> G.T. wrote
> (in article <128i29qr4eqd399@corp.supernews.com>):
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I'd be curious how those locks hold up after hundreds of cycles.

Signature
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
> Actually, I'm not concerned about the legs at all. The tolerances seem
> exceptional and the locks tighten up smoothly and firmly. The center
> column is another matter. If I'm having to tighten it that tight I'm
> worried that the pieces will get deformed after awhile. We'll see. If
> I'm still on r.p.d.s-s. in a year I'll post another review.
I haven't seen a tripod with a center column where the center column wasn't
the weakest link in the system, even when not extended. Center columns
should be removed. I can't comprehend why companies insist on including
them in the first place.

Signature
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Randy Howard - 09 Jun 2006 23:40 GMT
Jeremy Nixon wrote
(in article <128jr5ktdntd03d@corp.supernews.com>):
>> Actually, I'm not concerned about the legs at all. The tolerances seem
>> exceptional and the locks tighten up smoothly and firmly. The center
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> should be removed. I can't comprehend why companies insist on including
> them in the first place.
I Agree completely.

Signature
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Tony Polson - 09 Jun 2006 23:44 GMT
>> Actually, I'm not concerned about the legs at all. The tolerances seem
>> exceptional and the locks tighten up smoothly and firmly. The center
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>should be removed. I can't comprehend why companies insist on including
>them in the first place.
Because they allow height adjustments to be made almost instantly?
Because they allow a light and easily portable tripod to extend much
higher than would otherwise be possible?
Because they can be fitted transversely to some tripods, vastly
extending their versatility?
By all means ask a tripod manufacturer to make you a bespoke tripod
with no centre column. But don't ask me to buy one.
I am very happy with my tripods just as they are. Their centre
columns have never been a sign of weakness, rather they allow me to do
things that would not otherwise be practicable with a tripod, which I
think is a sign of their strength.
Rebecca Ore - 10 Jun 2006 00:18 GMT
> I am very happy with my tripods just as they are. Their centre
> columns have never been a sign of weakness, rather they allow me to do
> things that would not otherwise be practicable with a tripod, which I
> think is a sign of their strength.
You can't use a tripod flat to the found with the lens only the head
height above the surface if there's a center column in the way.
(Plans to get a carbon fiber Gitzo without a center post some day).

Signature
Rebecca Ore
J. Clarke - 10 Jun 2006 04:25 GMT
>> I am very happy with my tripods just as they are. Their centre
>> columns have never been a sign of weakness, rather they allow me to do
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> (Plans to get a carbon fiber Gitzo without a center post some day).
Not a problem with any of several Manfrotto models.

Signature
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Tony Polson - 10 Jun 2006 07:52 GMT
>You can't use a tripod flat to the found with the lens only the head
>height above the surface if there's a center column in the way.
Manfrotto (Bogen) make several models where the centre column can be
removed and replaced in a horizontal position. These tripods are
excellent for low angle work.
>(Plans to get a carbon fiber Gitzo without a center post some day).
Gitzo and Manfrotto are now made by the same company (Manfrotto).
Rebecca Ore - 10 Jun 2006 10:52 GMT
>>(Plans to get a carbon fiber Gitzo without a center post some day).
>
> Gitzo and Manfrotto are now made by the same company (Manfrotto).
Whatever. One without a center column, in carbon fiber.
I've already got a Manfrotto/Bogen 3001.

Signature
Rebecca Ore
Robert Brace - 11 Jun 2006 20:49 GMT
> Gitzo and Manfrotto are now made by the same company (Manfrotto).
Methinks you have confused "Distribution" and "Manufacture" Tony.
Care to provide a verifiable reference for that claim.
Bob
Alan Browne - 23 Jun 2006 14:26 GMT
>>I am very happy with my tripods just as they are. Their centre
>>columns have never been a sign of weakness, rather they allow me to do
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> You can't use a tripod flat to the found with the lens only the head
> height above the surface if there's a center column in the way.
It depends on the tripod. Two of mine allow the column to be reversed
(upside down) or mounted horizontally. In the upside-down position you
can get the camera down to (even below) ground level. (Hole required
and sold seperately).
Cheers,
Alan

Signature
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Rebecca Ore - 23 Jun 2006 14:32 GMT
>>>I am very happy with my tripods just as they are. Their centre
>>>columns have never been a sign of weakness, rather they allow me to do
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> you can get the camera down to (even below) ground level. (Hole
> required and sold seperately).
Working a camera between tripod legs doesn't strike me as a really
good way to go about it.

Signature
Rebecca Ore
J. Clarke - 23 Jun 2006 16:25 GMT
>>>>I am very happy with my tripods just as they are. Their centre
>>>>columns have never been a sign of weakness, rather they allow me to do
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Working a camera between tripod legs doesn't strike me as a really
> good way to go about it.
Depends on what you're doing. Manfrotto gives a plethora of options--you
can mount the post upright, reversed, horizontally, or remove most of it
leaving just a stub.

Signature
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alan Browne - 23 Jun 2006 17:25 GMT
>>>>I am very happy with my tripods just as they are. Their centre
>>>>columns have never been a sign of weakness, rather they allow me to do
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Working a camera between tripod legs doesn't strike me as a really
> good way to go about it.
There are compromises to get some macro shots. Having the camera below
the head is one of them. Working that close to the ground is always a
pain, this at least allows you to work that way if needed. Working with
the camera data upsidedown is the real pain.

Signature
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Alan Browne - 23 Jun 2006 14:24 GMT
> I haven't seen a tripod with a center column where the center column wasn't
> the weakest link in the system, even when not extended. Center columns
> should be removed. I can't comprehend why companies insist on including
> them in the first place.
I'm happy they do. While I avoid using them when possible, there are
situations where having the additional foot or so of height is better
than nothing at all. If the locking bolt is secured they are as rigid
as a tripod without a column. My 58B, fully extended and locked is
probably more rigid than the lower end "good" tripods as long as the
weight is not too high.
For studio shooting, with strobe, I'd rather keep the legs shorter so I
don't run into them all the time as I'm futzing around and use the colum
for height.
Cheers,
Alan

Signature
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.