Aluminum vs. Carbon Fiber?

[Cory]

Leaning towards one of the MeFoto tripods for general photography/no video. If I use a cable release and shutter lock and don't care about the weight would aluminum maybe be a "better" choice? The only advantage that I'd prefer carbon fiber for would be vibration reduction, but is that an actual advantage if the technique is at the highest levels of photographic excellence?
Thanks.

 

[3kramd5]

There is no general better choice, it depends on you usage. If aluminum weighs a little more than you want and causes you to leave it at home, then it was a bad choice. CFRP is easier to haul around, but may require additional loading for stability (mefoto's come with he sandbag hook, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll have anything to attach to it).

 

[Cory]

Thanks. I'd only care about vibration reduction, but maybe there isn't really any vibration anyway (although I'm sure to do some long exposures once in awhile).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Good quality aluminum tripods are fine and probably last longer than Carbon Fiber. I prefer the Carbon fiber, and they will hold their value better. The legs on my CF tripod are very stiff, they have a under hook, but its only needed with a really big lens in a stiff wind. Any tripod with small diameter legs is going to have limber legs and need weight to stabilize it.

 

[mackguyver]

I bought a MeFoto tripod in aluminum because it was only a bit heavier but a lot less expensive. In larger tripods, it makes a bigger weight difference, but not with these little guys. CF dampens high-frequency vibrations better, but unless you're shooting on bridges or interstates, I wouldn't worry about it. Bigger vibrations from you, the wind, or the camera's shutter make less difference when comparing CF to Aluminum.

 

[Skirball]

... is at the highest levels of photographic excellence?

Do you work at my company? Because they love to use sayings like that.

Either one is fine performance wise, I really don't think you see much of a difference. As Mack G pointed out, you can feel the difference a lot more on the bigger tripods. Funny thing is, that it doesn't matter to me on the bigger guys, because I'm not strapping them to a backpack and hiking with them. I have a big aluminum, and a small CF.

 

[KyleSTL]

I've been considering a Roadtrip or Globetrotter by MeFoto, however, no one in my area carries them and I want to physically touch it and play with it before buying one. The only way I've found to buy them in online, and I think tripods are one of those 'feel' purchases. Would not matter who I bought it from because everyone lists them at MSRP. Anyone know if there is an occasional sale on them during some point in the year?

 

[NancyP]

My Manfrotto 055 tripod has some vibration problems with strong wind, and using a long telephoto (more surface area to catch wind) in wind for low shutter speeds is a major PITA - best accessory is a reflector, umbrella, or other large stiff lightweight structure to deflect wind from the camera.

Wood! Some people still like wood tripods - excellent at taming vibrations. The better surveyor tripods are wood. The wood tripods are heavier than aluminum tripods of equivalent height.

 

[100]

If you don’t care about weight you might consider a wooden tripod like NancyP mentioned, it’s better at vibration reduction than most metal and carbon fibre tripods.
Back in 2006 Leica Fotografie International tested different tripods and wrote an informative article about it. See: http://optiline.no/berlebach/images/stativtest_lfi1_2006.PDF

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I would go with aluminum because it costs less and isn't that big of a difference in weight. You should minimize the initial investment because once you have it, it will probably just sit in a closet anyway.

 

[Cory]

The only thing that sits in the closet is me. Just kidding. I'm not gay.

 

[pwp]

Carbon Fiber vs Aluminium?
Here's my ledger...

The Carbon Fiber Good:
1. Lighter
2. Looks cool
3. Modest but generally over-rated vibration reduction.

The Carbon Fiber Bad:
1. More expensive.
2. Can shatter more easily than you might expect.
3. Looks cool.

The Aluminium Good:
1. Generally very strong.
2. Lower purchase price.
3. It's heavier. This is often an advantage.

The Aluminium Bad:
1. It's heavier. This is often a disadvantage.
2. Can get damaged/bent/pinged in transit (I'm talking airline travel)
3. It's cold in winter.

Solutions:
1. Get both.

-pw

 

[TexPhoto]

I can tell you this. A lousy tripod in Carbon Fiber is still a lousy tripod. It is far more important that the tripod is the right one for you size wise, works the way you want etc.

 

[kennephoto]

If the new Alfa Romeo 4c proves anything more than it's going to be one hell of a car it's that carbon fiber and aluminum can work harmoniously together find a tripod built with both components incorporated and I bet you'll be super happy.

 

[DominoDude]

I've still to buy my first steady tripod. Tried to collect arguments over the years to make it easier to make my decision, and it starts to lean towards aluminium, and I've even looked with some interest towards one made out of wood (upper leg parts made of oak, and the lower part aluminium).

My thinking is that:
* Aluminium will "age" better - oxidation is no problem with aluminium, neither is exposure to sun.
* In case manufacturer stops supplying spare parts, it should, hopefully, be easier to find someone locally that can "invent" a temporary fix.
* Should be cheaper per kg it can take as load.

 

[mackguyver]

I've still to buy my first steady tripod. Tried to collect arguments over the years to make it easier to make my decision, and it starts to lean towards aluminium, and I've even looked with some interest towards one made out of wood (upper leg parts made of oak, and the lower part aluminium).

My thinking is that:
* Aluminium will "age" better - oxidation is no problem with aluminium, neither is exposure to sun.
* In case manufacturer stops supplying spare parts, it should, hopefully, be easier to find someone locally that can "invent" a temporary fix.
* Should be cheaper per kg it can take as load.

My thoughts are that aluminum is better for small tripods where it can be worse to have too light of a tripod, whereas CF is better for big tripods where the weight differences are more significant. You really can't go wrong with either unless buying CF exceeds your budget or you're hiking A LOT (think Appalachian Trail in the USA) and those extra pounds or ounces will make you pay for buying aluminum.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think the only downside to CF is the higher cost. If you can afford a good CF tripod, that's the way to go.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Most of my shooting is with a tripod. As a TexPhoto accurately pointed out, what you want is a quality tripod where quality is dependent on your useage and shooting environment.

The material of a tripod does not indicate its quality!!!! Just the price. :-\

I happen to be very happy with the Manfrotto line of tripods. Good quality at a good price. I have three of them and a few monopods. Never had one fail on me yet.

As for vibration dampening, it is more a factor of design than material. As previously pointed out, a poorly designed tripod is a poorly designed tripod regardless of material.

My free, and worth every penny, advice: Go to a photo store and fondle the AL tripods. Put your camera on it and give it a try. Only if you truly find that there are no AL tripods that are good enough for your purposes, then consider spending the extra money for a Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastic tripod. Carbon fiber is not some magical material. And of course not all Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastics are the same.

The bottom line is that you need to find the tripod that is best for YOU and YOUR shooting. Like everything else in photography, there is no best, only best for you. There is, unfortunately trendy......

Good luck with it.

 

[DominoDude]

I've still to buy my first steady tripod. Tried to collect arguments over the years to make it easier to make my decision, and it starts to lean towards aluminium, and I've even looked with some interest towards one made out of wood (upper leg parts made of oak, and the lower part aluminium).

My thinking is that:
* Aluminium will "age" better - oxidation is no problem with aluminium, neither is exposure to sun.
* In case manufacturer stops supplying spare parts, it should, hopefully, be easier to find someone locally that can "invent" a temporary fix.
* Should be cheaper per kg it can take as load.

My thoughts are that aluminum is better for small tripods where it can be worse to have too light of a tripod, whereas CF is better for big tripods where the weight differences are more significant. You really can't go wrong with either unless buying CF exceeds your budget or you're hiking A LOT (think Appalachian Trail in the USA) and those extra pounds or ounces will make you pay for buying aluminum.

Si, that was my earlier way of thinking. But when I look at the weight difference for one example that I have considered, it's not much more than the weight of a EF 50mm/1.4, or 10%. Packing smarter, or leaving one lens at home should be enough to even that out.

As an example of what I've been looking at - Vanguard's Auctus Plus 283AT (weighs 3.45kg), and the CF alternative Auctus Plus 283CT (weighs 3.15kg and takes a load up to 14kg).

 

[3kramd5]

And of course not all Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastics are the same.

Nor are all aluminum alloys, but yes, there is certainly more variability in composites (fibers and resin systems or prepreg used, curing times/temperatures/pressures, layup, etc).