Induro C014 Review

(larger versions of all photos in this article can be seen by clicking on them)

I'm going on a 25 Mile bike ride that starts at midnight next weekend (the "LATE Ride" in Chicago) and, in order to get some photos during the ride, I've been thinking about bringing my camera. The problem is that my tripod is heavy and bulky and 25 miles isn't easy to do without all that weight and bother. But, my husband drug me to Calumet Photo in Oakbrook and I saw and fell in love with the Induro C014 tripod. Eventually I ordered it from Adorama to avoid local shop's tendancies to push service plans on you.

In the store it was sitting right next to the very similar Gitzo which had a price tag of nearly double the Induro's, which was $289. I liked how compact it was when folded down as well as how light it was, so I went home and started looking into it.

It turned out on paper it wasn't that much different than my current tripod, a Bogen Manfrotto 190XB:

Folded Length:

• 190XB: 20 inches
• C014: 17.9 inches.

Max Height:

• 190XB: 46 inches w/o column extended, 57 inches including the column
• C014: 46 inches w/o column extended, 55 inches including the column

Weight:

• 190XB: 4 pounds
• C014: 2.3 pounds

So, for $289 I wondered if it was worth the expense for a 2 inch shorter folded length and a weight savings of 1.7 pounds.

But when you compare them side by side you can see how different they really are:



My hand is stretched when carrying the Manfrotto (folded) by two legs. My hand wraps comfortably around the C014 (I'll post the circumference of both later). And the fact that it's two inches shorter means I can attach it easily to my backpack (which I can't really do with my 190XB):



So, how does it work?
Well, because this is a lightweight, compact, travel tripod, I anticipated that it would not hold my 4 pound Sigma 50-500mm ("Bigma") -the 4th leg on this tripod is quite thin and that's pushing the 8 pound capacity of this tripd. But, after some testing in the backyard yesterday I found that, while it's difficult to get a sharp shot with the tripod fully extended, if you pull in the tiny 4th leg in (leaving only 2 sections instead of all 3 expanded) then it does pretty well. This is a 6 second long exposure taken on the Induro C014:



There was a breeze while this shot was taken, but not a strong wind. A remote was used to trigger the shutter, and no weight was used on the tripod (although there is a hook to attach weight to).

The tripod had no problems fully extended with my 75-300mm lens, a remote, and no weight attached.

The tripod's height without the column raised is a bit short, but it's the same as the full size Manfrotto 190XB. I'm 5 feet 3 inches tall and the height works very well for me. My husband, though, is about 6 feet tall and he has to bend down to look through the camera at that height.

Ease of use:
The twist-type leg locks are quick and easy to use -my hand fits across all three, so I can turn them all a quarter turn and the whole leg is unlocked and ready to be extended. A quick quarter-turn back (each) and they are all locked and I'm onto the next leg. Breakdown is just as easy: loosen each ring a quarter turn, collapse, then I can tighten all three at once. The locks turn very smoothly and their literature says they are resistant to water, sand, dirt, etc.

There's 3 leg positions at preset angles and the mechanism is easy to use. You just pull out that clip that says "Induro" on it, adjust the leg to the angle you want, then put that plastic piece back in place so it catches against the stair-like stopper to hold the position. Column extention is also very easy due to a nice big ring with three tabs around the head that's nice and easy to turn. The column has a channel in it so it won't turn. And the legs are made to not turn as well.

Extras:
There's a compass and circular level at the top of the legs. Both are small, but they both seem to work. The tripod also comes with a VERY nice bag and toolkit, and also has a 5 year warranty (although you have to register it to get all 5 years!).

Warnings:
Before purchasing this tripod I looked for reviews and didn't find very many. A couple of people, though, reported problems with other Induro tripods having cheap glue being used to hold the top portion of the tripod together. Both said that they were carrying the tripod over their shoulder with large (heavy) lenses attached when it came apart. When carrying my Manfrotto like that I ALWAYS have a hold on either the lens or the camera and lens straps just in case it falls. I've always considered carrying the tripod like that a risky manouver anyway, but I thought I'd mention that.

Final Thoughts:
I'm actually surprised at how sturdy this tripod is and I'm going to attempt to switch to this as my full-time tripod. I'm using the Manfrotto 484RC2 head on it, which fits well and together it makes a nice little package that's very compact, yet easy to use and quite functional including the ability to hold up my bigma, which is a big plus that I wasn't anticipating!

There are some who will read the warning as well as the fact that the mechanism for adjusting the angle of the tripod is plastic and will be thinking that they'll get the similar Gitzo. -That may be best if you really test the limits of your equipment. You don't have to guess with Gitzo -you'll know it's made well. Not all of us have that kind of money lying around, though. For the rest of us, know that Gitzo's adjustment is similar -there's a plastic piece you pull out, but the parts that catch to support the tripod are metal in Gitzo's case.

So, yes, it's true that the Induro is not made quite to the same standards as the Gitzo. But the differences are really in the things that would matter more to a pro using the tripod daily with heavy lenses, and this tripod in particular (being compact for travel and limited to supporting 8 pounds), I doubt any of this really matters. Also -it's almost half the price! You could probably break it and buy another one later for the cost of starting out with the Gitzo. And if you keep in mind the limitations and don't abuse your equipment, I doubt you'd ever see a problem with it.

With all the talk about build quality, don't be fooled. Everything on the Induro says quality as far as I'm concerned. From the fluid-like motion of the leg locks to the finish on the carbon fiber. -I was able to use the Induro and the Gitzo side-by-side in the store and I saw very little difference. Everything on the Induro is easy to use and nothing (to me) screams cheap. (Well, maybe the angle adjustment on the legs, but they are easy to use and I don't change leg angles all that much.) -I really do think most people would be quite happy with this tripod!

Comparison photos, the Induro C014 next to the Manfrotto 190XB:

Unexpanded (the ruler thing is 2 feet tall):


Expanded:

Flickr's printing service -bad for digital sized photos

I got the original version of the photo above printed by Flickr and I chose the "8 x D" option, which was supposed to print it at it's normal digital size of 8x12, but when I got the print in the mail, it was cropped as you see here. What's worse is I couldn't find an email address or phone number to call about the issue. Oh well, I'm only out a bit of money, but I won't be ordering prints from Flickr again unless they are film size. Too bad, the quality's good and it's definitely convenient :-\.

$70 Lens Review: Canon 50mm f/1.8 II

Some call it the "fantastic plastic" and given the build quality, you'll know why. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 II is the lightest lens you're likely to ever hold in your hands (except for maybe the lens baby); the lens cap is laughably small, the focus ring is too! Also, it's autofocus is quite noisy and doesn't perform well in low-light or low-contrast conditions at all.

BUT!

This lens is quite sharp and for the money, it can't be beat. If you even THINK you might have a use for a fast normal prime, it may be worthwhile to check this lens out!

Here's a link to my sharpness test results for this lens.

Here's a link to my sharpness test results for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (around $400) for comparison.

And here's a link to all of my lens test results.

**PLEASE NOTE**
In the real world you aren't usually taking pictures of black and white text. I do my testing this way to show minimal differences that would probably never be noticed on actual photos. Also, remember when viewing the test results at 100%, this is the equivalent of having your photo printed at 30x20. If you don't crop much and don't print that big, you don't need a lens that's perfectly sharp at 100%.

My Thoughts:
...In the past few weeks I've been using this lens for studio photography, pics of my fish, etc and I must say that it's definitely a workable lens. If your subjects are moving (like my fish), you'll have to focus manually with that tiny little focus ring, but for me it really didn't matter. I got used to it pretty quick. In fact, I almost feel bad that I spent the money on the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 -it seems like a waste when this lens is so close in focal length and quality (of pictures). The Sigma is definitely better built, but I don't think I'd ever be able to tell the difference in quality between the two if real world photos from them were placed side-by-side. If you're deciding between the two and you're willing to live with the downsides of the "Fantastic Plastic", I'd say go for it!



What do I mean by "Prime"?
Prime lenses are non-zoom lenses, so they stay fixed at one focal length. If you want to "zoom in" or "zoom out", your only option is to do so with your feet.

Why would you want a "Prime" instead of a "Zoom" lens?
In the old days primes were considered superior because zoom lenses were often poorly made. Technology has since improved and some zooms are as good as primes. Zoom lenses, however, cost more (sometimes MUCH more). So, these days people usually buy primes to get a better quality lens for a lower price. Besides, "zooms" are not usually needed for studio work, macro photography, etc.

What do I mean by "a Fast lens"?
Fast lenses allow you to get higher shutter speeds in low-light conditions without a flash. Most of the time they are used to avoid blur in indoor photos when you can't (or don't want to) use a flash.

How do you identify how "fast" a lens is?: Lenses are identified by their focal length (for this lens, that's the 50mm part, which tells you how close your subject will appear through the lens), followed by the maximum aperture of the lens (for this lens, that's the f/1.8 part). The lower the number that follows that "f/", the "faster" the lens is (or the better it will perform in low-light conditions). f/1.8 is VERY fast, although my Sigma is a f/1.4 and Canon makes a 50mm "L series" lens that's a f/1.0!

Recommended Reading: Evidence of my Existence

I love biographies / autobiographies and while searching for something to read while on vacation I ran across "Evidence of my Existence" by Jim Lo Scalzo. It's an amazing account of how one person got into photojournalism and includes many stories of the adventures he's had on assignments and personal projects. The official description on all the sites that promote his book says:

He’s been spit on by Mennonites in Missouri, by heroin addicts in Pakistan, and by the KKK in South Carolina. He’s contracted hepatitis on the Navajo Nation, endured two bouts of amoebic dysentery in India and Burma and four cases of giardia in Nepal, Peru, Afghanistan, and Cuba. He’s been shot with rubber bullets in Seattle, knocked to the ground by a water cannon in Quebec, and sprayed with more teargas than he cares to recall. But photojournalism is his career, and travel is his compulsive craving.

...and he does a great job of describing these experiences so you feel like you were there and understand his reasons for going and the importance of what he was doing. The struggle for Jim, however, is his real NEED for travel and photography and his attempts at balancing that with his wife and longing to make a family. This theme is woven throughout the book as well, but doesn't detract from the photographic interests like I was worried they might.

Anyway, I've enjoyed this book greatly and wanted to share it with anyone else who may be interested in photo-related reading. One big thing to note about this book, though, is the fact that there are NO PHOTOS. Seems strange for a book that's centered around photography, but I found that reviewing Jim's photos on the book's website gave me enough of a glimpse into his art and the fruits of all his adventures, so I didn't mind so much. This really is more of a biography than a book about photography anyway, but it was of interest to me just to find out how people get into photojournalism and what life might be like if one were lucky enough to be employed as such.

Here's some links for more info:
Book website w/ pictures (contains much flash)
Book trailer -part 1 (video on YouTube.com)
Book trailer -part 2 (video on YouTube.com)

Lens test: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 VS Canon 100mm f/2.8

Okay, so I did a TON of research before buying my newest lens, a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 "fixed" or "prime" (meaning it doesn't "zoom", its always at 30mm). But, in all my research I read over and over again that this lens was "L series" sharp in the center, but it's corner and edge performance was poor. The unanswered question was -where's the "center" VS the "edge"? Where does the sharpness fall off? How big of an area will be "L series" sharp? There seemed to be no answer to that question, but I bought it anyway based on a lot of SQF and MTF data as well as lens tests others have done (all archived and/or linked to on this page).

Now that I've had the lens for a couple weeks, I decided to run my own lens sharpness tests. This was my first attempt, so I wasted a whole day doing tests by taking pictures of a newspaper ad taped to the wall. After taking shots with EVERY LENS I OWN (and at several focal lengths for the zoom lenses!), I converted the resulting photos (over 250 of them) from RAW to jpeg, then started comparing them. It was then that I realized that my tests were flawed. The camera was not always exactly perpendicular to the wall, so the edges on many shots were blurry -not because the lens was flawed, but because they weren't in the plane of focus! (GRR!)

So, last night I re-did the test, but only with my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and my Canon 100mm f/2.8. This time I laid some paper with printing on it on the floor, then used a level to make sure the camera's LCD screen was level before taking the photos (straight down). I had to redo these several times to try to get the framing of the photos to be roughly the same at both focal lengths, but I finally got it right.

All photos were taken on a tripod, using a remote shutter release, with mirror lockup enabled to get the most sharpness possible from each shot. Also, 2 photos were taken at each focal length so that if camera shake was an issue it'd be obvious when the 2 shots were compared.

After the photos were taken, the two versions were compared to make sure they were the same, then they were converted to jpeg. Now, because what I wanted to see when I was shopping around was an entire, full-resolution shot, I uploaded all the shots to flickr, they are in this set.

Then, I opened all the shots at once in Gimp, found the exact center of the photo, and then expanded them all to 100% so that they'd show the same area. Next, I arranged all the windows in order and in such a way that the shots with both lenses at each focal length were together for easy comparison, and then I took a screenshot and uploaded that photo as the "center crops" photo.

Then I looked for the clearest edge for both lenses , and took a crop from as close to the middle of the bottom and right-hand edges as possible, and with them arranged the same as the were for the center crops, I took another screenshot and uploaded those photos as the "bottom edge" and the "right edge" crops. And lastly, I did the same thing for the "corner crop" photo.

All the photos were added to a set which can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/erica_marshall/sets/72157602932628392/


I'm not going to dwell on results here, because you can see them for yourself. I do feel that it's really important to put this data in perspective, though, so here are some tips for using these test shots in the way they were intended:

If you compare the two lenses, you'll see that the Canon 100mm is much sharper through to the edges and corners than the 30mm. This isn't much of a surprise and does NOT say anything bad about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. This dramatic difference is due to the focal length -it's much easier to get clear edges and corners with a longer focal length. My suspicion is that even the Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens isn't completely sharp in the corners!

These tests show black and white text to maximize the lack of sharpness. In the real world the difference in sharpness that you see here will almost be imperceptible. The differences will never be this clear in a real photo.

This is a fast lens who's use at low-numbered apertures (which is kindof the point of having it) will yield a very shallow depth of field. When you have a shallow DOF, your subject is usually not right on the edge or in the very corner of the frame anyway, so edge and corner performance isn't really all that important on this type of lens.

Keep in mind that none of these shots were sharpened at all, they are straight RAW files, converted to jpegs.

Don't fall into the trap of obsessing over numbers. I obviously have to an extent, but you have to be able to take a step back and see the whole picture. These tests may be flawed and the results may not apply in real world situations. Use at your own $risk$.


Perhaps one day I'll try to rent a Canon 28mm f/1.8 and re-do the tests so they can be compared more directly. But, I find it interesting to see how much of a difference aperture can make in the sharpness of your photos. In fact, I think I'm going to test the rest of my lenses as well, then label each lens with it's sharpest apertures and some indicator of where the sharpest part of the frame is as well.

As close to a conclusion as I'll get for now:
Last night I was asked if I was happy with my purchase or if I regretted it. I must say that I've already gotten use out of it in low-light situations where I never would have been able to manage a picture before, so I am finding it useful. As far as sharpness goes, I think it's acceptable in the center, and I know, now, how to get the best photos from it. But, not having other similar lenses to test, I cannot say for sure if I'd be happier with another (similar) lens. -I guess time will tell as far as how well it does in real-world situations. I have been impressed with it's use, like I said, but I haven't really had a photo yet that puts it to the test as far as sharpness goes. I do intend to use this lens a lot in my home studio, though, so I'll definitely post another review whenever I get around to getting a really good real-world picture with it.