Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
MeFOTO daytripper tripod
Display Avatars Sort By:
Richard Hogben
(amimal) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which tripod do you use? on 07/19/2014 07:54:28 MDT Print View

"Just wait 'til I have to pick out a mirrorless or a 4/3s camera. Uck."


That's easy. Fuji XT1 or on a budget Sony a6000.

Brendan Swihart
(brendans) - MLife

Locale: Fruita CO
Sirui on 07/19/2014 09:31:01 MDT Print View

I recently picked up the Sirui that Megan mentioned. While more expensive than the other options, it's a very high quality tripod and is really a killer price compared to similar carbon tripods from Gitzo, etc. The weight spec is a bit optimistic (it's more like 30 oz) although the stock ballhead is pretty beefy and could be swapped for a lighter head. It has a six year warranty. There's a very in depth review with comparisons to some other similar tripods here:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/sirui-t-025x-travel-tripod-review/introduction.html

The Giottos RT-8150 with one of the lightweight Giottos ballheads is another (cheaper and lighter) option.

Walter Carrington
(Snowleopard) - M

Locale: Mass.
Light weight tripods. on 07/19/2014 15:14:01 MDT Print View

I've been going through the same process. My current tripod plus ball head is 4.0 lb, and that was considered light when I bought it years ago (Gitzo 120, Giotto M1002). I never take it backpacking, just local walks and sometimes dayhikes. I have a small light micro 4/3 camera.


Some useful links and data:
Sirui T-025x: 1.8 lb, 54.5 " max height, $239.
Brendan's link is very informative: http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/sirui-t-025x-travel-tripod-review/introduction.html
This sounds like a good choice given it's weight, price and height. Very compact.

Sirui T-005x: 2.2 lb, 54.5" max height, $137.
Same as T-025x except aluminum instead of carbon and half the price. Here's a comparison of the Mefoto Backpacker vs. Sirui T-005x:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51821471 Sounds like a good choice.
Conclusion is that Sirui T-005x wins. Weight 2.2 lb vs. the T-025x 1.7lb (manufacturer's spec, Brendan says T-025x is heavier than spec, 30 oz, pentaxforums says 1.8lb. Very compact.

Slik Compact Tripod II: 1.26 lb, max height 39", $35 at BH.

Slik Sprint Mini II Tripod, 1.75 lb, max height 43", $80. This gets some good reviews at amazon: http://amzn.to/WrSl0r

Tamrac TR406 ZipShot: 11 oz, 53" max height, $53. Seems like it's being discontinued. To me, looks flimsy from it's pictures.

Ultrapod and Ultrapod II, 1.7 oz to 4.2 oz, cheap, very low height.

Bob Gross's 18 oz Targus. I can't find this. The problem with cheap light tripods is that it can be hard to find a good one; perhaps spending time at a camera show flea market with a scale. You could spend a lot of money on cheap tripods.

"Wibble wobble wibble wobble jelly on a plate" from an amazon review of a cheap tripod.

What to do? There doesn't seem to be a lot available between the 4 oz Ultrapod and travel tripods that are nearly 2 lb. I'm tempted by the Sirius T-025X or T-005X but I'd be happier if they were closer to 1 lb.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Light weight tripods. on 07/19/2014 15:33:39 MDT Print View

"Bob Gross's 18 oz Targus. I can't find this."

They are not constantly available. I found it in a Target store. Often there are similar models with similar features and similar costs.

As a general rule, carbon fiber is a nice material for tripod legs. However, it adds a lot of cost. The cost would be tolerable if it saved a lot of weight (as compared to aluminum or something). However, carbon fiber doesn't save that much weight except in the larger tripods (like 6 feet tall). So, with the short travel tripods like we are discussing, aluminum is often the simple choice. Carbon fiber does have a better dampening effect on vibration, so if you were sitting out next to a highway trying to take a shot, carbon fiber might help. However, I think we are talking about this for ultralightweight backpacking purposes, and that is probably a long way from the vibration of a highway.

--B.G.--

Brendan Swihart
(brendans) - MLife

Locale: Fruita CO
Re: Light weight tripods. on 07/19/2014 17:58:12 MDT Print View

I agree, Walter; I was thinking I could get the Sirui to close a pound so I was disappointed how much over spec it was. The nice thing though is that you can take parts off as needed. Some additional weights and heights without the stock ballhead (which weighs 6.75 oz):

Remove lowest leg sections: 45" high, 21 oz
Remove lowest leg and center column: 32" 17.9 oz

John Vogel
(johnv2002) - M

Locale: East Bay
Re: Re: MeFOTO daytripper tripod on 07/20/2014 10:36:18 MDT Print View

Hi, I wanted to toss in my opinion. I bought a Silk Sprint Mini II and love the thing. I used to use a tiny tripod I found myself laying on the ground for a lot of shots, and after hiking all day the crawling around wasn't very comfortable. The Sprint is tall enough to get better perspective shots. I love it for sitting, the design seems to work very well as the legs adjust outside my legs and puts the camera right at eye level. I do have to stoop over a bit when standing, but it's not bad. I use it for my Sony NEX 6 for all kinds of steady shots like HDR and Milky Way shots. The price isn't too bad either. It's not the lightest but if your doing Milky Way shots the flimsy designs simply won't do at all. If money is no object, buy a super sturdy, light and expensive full size carbon fiber model. Have fun out there

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Re: MeFOTO daytripper tripod on 07/20/2014 11:01:59 MDT Print View

I have really been looking at the Slik models - thanks for the recommendation.

I do wonder - how much of a problem is it to use the shorter models? I have an articulating screen on the Sony, and sitting down to compose the shot isn't at all disagreeable...but as I said I'd been using just one of those 1 oz joby things for a tripod so its not like I'm used to having something at eye or chest height.

It just seems like I can't at all have tall, lightweight, sturdy, inexpensive. I have to say, pick two.

Dondo .
(Dondo) - F

Locale: Colorado Rockies
Re: Re: Re: Re: MeFOTO daytripper tripod on 07/20/2014 12:46:42 MDT Print View

You're onto something, Jennifer. An articulating screen makes it much easier to compose a scene with the shorter tripods. The maximum height of my tripod is around 40", and I have no problem composing a scene while standing up. Just flip down the screen and look down. Most likely, I wouldn't want to go much shorter than that, though.

John Vogel
(johnv2002) - M

Locale: East Bay
Re: Re: Re: Re: MeFOTO daytripper tripod on 07/20/2014 18:03:55 MDT Print View

Here...standing up with my NEX screen tilted up, me looking down at it.

Half dome

Here is my first attempt at silky water sitting down, fully upright looking though the viewfinder

Silky water

And a pic of the Milky Way (still learning how to post process these for sure). All taken on the Silk Mini II 19mm 2.8 Sigma

Sky

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MeFOTO daytripper tripod on 07/20/2014 18:55:12 MDT Print View

Well, today is my birthday and my wonderful brother saw me looking at the MeFOTO ones the other day...and surprised me with one.

First of all - seriously cool that he would be so attentive, even if I hadn't at all made up my mind ;)

I am now the proud owner of the short meFOTO daytripper - in bright orange. HA! But honestly, it's pretty sweet! It's 26.1 oz on my scale (not great, not as bad as I thought) and folds up ridiculously small. I do like that it takes NO time at all to set up, whereas some of the others I was playing with in the store took a long time with the 3-4 section legs.

I found myself sitting on the ground, scooting along, to shoot. And honestly, it wasn't bad!

I'm sure it won't be perfect, and he did give me the receipt so I may end up exchanging it for one of the Slik ones I saw. But for now I guess I'll play around with it, see what I think. It wasn't too bad with the articulating screen, and I can see how having such a small tripod would make it more likely that I would actually TAKE it (which is why I never actually bothered to get one before).

So I'll give it a whirl and let you guys know.

Nathan W
(werne1nm) - M

Locale: Michigan
Re: Re: Light weight tripods. on 07/30/2014 05:59:07 MDT Print View

Bob is this similar to your tripod?

http://www.amazon.com/Targus-8-Section-Travel-42-Inch-TG-42TT/dp/B001AK04VY

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: Light weight tripods. on 07/30/2014 12:49:17 MDT Print View

Slightly similar.

This one appears to have cylindrical legs which might twist. Mine has legs that are highly shaped, which keeps them sliding in one direction and not twisting.

--B.G.--