travel tripods

[Speed addicted]

I've been using a Manfrotto Befree for a few years now, it's decent but get's a bit bouncy when extended with the 5d mk3 and a decent sized lens on top of it. I only use it when flights are required, for local stuff I've got bigger and heavier tripods.

Birthdays coming up, wife hasn't got any ideas, so...

Thinking about a better travel tripod, Manfrotto do a better carbon fibre Befree that's apparently quite a bit sturdier, but I though I'd ask the masses what they're using.

Considerations, I like the short packed length of the Befree (41cm) as it happens to fit in my motorbike pannier, I could live with a little longer for more height all round.
I'd like something better suited to the weight of the camera, I've had the leg clamps slip a couple of times requiring tightening, the head isn't the best (I could just change it), and it's not tall enough if I'm shooting stars as I'm 6'2".
Also it tends to bounce quite a bit as the legs flex when fully extended, probably the worst flaw as far as I'm concerned.

[TheRainMaker]

I have a Carbon Befree.

I think it wouldn't be any more sturdy than the normal one tbh just a bit lighter.

[Bumblebee7]

I've got a Redged for travel and I think it's great, went to find a link for you only to discover the company has been dissolved...

Good luck with the search!

[Gad-Westy]

I think you need to tread quite carefully here as most travel tripods are much of a muchness. They have very similar designs, similar number of leg sections and similar tube diameters and thickness so you need to look at the specs carefully. Trouble is, you can't really defy physics with this. Tripods that pack down small need to have several legs sections in order to allow reasonable operating height. To keep the weight, overall size and particularly the cost down, the upper leg section diameters are nearly all around 20-23mm and all the other leg section need to fit inside that so by the time you get to the lowest leg, they're all like straws. Nothing wrong with this as they all have a purpose but that is the compromise of travelling light. You should pretty much ignore the load ratings too as they're almost meaningless. I use a 3LT Brian which I like but I'm not sure it's any better than what you have now or any of the others out there, at least not in terms of stability. The difference in stability between it and my larger Benro is enormous.

All of that said, if you have the budget for it, it would be worth looking at the Gtizo traveller range. They're the only travel tripod I've seen that seem genuinely sturdy. I understand their carbon lay up method is better than most but they also use slightly wider tubing which seems to work but comes at a price.

[Speed addicted]

Gad-Westy said:

I think you need to tread quite carefully here as most travel tripods are much of a muchness. They have very similar designs, similar number of leg sections and similar tube diameters and thickness so you need to look at the specs carefully. Trouble is, you can't really defy physics with this. Tripods that pack down small need to have several legs sections in order to allow reasonable operating height. To keep the weight, overall size and particularly the cost down, the upper leg section diameters are nearly all around 20-23mm and all the other leg section need to fit inside that so by the time you get to the lowest leg, they're all like straws. Nothing wrong with this as they all have a purpose but that is the compromise of travelling light. You should pretty much ignore the load ratings too as they're almost meaningless. I use a 3LT Brian which I like but I'm not sure it's any better than what you have now or any of the others out there, at least not in terms of stability. The difference in stability between it and my larger Benro is enormous.

All of that said, if you have the budget for it, it would be worth looking at the Gtizo traveller range. They're the only travel tripod I've seen that seem genuinely sturdy. I understand their carbon lay up method is better than most but they also use slightly wider tubing which seems to work but comes at a price.

I'm rapidly coming to the same conclusion, heavy gear and light tripods is a poor mix. I have a couple of redsnapper tripods that are cheaper, but far better at actually holding the camera still for long shots. Unfortunately I also need to take clothes on the same holiday and the big tripods do eat luggage space.

Speaking of poor I don't think the Gitzo would be in range for a birthday purchase, more something I buy quietly and don't mention. Ever.

[Gad-Westy]

Speed addicted said:

I'm rapidly coming to the same conclusion, heavy gear and light tripods is a poor mix. I have a couple of redsnapper tripods that are cheaper, but far better at actually holding the camera still for long shots. Unfortunately I also need to take clothes on the same holiday and the big tripods do eat luggage space.

Speaking of poor I don't think the Gitzo would be in range for a birthday purchase, more something I buy quietly and don't mention. Ever.

Just use the rule of thirds. All photographers should learn this on day one ahead of anything else.

Whatever it costs, divide by three and that is the figure you declare to your other half. Though in the case of Gitzo, rule of fifths might be more appropriate,

Photography show is coming up if you can get there to try a few.

[Speed addicted]

Gad-Westy said:

Just use the rule of thirds. All photographers should learn this on day one ahead of anything else.

Whatever it costs, divide by three and that is the figure you declare to your other half. Though in the case of Gitzo, rule of fifths might be more appropriate,

Photography show is coming up if you can get there to try a few.

Annoyingly living near Aberdeen means nipping down to Birmingham to look at expensive camera gear would be awkward, there used to be flights that you could go down for the day but it would now involve an overnight stay. Then I would feel obliged to buy something shiny and new to justify the hassle.

So I'm best to stay clear I think!

[singlecoil]

I've got a Manfrotto 055 which I like. With a Manfrotto 496 ball head and the quick release thingy it weighs 2.5 kg. Maximum height with the column extended means I have to reach up to the camera (and I'm as tall as you), base of the camera is 1840 mm from the ground. The column can be extended sideways which means you can get the camera very close to the ground if you want to.

I wouldn't want any less of a tripod with a full frame camera and decent lens.

It's this one, for the avoidance of doubt
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/manfrotto-mt055cxpro...

Edited by singlecoil on Wednesday 6th March 17:49

[Speed addicted]

singlecoil said:

I've got a Manfrotto 055 which I like. With a Manfrotto 496 ball head and the quick release thingy it weighs 2.5 kg. Maximum height with the column extended means I have to reach up to the camera (and I'm as tall as you), base of the camera is 1840 mm from the ground. The column can be extended sideways which means you can get the camera very close to the ground if you want to.

I wouldn't want any less of a tripod with a full frame camera and decent lens.

It's this one, for the avoidance of doubt
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/manfrotto-mt055cxpro...

Edited by singlecoil on Wednesday 6th March 17:49

The Redsnapper I use when closer to home is a similar size and properly sturdy.
It’s just when air travel is involved that the smaller tripod comes out, more so if we’re travelling a lot.

I may take the bigger tripod for a trip to Utah in a couple of weeks though, some pretty amazing scenery and open skies to shoot.

[RobDickinson]

Have a look at the feisol range

https://www.feisol.net/tripods/feisol-travel-tripo...

I'm sure sirui will have something also.,