Center Column Tripods -- Proper usage

There's been a lot of broad, out of hand, dissing of tripods with center columns. Gitzo, Manfrotto, Induro and others make some excellent tripods with center columns. I use the Induro C414, 8-ply, carbon fiber tripod, which includes a center column. Induro recently replaced the C414 with the CT414, which has a couple of minor differences, but the same mechanics. I'm mounting the Canon 7D with the EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 1.4x Extender II, Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead and Wimberley Sidekick, for bird and wildlife photography.

I would suggest that the center column be used judiciously. I'm 6' tall and set my Induro up with the center column fully down and locked so that the viewfinder is about chin high. At this height I can shoot at the ground or at medium height in a tree, up to about 20-degrees, by stooping just a little. When I need to shoot higher, I raise the center column about four to six inches and can easily get up to about 70-degrees elevation. Most of the time my column is all the way down and locked with the Induro's very substantial locking nut. Raising the center column a few inches is much easier than adjusting all three legs and re-leveling.

How stable is the Induro with the center column raised a few inches? Very stable. Changing the column height is going to change the resonant frequency at which the tripod transmits the shutter vibration, but that change is very small. (All tripods do this, but heavy wooden tripods probably damp the resonance the very best). Keep in mind, the shutter speed is often about 1/1000th second. Still, even at slower SS the stability is comparable to when I extend all three legs further to get to the same height.

If you extend the center column 12" or more, then you'll greatly reduce stability. In fact, with a heavy lens you'll be in danger of the whole rig falling over in a strong wind. Don't do that. Most of us aren't tall enough to raise it that high anyway, but if you shorten the legs up, then anyone could do.

One recent pontification said:

"They are unstable, changing your tripod into a mono-pod.."

That's simply untrue, at least when used sensibly. There may be some inexpensive, unstable tripods with center columns that are unstable, but I'm talking about high quality tripods, appropriately sized for the lens and camera in use.

The following complaint was also made recently:

".. and they prevent you from carrying your big lens in a manner that will not damage your shoulder over time."

I don't have this problem at all. To carry the tripod over my shoulder (with the camera and lens attached), I put the column all the way down, open two of the legs a few degrees, tip the camera and lens down around 30-degrees and put the rig over my shoulder at about 45-degrees with the tripod resting on my shoulder just below the ballhead, where the legs are spread.

I've have arthritis in my neck from a football injury that causes the trap muscle on the right side to be in constant, low-level pain. My left shoulder was replaced after a mountain bike accident. Despite this, I'm comfortable carrying the tripod and camera/lens for long distances in this mode. For a really long haul, I'll dismount the camera and carry the camera/lens by the lens-foot and the tripod either under my armpit or in the other hand. My "linebacker build" and low pain threshold may account for my tolerance, but I don't see how the center column even enters the equation.

As for those that wonder how I dare buy an Induro instead of a Gitzo, I read the horror stories about both. Apparently they both have introduced design flaws to the market and both have spotty warranty service. Having read all that, I went down to Denver Pro Photo to compare them in person and chose the Induro. Both seemed to be relatively high quality. I didn't use an online retailer, as I typically would, because of the uncertainty and wanted to see for myself. Of course, once I had availed myself of my local brick and mortar retailer I felt compelled to reward him with the sale.

Dave

Dave- This is a useful discussion. The main point about centre columns with tripods that carry heavy loads (e.g., 500-800 mm lenses) is that it adds an extra disconnection between the camera/lens and the tripod legs. All of these small disconnections may be tight but when you add them all up they produce overall flexion which you don't want. A centre column can be added to my Gitzo Systematic tropod but I would not use it with a big lens if I wanted ultimate stability. I agree that for other purposes a centre column can be extremely useful.

I'm saying that a substantial tripod with a well designed, substantial center column lock will add very little compromise, if any, with a lens like my EF 500mm f/4L IS as compared to a "systemic" tripod. Examine the tripod under consideration with the center column fully down and locked and then compare again with it extended four inches or so. The superior functionality is gained at very little price in stability, if any.

[QUOTE=David Stephens;512676]

I would suggest that the center column be used judiciously. I'm 6' tall and set my Induro up with the center column fully down and locked so that the viewfinder is about chin high. At this height I can shoot at the ground or at medium height in a tree, up to about 20-degrees, by stooping just a little. When I need to shoot higher, I raise the center column about four to six inches and can easily get up to about 70-degrees elevation. Most of the time my column is all the way down and locked with the Induro's very substantial locking nut. Raising the center column a few inches is much easier than adjusting all three legs and re-leveling.



Dave:

At 6' 2" I say ditto to your remarks that I've quoted. When I'm set up for roughly level shooting and I see an approaching bird that I think may pass overhead, there is no better way to position for tracking than to quickly raise and lock that center column. I do that often with my Gitzo GT2941 Basalt/Markins M-20 head/Wimberley Sidekick setup.

If stability is a concern, simply attach a weight to the hook provided at the bottom of most center columns. An empty gallon milk container filled with water at the site might be an excellent solution to this problem, although I've never found the need for it.

Norm

Nice discussion points, agree with John. Tripods w/o cc's are better for large glass>500MM IMO. Otherwise, as noted keep column low for more stability and like Norm said, add some weight to the hook can help reduce shake.

It is easier to have the column but the trade-off is more significant with large lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Cashdollar

Nice discussion points, agree with John. Tripods w/o cc's are better for large glass>500MM IMO. ...

---

In my experience, IQ is not sacrificed when using a 500mm f/4 lens on a tripod with a center column, so long as the CC is used judiciously.

David, I agree with you 100%. I used the center column on my Gitzo tripod with 600mm lens for years. I didn't use the center column often, but sometimes raising the height of the tripod when shooting at an upward angle made for more comfortable viewing. It also made tripod use more convenient when you switched from birds to scenic or macro photography, situations in which I used the center column much more frequently. I no longer use the center column, but it isn't because of any stability issue. When I switched to a gimbal head, I also switched to a Gitzo 1325 leveling base--so that could more quickly level the tripod head. I keep a ball head mounted on the center column in my car and switch columns (when accessible) when I put away the big lens. It is strange how the use of the center column gets so much criticism, yet tripods with 4 rather than 3 leg sections get little mention about stability problems.

I wonder how many people who knock center columns actually have used them enough to form a opinion or do they just jump on the anti cc bandwagon because someone of note might have said they are worthless.

For the record my last couple of tripods did not have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Erkes

... It is strange how the use of the center column gets so much criticism, yet tripods with 4 rather than 3 leg sections get little mention about stability problems.

---

I hear you about the four-section. I actually have a four-section, so it'll fit in my suitcase, BUT I usually only extend two sections. It's 8-ply, carbon fiber and pretty substantial. I leave the middle section fully close and with the two section open, the ballhead and the camera it comes up between my nose and chin with the center column fully collapsed.

Still, if I didn't need to pack my tripod several times per year, I'd use a three-section.

Dave

I have both and the CC was my first. It is a Gitzo 15XX and use it with a RRS Ball head on occasion. Having one inch legs it is not as solid as my Gitzo 3530LS with a Gimball II head when shooting the 500.

I like the CC but most heavy glass users seem to use setups without them. Trying to reduce all possibly points of vibration when using real-long focal lengths. Good technique goes a long way here - there is a great thread in the Ed Forum - check it out.

I might go with a 4 section leg for mobility. Just returned from Fl and could not carry the 3530.

I find that the CC on my old Gitzo 1227 (fitted with an Induro BHD-2 ball head) is quite useful for quick changes in height for botanical and insect macro work. It saves me a lot of time and opportunities that would otherwise be lost futzing with minor leg adjustments.

Extending the CC does multiply tripod vibrations at the camera, so I first set the tripod approximately to my working height and then extend the CC in small increments if needed to quickly fine-tune the camera height. If CC extension becomes excessive, I retract it and readjust the legs. Inverting the CC also allows ground-level shots slightly lower than allowed by a Gitzo Systematic tripod, but this is admittedly cumbersome.

When birding with my 500mm lens, I use the Gitzo 3541LS Systematic tripod with a gimbal head for greater stability under that load. I've worked extensively with both tripods in the field, and each is suited for a different range of work. For macros, I feel the G1227 with CC is the most efficient and versatile overall. For heavy glass, the G3541 is my tool of choice (plus it fits into my 25" luggage).

My first proper tripod was a Manfrotto 055 aluminium. Not bad but the centre column was a POS even when fully retracted so I removed it and machined a top-plate to take the head. It was pretty stable after that. I've never used the Gitzo centre column for the Systematic tripods but I assume it's made well and quite stable when locked down.

A slightly different but related topic- has anyone used the GS5121LV Leveling Base for the Gitzos? Once locked down is it well fixed in place and rock solid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

My first proper tripod was a Manfrotto 055 aluminium. Not bad but the centre column was a POS even when fully retracted so I removed it and machined a top-plate to take the head. It was pretty stable after that. I've never used the Gitzo centre column for the Systematic tripods but I assume it's made well and quite stable when locked down.

A slightly different but related topic- has anyone used the GS5121LV Leveling Base for the Gitzos? Once locked down is it well fixed in place and rock solid?

---

The GS5121LV leveling base seems the new designation for the leveling base that I use (it looks identical in the photos of the GS5121LV on their website). I really like it a lot. It allows you to level a gimbal head very quickly--for quick set-up when changing tripod positions when stalking birds, etc.

Gitzo Leveling Base:

I love it, bought a used one from Chas.

I hardly ever adjust the legs, this is a piece of equipment I would highly recommend.

Am told they come with either long or short handles on the bottom. I have the long ones - easy to adjust.

OK.....late to the party but here is my opinion: I prefer no center column! While my Gitzo 1348 had none my aluminum Manfrotto did......I am no using it again in salt water.....I won't go off track as to why....but it is as simple as this (I am 5'11")....one more connection/aka center column....equals one more flex point....period. I know this site is called BPN.....but no real lancscape photographer would use one.......or the lightest ballhead.......because movement/flex is a huge issue. Even totally lowered...I would chose my Gitzo 1348.....over the center colum Manfrotto....100% of the time. Simply put...a stability issue. I also use the larger version of a Graf Studioball.....you can drive your car over it.....it will still be solid......anythig else is a compromise....which is OK with me and your call.....just an FYI. IF you do a little research a little lower on this forum.....you will see other CF tripod recomendations......again....your call......but if you are asking opinions....a taller tripod with no center column.....the heaviest most stable ball head you can afford.....plus the Wimberly head (I have the older version). Works for every imaginable combination you can think of......and yes...I travel the world with that combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Kurywczak

OK.....late to the party but here is my opinion: I prefer no center column! ....but it is as simple as this (I am 5'11")....one more connection/aka center column....equals one more flex point....period. I know this site is called BPN.....but no real lancscape photographer would use one.......or the lightest ballhead.......because movement/flex is a huge issue.

---

Roman, are you really implying that an extended center column will result in unsharp images when using the short focal length lenses typically used for landscape photography? Galen Rowell (who certainly qualified as a "real" landscape photographer) in his book, "Galen Rowell's Vision", wrote "Some photographers never use a lightweight tripod...they go through life burdened like Sisyphus with the weight of a big tripod. Yes, they are guaranteed sharp pictures, but only at the expense of considerable personal mobility and loss of some of the best photo opportunities." Galen Rowell routinely used light tripods. Some of his famous images were even taken using crossed ski poles as a makeshift bipod.

It is the results that matter, not blind adherence to oft-repeated statements. It is the whole support system and technique used that counts-- the thickness of the legs, the height of the tripod, the material used, the weight, the number of leg sections, center column, etc. I use an older, very heavy 3-section metal Gitzo 500 series tripod for bird photography when I'm not traveling long distances in the field. I seldom see a larger, heavier tripod being used. To state that I can't get sharp images with some extension of the center column, yet someone with a smaller 4-section tripod and no center column can, simply is not true.