# Another tripod question: Carbon fiber vs. aluminum



## Jon_Are (Oct 16, 2009)

I did the search thang, but I'd like more input.

I'm in the market for a new tripod. I've settled on the Manfrotto 410 geared head, but I'm waffling between aluminum and carbon fiber for the legs.

95+% of its use will be architectural / interiors shooting. Most, but not all, of this will be indoors.

I don't expect to have to be carrying it for any sort of distance - no hiking nor mountain climbing - so, in that regard, weight is not an issue.

However...with the above in mind, I wonder if I should go for a slightly heavier (aluminum) choice in order to add stability.

I like the thought of a carbon fiber tripod, seems like it might be more durable over the years.

I guess my bottom line question is this: is a CF tripod that weighs, say, 3 lbs. as sturdy as an aluminum tripod that weighs 5 lbs.? Or is the CF - because of its lighter weight - shakier?

Budget is around $300-$350, but I'll be happy to spend less.

Thanks,

Jon


----------



## Overread (Oct 16, 2009)

I would go for the heavier tripod myself - more weight you have lower down the more stabilty you overall setup will have and the geared head is no lightweight either. Carbonfirbre is really aimed at people doing more walking and traveling longer distances without a car - so the lighter construction really pays off on their back, whilst any stabilty issues have to be solved via old methods like hanging the bag off the hook and such.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 16, 2009)

I agree that the main advantage of a CF tripod is the weight savings for when you have to lug it around.  Cf might also be easier on the hands in cold weather...because those metal tripod legs feel really cold on the fingers...especially when you are in the mountains, waiting for the sun to come up and you can't find your gloves.  

I've got a few Aluminum Manfrotto tripods...I didn't get any of them new and they looks like they have been used & abused for quite a while.  The metal parts are very durable.  It's the plastic parts that are more likely to break.


----------



## Craig J (Oct 16, 2009)

I finally bought the Manfrotto 055XPROB with the 488RC2 ball head and it is a tank and I love it. When I set it up and tighten everything down, it does not move.

When I carry it through the woods, I just tell myself that the work out it good for me.

Craig


----------



## tirediron (Oct 16, 2009)

I'll echo the recommendation for aluminum in this case.  CF is great if you need to save weight.  I have a small CF Manfrotto that I use for hiking, but for everything else, it's one of the aluminum ones that I take.


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 16, 2009)

For your purpose/use as you describe, go with the aluminum, from a cost standpoint.

More weight = More stability, I don't think so, if the tripod has sturdy legs and a decent leg span, then it has the same stability regardless of what it is made of.

The only benefit of more weight would be if you plan on attaching something that will catch the wind and act as a sail.  So unless your using it to set up umbrella lighting, or you need an extra mast on your boat, weight has no relevance.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2009)

I think there's a third material you have not considered. One that's better at dampening vibrations than either carbon fiber or aluminum. It's the material of choice for surveyor's using laser survey alignment tools because it dampens out vibrations from even freeway traffic on interstate freeways. Hold on, wait for it....the material is called wood. You know the stuff they make out of chopped down trees. Ash trees specifically.

Berlebach | 8023 Wood Tripod Legs with Center Column | BE8023


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 16, 2009)

Derrel said:


> I think there's a third material you have not considered. One that's better at dampening vibrations than either carbon fiber or aluminum. It's the material of choice for surveyor's using laser survey alignment tools because it dampens out vibrations from even freeway traffic on interstate freeways. Hold on, wait for it....the material is called wood. You know the stuff they make out of chopped down trees. Ash trees specifically.
> 
> Berlebach | 8023 Wood Tripod Legs with Center Column | BE8023


 

What is this mystical material you are talking about?  ?


----------



## Overread (Oct 16, 2009)

ErectedGryphon said:


> More weight = More stability, I don't think so, if the tripod has sturdy legs and a decent leg span, then it has the same stability regardless of what it is made of.



but more weight lower down does mean more stabilty. The more weight you can collect at the base of a setup the more stable it will be when you start putting things on top. Its the same as it is for shelving - you stack the heavy stuff at the base and the light at the top - do it the other way around and it won't matter what its made of, it will be more unstable.


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 16, 2009)

Overread said:


> ErectedGryphon said:
> 
> 
> > More weight = More stability, I don't think so, if the tripod has sturdy legs and a decent leg span, then it has the same stability regardless of what it is made of.
> ...


 

I'd love to debate you about center of gravity in relation to angular weight distribution, but to stay on topic...

OP, either one will work fine for your purposes, as long as its rated for the weight you want to place on it, and it has a wide enough foot span. Some cheaper models decrease foot span to try to get you height, which makes them unstable (this is where the bottom heavy argument would actually make sense).

Test it, if you have access before purchase, it should be strong enough to hold the combined weight of your equipment and the pressure you place on it during use (How sturdy is it). It should not easily lean when reasonable force is applied from a side angle (are the feet out wide enough). And don't attach your expensive gear to it at the same time you have a para-sail attached .


----------



## Jon_Are (Oct 16, 2009)

Thanks for the wood suggestion, Gryphon, but c'mon. That thing seems like a big bowl of inconvenience. Sure does look purty, though. If I had money to burn, I'd set a nice vintage camera atop that tripod and set it in the corner of the room and consider it a piece of furniture.

And I have a real hard time accepting this statement at face value:



> if the tripod has sturdy legs and a decent leg span, then it has the same stability regardless of what it is made of.



Anyway, I've decided either material will suit me just fine, so I'm likely going with the cheaper, slightly heavier choice of aluminum.

Thanks to all,

Jon


----------



## flea77 (Oct 16, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> And I have a real hard time accepting this statement at face value:
> 
> 
> 
> > if the tripod has sturdy legs and a decent leg span, then it has the same stability regardless of what it is made of.



Unfortunately that statement is absolutely correct. Stability without a side load (such as wind) is in this case strictly defined as leg span vs height (assuming a modicum of rigidity which aluminum has and CF excels at).

One other thing that was hinted at is that CF will absorb vibrations whereas the aluminum can actually amplify them, making the camera shake more. Don't believe this one? Come on by and ride my aluminum bike over a nice fresh chip and seal road and then come back and ride the carbon one, then you tell me what does what 

Allan


----------



## mtaylor (Oct 17, 2009)

One thing that hasn't really been looked at is durability.  CF has it's uses, but it's not the magical amazing good for everything material it's made out to be.  An aluminium tripod would be much more impact resistant, and you wouldn't have to worry about it unraveling.

Flea-Carbon Fiber is usually much stiffer than most other materials, I don't think it's shock absorption would be noticeable.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 17, 2009)

Ok I'll bite on the stability. lets make a tripod entirely out of paper and go put it out in 100mile an hour winds. Now make the same tripod out of lead and see which one will fall over.

Weight does add to stability but all in all this is a moot point. Any tripod remotely worth it's salt will have hooks that allow you to hook your camera bag to adding to the weight and making it far more resistant to falling over from high winds or gentle knocks. Sure wide leg span means wind is unlikely to cause a tripod to fall. Now if we only lived in a world where to get any shot we liked we have a full span around the bottom of the camera on which to stabilise the tripod. I can't count the number of times I have had 2 of my legs spread wide and the other almost directly under the camera simply because there was no other way to position it. While taking the photo I had my hands out ready in case the wind knocked it over.

Oh and carbon fibre absorbs high frequency vibrations. This tripod would be of great benefit if it's mounted on your bike, but it does nothing to absorb the kind of low frequency vibrations that say a passing car would make.


----------



## Jon_Are (Oct 17, 2009)

> And I have a real hard time accepting this statement at face value: _if the tripod has sturdy legs and a decent leg span, then it has the same stability regardless of what it is made of._





> Unfortunately that statement is absolutely correct. Stability without a side load (such as wind) is in this case strictly defined as leg span vs height *(assuming a modicum of rigidity...*


Well, now that you've qualified the statement, I accept it.  But I stand by my response that the initial statement is not "absolutely correct".

As for vibrations, that doesn't really fit into my list of considerations; I think I'm good with the aluminum.

Jon


----------



## flea77 (Oct 17, 2009)

mtaylor said:


> One thing that hasn't really been looked at is durability.  CF has it's uses, but it's not the magical amazing good for everything material it's made out to be.  An aluminium tripod would be much more impact resistant, and you wouldn't have to worry about it unraveling.
> 
> Flea-Carbon Fiber is usually much stiffer than most other materials, I don't think it's shock absorption would be noticeable.



True enough about impact resistance, you do have to use more care with CF. CF can be made stiffer in one direction, allowing slight movement in another. This really is not about "shock absorption" as much as vibration dampening. 



Garbz said:


> Oh and carbon fibre absorbs high frequency vibrations. This tripod would be of great benefit if it's mounted on your bike, but it does nothing to absorb the kind of low frequency vibrations that say a passing car would make.



You are correct in that it absorbs high frequency vibrations, and that a single car would produce a low frequency vibration. What about hundreds of cars on an overpass? What about a parking garage? High rise building where all the equipment to run the building is built into the structure? While much of this discussion is theoretical I can tell you that my CF seems to take better night shots than my alu does, with the same camera, they just seem sharper.

Allan


----------



## KmH (Oct 17, 2009)

flea77 said:


> ..........While much of this discussion is theoretical I can tell you that my CF seems to take better night shots than my alu does, with the same camera, they just seem sharper.
> 
> Allan


Kind of like the trick question: "What color was Custers gray horse?"


----------

