why they dont design tripod this way

[denniskee]

very very few tripod maker design their telescopic legs in the reverse manner, ie smallest diameter section at the top & largest at the bottom.

we know from experience & tripod makers advice that we should extend the smallest section last to adjust height, with centre column being LL as the last resort.

so, looking at traditional alu tripod with design, the lock for smallest section normally low, ie needs to bend down abit to reach it.

so, normally, for convenience, we extend the smallest section 1st and adjust the middle section's extension to adjust the tripod height as the lock is easily reach.

why they dont design the telescopic legs like benbo or unilock tripod?

 

[slth123]

my guess is that a heavy set up sitting on top of thin legs may be subject to more vibrations compared to thick ones? :think:

 

[Dream Merchant]

My guess is such designs need to be longer and 'feels bulkier', so not so attractive to chio-ness conscious users. Manufacturing costs could be another.

The BenBo with the central single bolt was one of the most innovative, flexible and effective designs I've used which could also take constant dunking in water or mud with no need to take apart and clean.

But you should see the look on people's faces the very first time they release the bolt - and try to set the legs up. It's so ingeniously simple that it baffles a lot of people. Absolutely PRICELESS!!! :sweatsm: :sweatsm: :sweatsm:

 

[denniskee]

too bad i dont have machine workshop, else i will modify my manfrotto 055pro.:cry::cry:

 

[denniskee]

But you should see the look on people's faces the very first time they release the bolt - and try to set the legs up. It's so ingeniously simple that it baffles a lot of people. Absolutely PRICELESS!!! :sweatsm: :sweatsm: :sweatsm:

the looks on their face when the camera & lens smash to the ground when the forget to hold the legs when the centre lock is release.... priceless.:bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[denniskee]

my guess is that a heavy set up sitting on top of thin legs may be subject to more vibrations compared to thick ones? :think:

if you see ARCA-SWISS Monoball P0, they also reverse the ball head design, though i have my reservations though i have never use it before, others seems pretty please with it.

i have used benbo tripod, no problem.

 

[raymansg]

the looks on their face when the camera & lens smash to the ground when the forget to hold the legs when the centre lock is release.... priceless.:bsmilie::bsmilie:

Eh, this is a nice caption for a new Mast*****d add. Honestly, I think it is funny and would appeal to ... at least the bunch of us. :bsmilie:

 

[Kit]

I think they reversed the ball head design for the Monoball P0 for a very good reason. Usually, the panning base is below the ballhead, so to level the setup, you need to adjust the tripod legs which can be a pain. With the reverse design, you level the setup with the ballhead. Much easier than asjudting the legs.

 

[wildcat]

I think they reversed the ball head design for the Monoball P0 for a very good reason. Usually, the panning base is below the ballhead, so to level the setup, you need to adjust the tripod legs which can be a pain. With the reverse design, you level the setup with the ballhead. Much easier than asjudting the legs.

Hmm, that's an interesting design. Very useful indeed. I always wondered why there is no panning available on the plate attached to camera for ease of panning.

 

[slth123]

Hmm, that's an interesting design. Very useful indeed. I always wondered why there is no panning available on the plate attached to camera for ease of panning.

There is one from Really Right Stuff but will cost USD235+ USD30 for the dovetail adaptor.

http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=PCL-1&eq=&Tp=

 

[Kit]

That one from RRS is only a panning adaptor. The Monoball P0 is esentially a panning head on top of a ball joint.