[Leica] Triods

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>the exercise of simply claming a camera down on
the biggest, most rock-solid mother of a tripod you can imagine,
shooting a
scene on Technipan, APX25, Delta 100, or something else like
that...Why?  Because we can<<<

Martin,
And that's fine. I don't undertand why the owner of a Pentax or a Contax
can't do the same thing, but knock yourself out. I have no quarrel with
that. If you wish to do all your photography from the branches of trees
or the depths of the ocean or standing on your head, I honestly have no
objection. It's your business, and none of mine.

>>>So, in the light of this, since we are on the absolute ragged edge of

performance, we want to know the limitations of all variables<<<

Okay, but I'd think you'd want to distinguish between real variables and
mental masturbation of the anal-retentive variety (? can I mix
psychological terms like that? <s>)...as Ctein would say, "If you can't
see the difference, it doesn't count."

>>>The question of which tripod leg material (along with head design
and other factors) then becomes relevant<<<

And here is where I'm making what should have been a brief and modest
modest 2-cent contribution to the thread, but what has grown into a
nine-headed hydra: I'm saying, no it doesn't. You cannot tell. There is
no difference between a photograph taken on sturdy wooden tripods and
photographs taken on sturdy metal ones. None at all. It depends on other
things, like the technique you use, ground vibrations, vibrations from
within the camera, etc., MAYBE; but a sturdy tripod is a sturdy tripod,
and the idea that a material that allegedly "absorbs vibrations" better
makes for better pictures is a myth.

Actually, though, I'm all set to run some experiments. I've gotten
myself a laser pointer, and I have a sturdy Gitzo Studex, a lighter
Manfrotto, and a fine wooden Ries. I should get to it this weekend. Stay
tuned. Who knows, you may get to see me eat some serious crow. <s>

- --Mike