I think I've found my tripod solution: Tiltall Tripod TE Original Series Tripod

[JBW]

I have been trying to find a way to move into astrophotography without spending more than my conscience or my wife would find appropriate. The Tiltall Tripod at US 180 seems to fit the bill.

"The black TE Original Series Tripod with 3-Way Head from Tiltall has a load capacity of 44 lb, which can support cameras from DSLR and 35mm up to large format. The tripod can extend to a maximum height of 74" and go as low as 28.5".

The 3-section tripod has twist locks for leg extension and adjustable stainless-steel spiked feet for a more secure grip on uneven terrain. One of the legs is detachable and can be converted into a monopod. Both head and legs are constructed from aluminum and have been anodized. The 3-way pan and tilt head has three separate independent locks and has a 1/4"-20 camera fitting.

Twist locks

Rubber feet with adjustable stainless-steel spikes

Removable leg converts into a monopod

Anodized black finish

Carry case included "

According to one review it is a 1944 design and is rock solid.

Unless anyone knows something horrible about this tripod and head I'll be ordering it.

Brian

[Manfred M]

I would avoid it just because of the head that it ships with. With your mobility issues, I suspect you would find that the head would be something I would avoid as you would have to separately move / loosen / tighten three separate controls to set up the tripod. These types of heads are found on amateur tripods and I know of no experienced photographers that would want that design.

Second issue the maximum height appears to be based on having the column extended full out. That gives you a very unstable platform for shooting.

Third issue - screw type attachment - no quick release plate. Again not something anyone I know would want in a tripod. Do you really want to be fumbling in the dark trying to attach a camera with that type of arrangement? My guess would be no.

Based on your previous comments, I suspect that the only things driving your decision to go with this unit is the price and stated capacity. I suspect you would find this tripod very frustrating to use.

[Geoff F]

I have one twist locking legs tripod and I definitely wouldn't purchase another.

It is a Velbon and I purchased it because it was lightweight and fitted inside my backpack for when I don't want to struggle with a 'real tripod'. But those twist lock legs need a lot of pressure to securely tighten, and even more to release them. I find it is a real stretch with both arms to do the twisting.

Also, considering where the ground end of my tripod may have been resting, when photographing literally in the field, I sometimes don't want to grab hold of the end and give it a firm twist!

All my future tripods will have the easy to use over centre locking levers to control height. At least you can place the tripod assembly flat on the ground and really get to grips with a lever if there is any difficulty with it.

[Manfred M]

I have one twist locking legs tripod and I definitely wouldn't purchase another.

Interesting as I had a toggle lock type tripod (in fact two of them) and went to twist locks and now have three of them and would never go back.

My experience with toggles is that they are easy to snag on and accidentally release one of the legs; with the whole setup tumbling down. The other issue was that they would loosen over time and the legs would slip. Fixing this issue was impossible without ordering new flip locks from the manufacturer.

Neither of these issues exist with twist locks, which is why I prefer them.

[Geoff F]

Toggle locks certainly snag plenty of vegetation and when photographing insects in dense undergrowth I frequently come out with various bits of plants trailing behind me, but I have never had this to cause the lock to undo.

I always use Manfrotto tripods which have a simple nut on the end of the lever which can easily be adjusted with an 8 mm socket spanner, so they are always adjustable to suit the individual user.

My wrist grip is reasonably strong but I still struggle to fully tighten a twist lock and I did have one which locked so tightly that I had to get rather rough with a pipe wrench to release it.

[NorthernFocus]

I have both style legs to contend with. My largest tripod that I use with gimbal head has the twist locks. They work well in that I often carry that one in the bush and the smooth legs are a big help. The twist locking mechanism is fairly well designed and can be operated with one hand. It works well with the exception that they must be kept clean or they stick. Then my smallest tripod that I use for travel has twist legs which make for a nice small package for packing etc. I find the twist locks work better on the smaller pod and with the lighter weights. Then I have a pod that I use exclusively for landscape shooting. It has the cam style locks. They are definitely easier to operate than the twist locks but are bulkier and do tend to snag things.

[Mike Buckley]

The only problem I have with the flip-style locks is that I often snag the lanyard attached to my infrared remote shutter release on them. If I would hang the lanyard over my neck as I designed it to be used, it would never get snagged on the lock.

[rpcrowe]

I have both flip-lock and twist lock tripods and I have had no problems with either type. I am guessing that the quality of the tripod and the operator's familiarity with the tripod might be more problematical than whether it is a flip or twist lock type.

As far as quality goes, price is a good indicator but not the final determinant of a tripod quality. I have found that twist locks of less than quality tripods need to be severely tightened to remain solid. Most quality tripods only need a finger tightening to make and keep them secure. The flip locks of quality tripods also seem more secure...

Another problematic issue with tripods is using them to support loads that they are not built to support. IMO, the manufacturer's specs and overly generous when prescribing a tripod load. They are usually figured out with a balanced camera/lens load on level ground and pointing level. I like to use a tripod with at least 2x more capacity than my gear weighs...

Finally, when I carry my camera on a tripod, I will usually have the front leg a bit longer than the other two. That way, I can plant the front leg on the ground and draw back on the other two legs and finally level the pod. I learned this technique handling large wooden motion picture tripods and 16mm or 35mm professional motion picture cameras. The total package of tripod, tripod head and camera with lenses and magazine could easily weigh well in excess of fifty pounds. It is probably overkill to handle a DSLR and tripod in this manner but, it is the way I am used to setting up a tripod and, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"

[JBW]

valid points from one and all and certainly pointing out that I need to rethink.

For the record my Slik U8000 has a 3 way pan and tilt and I have no problems with using it most of the time. I shoot sitting down so as long as the minimum unextended height is 51" or a bit higher I'm okay.

I have been finding myself wishing for a geared head for making framing easier. I would be surprised if I was to use more than 15 lbs. of gear. Any suggestions?

[rpcrowe]

The Tiltall tripod and head has been around in many variations for what seems like a zillion years. I have not used one for years but, really liked it when I used this tripod. Perhaps, now, I have become a bit more sophisticated and would not like it as well if I were to use one today.

I don't know who first manufactured the Tiltall but, sometime in the early 1970's, Tiltall was bought out by Leitz who marketed it for quite a while. I believe that the Tiltall is presently being manufactured by a Taiwan firm.

In the days when most tripods had pan heads, the Tiltall was quite an innovation.

The amazing thing is that very little seems to have changed about this tripod...

[Manfred M]

valid points from one and all and certainly pointing out that I need to rethink.

For the record my Slik U8000 has a 3 way pan and tilt and I have no problems with using it most of the time. I shoot sitting down so as long as the minimum unextended height is 51" or a bit higher I'm okay.

I have been finding myself wishing for a geared head for making framing easier. I would be surprised if I was to use more than 15 lbs. of gear. Any suggestions?

The reviews are good and I suspect that it is higher quality than your Slik, but do you really want a tripod that only extends to 725mm (28.5") without putting up the column? For the type of photography you are planning to do, the column needs to be at the bottom (lowest position).



http://tiltalltripod.com/TEO.html

[JBW]

The reviews are good and I suspect that it is higher quality than your Slik, but do you really want a tripod that only extends to 725mm (28.5") without putting up the column? For the type of photography you are planning to do, the column needs to be at the bottom (lowest position).



http://tiltalltripod.com/TEO.html

if you look at the specs maximum monopod height is 57". Minimum height is the height with all legs collapsed?

[JBW]

The Tiltall tripod and head has been around in many variations for what seems like a zillion years. I have not used one for years but, really liked it when I used this tripod. Perhaps, now, I have become a bit more sophisticated and would not like it as well if I were to use one today.

I don't know who first manufactured the Tiltall but, sometime in the early 1970's, Tiltall was bought out by Leitz who marketed it for quite a while. I believe that the Tiltall is presently being manufactured by a Taiwan firm.

In the days when most tripods had pan heads, the Tiltall was quite an innovation.

The amazing thing is hat very little has changed about this tripod...

I don't know the original manufacturer but if the review was right it was first produced in 1944.

[Manfred M]

if you look at the specs maximum monopod height is 57". Minimum height is the height with all legs collapsed?

The spec sheet symbols really is not terribly clear. If the monopod height is 57", that will drop at least a few inches with the legs splayed out. The 31mm tubes on the other hand and the three section design look promising. If you add the equatorial wedge you mentioned in your previous question, that would take care of the mounting concerns as the camera would sit on the dovetail plate that comes with it.

The images on the B&H and Tiltall sites don't give a great shot of the bottom of the column, but I don't see a hook there.

[JBW]

The spec sheet symbols really is not terribly clear. If the monopod height is 57", that will drop at least a few inches with the legs splayed out. The 31mm tubes on the other hand and the three section design look promising. If you add the equatorial wedge you mentioned in your previous question, that would take care of the mounting concerns as the camera would sit on the dovetail plate that comes with it.

The images on the B&H and Tiltall sites don't give a great shot of the bottom of the column, but I don't see a hook there.

either did I. But sandbags on the feet would be an alternative?

[Mike Buckley]

Unless the tripod is quite low to the ground with the legs spread out quite a lot, I wouldn't trust sandbags. This product might be a better solution.

It's possible that the tripod has a hook on the far side not displayed in the photo. EDIT: The manufacturer's website displays more details in their photos. Even so, none of them display a hook. Neither the manufacturer's website nor B&H's website mentions a hook in the specs, so I doubt that it has one.

[Manfred M]

either did I. But sandbags on the feet would be an alternative?

On a tripod I only weight the hook. Sandbagging the feet has never worked that well for me as the sandbags are mostly on the ground, not on the legs.

[JBW]

Unless the tripod is quite low to the ground with the legs spread out quite a lot, I wouldn't trust sandbags. This product might be a better solution.

It's possible that the tripod has a hook on the far side not displayed in the photo. EDIT: The manufacturer's website displays more details in their photos. Even so, none of them display a hook. Neither the manufacturer's website nor B&H's website mentions a hook in the specs, so I doubt that it has one.

I like that and a hammock in the tropics is just so appropriate

[rpcrowe]

When I was shooting motion pictures, I occasionally used a hammock-like device such as the Oben, in the illustration. However, only used it for ready storage of gear, not as a steadying vie.

When using a camera, tripod, and fluid head that weighed well over fifty pounds secured with a spider which weighed another five to ten pounds, I did not often use a weight to keep the unit stable.

However when I shot Polaris missiles broaching with a pair of 16mm Mitchell cameras, and a 70mm Hulcher still camera, on a steel wedge riding on an O'Connor fluid head, I secured the combination to the deck of the destroyer escort from which I was shooting using an aircraft tiedown chain attached to a O-ring welded to the deck of the ship. That combination weighed well over a hundred pounds and would have been terrible dangerous on the tossing deck.

Destroyer escorts were small Navy ships not known for their stability if the sea was even a bit rough...

[JBW]

When I was shooting motion pictures, I occasionally used a hammock-like device such as the Oben, in the illustration. However, only used it for ready storage of gear, not as a steadying vie.

When using a camera, tripod, and fluid head that weighed well over fifty pounds secured with a spider which weighed another five to ten pounds, I did not often use a weight to keep the unit stable.

However when I shot Polaris missiles broaching with a pair of 16mm Mitchell cameras, and a 70mm Hulcher still camera, on a steel wedge riding on an O'Connor fluid head, I secured the combination to the deck of the destroyer escort from which I was shooting using an aircraft tiedown chain attached to a O-ring welded to the deck of the ship. That combination weighed well over a hundred pounds and would have been terrible dangerous on the tossing deck.

Destroyer escorts were small Navy ships not known for their stability if the sea was even a bit rough...

sounds like you have had some interesting times