly recommended. I can't see that it matters if you use "a" or "b". Get the TP that holds the weight (and than some more!) that works for you. No matter, one section, two, or three, the lower the tripod setup, the greater the stability. __________________ Himself

October 20th, 2005, 01:31 PM	#4
Tim Le Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 350	I think the main reason is torsional rigidity. Because of the drag from the fluid head, the tripod will want to twist as you pan, forcing the camera to "spring back" at the end of the move. This spring back makes it hard to make very precise framing or minor adjustments, especially at long focal lengths. So to make the tripod more rigid (torsionally), you could just make a single tube bigger and thicker but then the tripod gets large and unweildy. So apparently the best compromise it to put smaller tubes parallel to each other.