Single tube.......

[Ashok Mansur]

tripods, are they sturdier & stable in comparison to double tube tripods. The versatility is weight, min max height, independent leg adjustment, no spreader & even the load bearing capacity is 25kg.
Gitzo, Miller & now Manfrotto make the single tube tripods, the review says they are good, does anyone using them & what's your opinion on them.

Ashok

[Tom Hardwick]

When you say 'single tube' you mean the conventional still camera tripod I guess. Great for mounting any camera on, but the video tripod (multi-tube design) is good for its levelling bowl and the fact that (very important this) the multi-tube has far less wind-up, so long focal length pans don't exhibit snap-back.

tom.

[Ashok Mansur]

Well you missed my point, the single tube tripods I mentioned are for video only with half ball bowl. Here are some of the models Gitzo GT3540LSV, GT5540LS., Millers Solo, now Manfrotto's 536 which accommodates 100mm head.

Ashok

[Chris Soucy]

I think you know the answer to the question even as you ask it, Ashok.

The original purpose of the double, parallel tube design was to reduce the inherant willingness of single strut tripods to "wind up" and "wind down" when using any drag whatsoever with movie/ video cameras.

(The double, parallel tube is designed to emulate a "box girder" cross section in it's ability to withstand deformation along the bar of the "H" implied in it's construction, whilst keeping the mass as low as possible)

It's a non issue with still cameras, which is why the single tube/ strut design has been a staple of the stills support market for nigh on 100 years.

It's use (single tube) for moving image cameras has only come about with the introduction of high density Carbon Fibre manufacturing techniques, that have reduced (to some extent) the flexibility of the single strut design. The major problem is that with most "single strut" systems, the "strut" is circular in cross section.

[The only single strut, Carbon Fibre tripod ever made (certainly that I'm aware of) that does not use a circular cross section strut, and thus has immense lateral resistance to flex, is, yeah, you guessed it - the Vinten FibreTec. It simply could not be made of metal, as it would be un - liftable.]

This circular cross section means that the strut is equally happy flexing in any direction it happens to be stressed in, and thus has no inherrant "directional rigidity".

Therein lies the problem. "Reduced" does not mean "eliminate". For SD camera/ lens systems of modest proportions, it can just about cope, with the major advantage over it's twin tube bretheren of much reduced weight and ease of setup.

However, for HD cameras or long lens systems, it's willingness to flex (just basic physics, really) means that "wind up" and "wind down" (snap back) is always going to be an issue.

With that monster rig of yours, I wouldn't touch such a system with an extremely long (single tube) barge pole, quite frankly.


CS

[Dan Gunn]

I have Bolex, Slik, Bogen 540ART, Cullman, Sachtler and Gitzo....both aluminum and carbon fiber. My hands down favorite is the CF Gitzo with the leveling column. I can level it quickly and it is light and compact. They are extremely strong.

JoJo

[Ashok Mansur]

The reason for raising this question is, Manfrotto 350MVB doesn't go below 90cm & my friend in Manfrotto knew this & he only informed about 536CF release & the load bearing capacity is 25kg, 5kg more than 350. So I thought, should ask your opinion on it.
I have seen Gitzo with Wimberley head & Canon 600f4 & 1D markII they are rock sturdy, but I've not tried fluid head on it as it didn't had the video adapter. So your advice was most solicited.

Ashok

[Chris Soucy]

Thanks for your confidence in my opinion.

I really would like to be able to say "go for it", but can't.

Don't get me wrong (a number of people seem to think I'm running a personal vendetta against these single leg systems - I'm not).

I think these new single tube designs are a Godsend for SD shooters and "run N' gun" situations where long lenses are not in the equation.

I have seen nothing, anywhere, that convinces me that anyone shooting HD or long lens systems (or, God forbid, both!) could tolerate the behaviour of a single tube design.

Light, simple & versatile, absolutely no doubt.

Rigid? Don't think so.

With that massive lens system of yours, you'd be chasing the target all over Southern India and wouldn't be able to let go the pan bar for a micro second lest the thing snapped back and lost it.

Think it's back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.


CS

[Ashok Mansur]

Sorry for late reply, I do trust your opinion b'cos, your thoughts are always rational & eager to find a positive solution.

Ashok

[Jim Andrada]

Double tube tripods aren't just for video. My Linhof aluminum tripod that I bought when I bought my Linhof 5 X 7 view camera almost 40 years ago is a classic double tube design.

Probably because of the mass of the camera systems that one mounts on them and the need to hold precise position during the characteristically long exposures as well as the need to make small picky adjustmets and focus by sliding the front and back of the camera all over the place with a fair amount of force. To say nothing of the need for slipping the film holders in and out without moving the camera about.

Sounds like a lot of the same requirementfor stability and minimal "wind up" and shake even though for completely different imaging technology.

This link is for an admittedly extreme example (still being made)

http://www.wisner.com/Page13.html