View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pv17vv
Joined: 22 Dec 2001 Posts: 255 Location: The Ardennes, Belgium
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Which tripod size is the largest : #1 or #4 ?
Georges |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
The larger the number, the larger the tripod.
I found the #1 as useless. Kind of like a tiny travelling tripod for emergency use. The #4 is large enough to be useable. I've never seen a 2 or 3...
_________________ ----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
---------------------------------------- |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Henry
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 1644 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rich, I have a tripod marked "Crown Tripod no. 1" by Folmer Graflex. It's a beautifully-made wooden (mahogany?) job with brass fittings, but I wouldn't call it "tiny." I wonder if this is the same model as the one you mentioned? The main drawbacks to actually using this as a working tripod are (1) mounting a head on it with its 1/4"-20 hardware (you *could* mount a camera directly to it, with obvious shortcomings), and (2) adjusting/leveling the legs. It's on permanent loan to the wife for use as a plant stand, and it functions very attractively as such!
[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2006-02-11 09:04 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Henry,
I suppose "tiny" is a relative term. I wouldn't consider a #1 large enough for 4x5 work. No doubt it would hold up the camera but I just wouldn't trust it. Compared to me Berlebach, I'd call it 'tiny' Whereas the #4 I would consider very usable for 4x5 and even a light 8x10. It favors in size to the Berlebachs but certainly not as sturdy. I think it was Les who made mention that the #1 made a good travel tripod. Small & light and just barely up to the task.
Now to be honest, I've nevr actually used either... They may be better once set up with the weight of the camera on top? It's just the size of the #1 would worry me...
_________________ ----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
---------------------------------------- |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Henry
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 1644 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed, Rich, 4x5 would be a stretch. I think it would work OK with a Century, though. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Henry, you're right. It would be a great tripod for the 2x3 cameras. Why I never though of putting in the case with my Mini-Speed I'll never know
Thanks
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Henry
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 1644 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thing is, Rich, I'm so spoiled by my Bogen-Manfrotto 3001 'pod with medium geared head, that I just might end up tossing the #1 on the campfire. But as I said, it makes a really dandy plant stand! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can understand that. Though I like wood so I'll stick with my Berlebachs. The #1 fits the Mini as both are realy just collectibles for me. But who knows? I'm right now gathering what I need to use my Minox B after 35 years of it sitting in draws and boxes. That Mini may yet be used? The #1? Maybe not Still worth keeping!
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|