Today I discovered a new application of the FoCal AF fine tuning software from Reikan Technology. While at a Western NC Foto Fest two weeks ago, I was introduced to Feisol tripods. I was so impressed with the build quality that I bought a Tournament 3442 with a center column.

I am planning a trip with NANPA to Acadia NP in two weeks, and I was trying to decide whether to take my Gitzo GT3530LS or the new Feisol. After some thought, I decided to use FoCal to help make the decision.

I setup FoCal on my laptop in my garage next to my Gitzo and Feisol. I had my Wimberley WH-200 on the Gitzo and a Kirk BH-3 ball head on the Feisol.

First, I tried my Nikon 200-400mm mounted on one of my D800E bodies. I ran the AF Consistency Test using the Gitzo. I then moved the camera/lens to the Feisol, and ran the same test. The AF consistency was about 93 on the Gitzo and 66 on the Feisol.

Second, I tried my Nikon 70-200mm using the same tripod/head combos. This time the AF consistency was actually higher with the Feisol than the Gitzo.

Since I do not plan to take the 200-400mm on the Acadia trip, I am now planning to take the Feisol/Kirk combo...with confidence that I will have a stable shooting platform.

Of course, the one element I could not duplicate is the effects of wind on the combo. Wind would definitely have more impact with the Feisol because the legs are not as large and stable as the Gitzo. I will just have to stay out of the wind or hang my camera bag on the hook under the tripod.

Just thought you guys would be interested.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Is it repeatable? I'm surprised that the tripod would be the largest variation in that, unless the wind/vibration was very constant.

On a distantly related note, one way I found to test tripod stability is star trails, especially with telephotos. Just focus to the stars, and do a longish shot(s). Look at the trail and see how much giggle, it's like your own little seismograph. Though there also if wind is the issue and not constant, hard to compare.

I've had a heavy Feisol for years (CT-3371), no column, and it's like a tank - solid, nicely damped vibration, works great. I bought it with their ballhead (CB-50H) and hated it, used it once it's sat on the shelf since. But couldn't ask for a better tripod.


Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

I got the idea of using FoCal when reading a review of tripod stability in which the tester used a laser sight on his camera and bounced a tennis ball off the lens. He measured how long it took for the laser beam to stop moving on the target.

I figured the FoCal AF Consistency test would do the same thing with more accuracy.

When I was first running my AF fine tuning with FoCal, I could see a distinct impact on AF consistency as the length of the lens increased. To do my AF fine tuning with the 200-400mm with a 1.4x TC installed, I had to increase the ISO to 800 and turn on VR to reduce the impact of vibration enough to get a good fine tuning.

I knew the Feisol would not be as stable as the Gitzo because the legs are smaller/thinner. I also knew that the maximum weight specs for the tripods had more to do with gravity strength of the tripod than stability. However, the max weight limit should be an indicator of stability.

When testing the Feisol against the Gitzo, I had to try several ISO settings before I could get reasonable results. I finally settled on ISO 400. I also tried several lens lengths. I finally concluded that the 200-400mm set at 400mm and the 70-200mm set at 200mm would be the best comparisons. Using the 1.4x TC just introduced another sharpness variable that I did not want to contend with.

In the end, I ran several tests with each lens and each tripod. The results were consistent. However, I had no wind in my garage. Wind would add another element, but it would be worse with the 200-400mm because the projected vertical area of the lens is significantly larger than the 70-200mm.

I have used a Manfrotto 190CX3 while traveling and got good results with a D300 on lenses up to 200mm. The Feisol 3442 is more stable than the Manfrotto, so I expected to get good results in my testing up to that lens length. My tests confirmed what I expected.

I was not planning to use the 200-400mm with the Feisol, but I was curious. Now I know not to use it because the data is clear.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/