Leofoto tripods

Feb 7, 2013
1,653
211
63
The West
#51
That is a good difference. But, should be tolerable on the 364C since I'm not really humping this stuff around these days, and I'm 6'3".

Going to have to investigate their lighter tripods that come with ball heads for my spotter. That sounds like perhaps the easiest route to go.

Thanks
First, let me start by saying I am a bit jealous of your height.

The reason I brought up the heavy weight earlier:

A lot of people should consider however what that weight might mean when down stream 6 months or so. Let assume that you honed your bipod skills and want to use it in a match or maybe hunting... In either case, you'll generally be caring enough, be it water, ammo, rain gear, etc along with your tripod that you'll wish, really wish, the tripod was lighter. I love my RRS TVC-33 and mine comes in a bit heaver than my Feisol 3372. By the time I am all stacked up for hunting, I look at everything and often end up defaulting to my 3343 at 2.5lbs (no foam), even though the RSS-TVC-33 shoots so much better. I've seen others leave the tripods home because it all became to much. Remember you can always add weight with your pack hung for extra stability, but you can't make the yoke smaller or the legs lighter.

I had the an old Carbon Getzo that I think was about $2k and it was about the same weight as the 404. It was just way to heavy, the yoke to large. Packing it, or moving it with one hand while kneeling holding the gun (as in using a leg for rear support), is a more awkward task than it sounds, especially when the legs are all spread out.

My point is that while the differences may seem very small today, the weight differences really do, or might in the future, matter to someone and may limit were and how one uses it.

Edited: mistakenly said 3472 is 2.5?lbs in stead of 3342 — changed above.
 
Last edited:

DP425

Nasty Nate
Feb 28, 2009
3,206
20
38
Lansing, Michigan
#52
First, let me start by saying I am a bit jealous of your height.

The reason I brought up the heavy weight earlier:

A lot of people should consider however what that weight might mean when down stream 6 months or so. Let assume that you honed your bipod skills and want to use it in a match or maybe hunting... In either case, you'll generally be caring enough, be it water, ammo, rain gear, etc along with your tripod that you'll wish, really wish, the tripod was lighter. I love my RRS TVC-33 and mine comes in a bit heaver than my Feisol 3372. By the time I am all stacked up for hunting, I look at everything and often end up defaulting to my 3472 at 2.5lbs (no foam), even though the RSS-TVC-33 shoots so much better. I've seen others leave the tripods home because it all became to much. Remember you can always add weight with your pack hung for extra stability, but you can't make the yoke smaller or the legs lighter.

I had the an old Carbon Getzo that I think was about $2k and it was about the same weight as the 404. It was just way to heavy, the yoke to large. Packing it, or moving it with one hand while kneeling holding the gun (as in using a leg for rear support), is a more awkward task than it sounds, especially when the legs are all spread out.

My point is that while the differences may seem very small today, the weight differences really do, or might in the future, matter to someone and may limit were and how one uses it.
All valid points!

I think I’m honing in on the 364C for my normal shooting tripod, and I’ll see what they have, which could if need be, serve double duty as a spotter tripod and field shooting tripod, in the event I really, REALLY need to cut weight. Run a standard ball head and go with it.
 

DP425

Nasty Nate
Feb 28, 2009
3,206
20
38
Lansing, Michigan
#54
Both are heavier than the RRS by a good measure.

Spec wise, and this is just the legs, not including attachments

364C - 5.7 LBS
404C - 7.5 LBS

RRS 33 Series - 4.3 LBS
RRS 23 Series - 3.3 LBS
RRS 24 Series - 3.3 LBS

In your hand, it's quite noticeable, I have the 364C here, as well as Most of the RRS models (one note I am not using the L models)

Final Comparison

Hog Saddle

PRST - 4.1 LBS - CF
0311 - 5.6 LBS - AL

The 364C is a big tripod unless you are over 6FT tall it's a bit overkill the LS-324C appears to be the correct model for shooting. It's 3.1 LBS with a 33LBS weight rating. They have some solid lightweight smaller models vs going with the big heavy 75mm ball versions, just use the lighter ones with a standard ball head.
Now having both the 364C and 324C in hand, I think I can better comment in regards to this.

I'll make a separate post soon covering these tripods, but for right now, with this thread, I'll give a quick impressions...


I'm 6'3", and IMO, the 364C has more height capacity than needed. It's not a small tripod by any means. But it's pretty stiff at full extension still.

The 324C, my impressions are pretty good, so long as you don't need to use the bottom leg extensions. There seems to be a decent bit of flex available in that last, narrow leg section. I think for most guys and most instances, this tripod would be sufficient. However, if you're a bit on the taller side, say, prob 6' plus... MAYBE even 5'10" and up, and foresee yourself using it extensively for full-standing positions, where you'd need to utilize those last, thin leg sections, I wouldn't get this tripod for use as the primary rifle support. But again, if you think about the people who will need to regularly use a tripod in full standing position, AND, are on the taller side... that's a fairly small group of people.

Side note on the 324C- IMO, this makes a sweet spotter tripod. It's PLENTY solid enough at full extension to support a standard spotting scope, it's pretty light weight, and relatively compact for the max height, considering it doesn't have a center post.

As I said, I'll do a full review on both tripods soon. I actually haven't gotten the 404C sent back yet, so I might just go ahead, open that up, so I can do a full review on all three tripods.
 

DP425

Nasty Nate
Feb 28, 2009
3,206
20
38
Lansing, Michigan
#55
Does the TA-3 also work on the LN-324C?
I can now confirm, that no, the TA-3 will not work on the LN-324C.

As a matter of fact, it only "sort of" works on the LN-364C. If you're fine using only the clamp to retain the TA-3, then you can use it as is. BUT, it WILL NOT engage the lock mechanism in the tripod. To do that, you must swap the bowl out; removing the RRS bowl and installing the Leofoto bowl that the tripod comes with. This APPEARS to reduce the range of motion, but I have not yet measured it out.

Personally, I'm not willing to roll with just a clamp lever to retain a $300 leveling base; that lever isn't hard to turn.
 
Dec 26, 2013
13
0
1
#56
I can now confirm, that no, the TA-3 will not work on the LN-324C.

As a matter of fact, it only "sort of" works on the LN-364C. If you're fine using only the clamp to retain the TA-3, then you can use it as is. BUT, it WILL NOT engage the lock mechanism in the tripod. To do that, you must swap the bowl out; removing the RRS bowl and installing the Leofoto bowl that the tripod comes with. This APPEARS to reduce the range of motion, but I have not yet measured it out.

Personally, I'm not willing to roll with just a clamp lever to retain a $300 leveling base; that lever isn't hard to turn.
Thanks! I agree.
 
Nov 18, 2009
475
3
18
45
Ohio
#57
I received my 364 the other day. This is my first Large CF tripod after shooting off of aluminum ones for a while.
Which half ball, or leveling base are you guys using. Mine came with the flat base and the bowl.
 

DP425

Nasty Nate
Feb 28, 2009
3,206
20
38
Lansing, Michigan
#58
I received my 364 the other day. This is my first Large CF tripod after shooting off of aluminum ones for a while.
Which half ball, or leveling base are you guys using. Mine came with the flat base and the bowl.
I have the RRS TA-3 in mine, but I'm using the bowl that came with the tripod. If you use the bowl that comes installed on the TA-3, it won't latch on the lock mechanism; you'll only have the clamping action to secure it. Good way to lose a $300 item IMO.

Now, RRS advertises the TA-3 as having 15 degrees adjustment in all directions; that would for all intents and purposes, mean, a range of motion of 30 degrees up/down. Using my phone to read cant, I tested the TA-3 in both the RRS bowl and the Leofoto Bowl, both without a rifle clamped in (in other words, phone directly on the clamp), and with my AXMC clamped in (phone on rifle). Readings were essentially the same with both methods. I found that my phone read a total range of motion for the RRS bowl at 27 degrees- three less than advertised. The Leofoto bowl with the TA-3 gave me 23 degrees total ROM.

This ROM reduction is caused by two main differences in the bowl designs; first, the center hole on the leofoto bowl is a smaller diameter than the RRS, so the threaded stud that has to go through it and pivot around, is inhibited by the smaller hole. This issue could be resolved by opening up the leofoto bowl's center hole. HOWEVER, that's not the end of it... The design of the leofoto bowl, with a deeper skirt; along with the contoured mating surface of the screw "clamp" that locks down the leveling base's movement, essentially squashes any hopes of getting equal ROM after swaping bowls. There is no good way to open up the skirting on the leofoto bowl, or you'll simply lose it, and with it, the grove which the retention lock interfaces with. The contoured piece that locks down on the bowl (sort of like a super thick, rounded washer) could be reduced in diameter, since it would otherwise hit the skirt, but I don't know what the cost would be in terms of lock-up... Reducing the surface area for friction to take it's hold could be a problem.

So, with that said, I'd likely suggest looking at the RRS TA-U-LC. This base appears to be nearly identical to the TA-2, except it's designed to mount on a 3/8 stud, which your tripod came with. Up-shot to this leveling base, is the 35lb weight rating vs the 25lb weight rating on the TA-3. You lose the under mount tension knob, but the collared style may be better under some conditions anyway, as it's larger, and right there in the open, directly below the rifle.

The other piece of this puzzle I suggest looking into, is their newly introduced Anvil-30 ball head. I haven't been able to find a lick of info out there on this yet, but they claim it's been designed specifically for shooting, with all the most shooting-useful features of leveling bases and ball heads, with none of the disadvantages for shooting that come with each. That is essentially, the only thing out there info wise. Point being, might be worth looking into when more info becomes available.
 
Likes: Lonestar1027

mpk1996

Full Member
Apr 25, 2013
422
24
18
#59
so, for guys with both the 364 and the RRS 33 I would like to know if the width of the leg attachment is the same. If so, the new Anvil-30 ball head with apex adaptor might be an option. you could just remove the legs and put them on the RRS Anvil 30 apex. now it would be a little slimmer too.
anyone care to take some measurements and post them?

http://soar.reallyrightstuff.com/Anvil-30-Ballhead?quantity=1&custcol49=4
 
Likes: Lonestar1027
Sep 16, 2009
466
18
18
College Station, Tx
#68
I finally got a chance to play with my 364c and night stalker tripod in the field with my 18lb SRS. I'm using a b&t picatinny adapter mounted to an arca type plate.
With the 364c I'm using the leofoto leveling base and it's honestly impressive for $30. Locks down solid and pans pretty smoothly. Range of motion is limited but being flat here it's not an issue. The 364 is a tank. I'm 6'3" and with the smallest sections 10-12" out and the rest all the way it's the perfect height and still more stable than the night stalker seated with only the largest leg section extended.

All rigged up I measured the 364 at 7lbs and the night stalker at 4lbs +- a few oz.

If I'd buy something else it would probably be a full blown rrs anvil tripod package. Either a 24L for the weight or 34L. The regular 34 would be too short for me I think. For now though, for how much I use a tripod I'm happy with what I have.
 

noisewaterphd

Burro Luchador
Feb 13, 2017
121
11
18
Wild West
#69
Very happy with the 364c and TA-3 combo. I've used it at a few matches now (mostly as rear support) and I have been very happy with the extra height over the Feisol/RRS. For shooting off of the tripod the height is a little overkill, but as a rear support it is much easier to get in there when shooting off of a taller barricade. I'm 6'3", but I've got a few friends with the same combo who are also happy to have the extra height in such situations. I like the leg locking mechanisms better than the Feisol, and the 4 leg sections means it slides nicely into my Eberlestock for stowage with the lower compartment still folded up.
 

goosed

Sergeant of the Hide
May 11, 2014
215
57
28
MN
#75
First, let me start by saying I am a bit jealous of your height.

The reason I brought up the heavy weight earlier:

A lot of people should consider however what that weight might mean when down stream 6 months or so. Let assume that you honed your bipod skills and want to use it in a match or maybe hunting... In either case, you'll generally be caring enough, be it water, ammo, rain gear, etc along with your tripod that you'll wish, really wish, the tripod was lighter. I love my RRS TVC-33 and mine comes in a bit heaver than my Feisol 3372. By the time I am all stacked up for hunting, I look at everything and often end up defaulting to my 3472 at 2.5lbs (no foam), even though the RSS-TVC-33 shoots so much better. I've seen others leave the tripods home because it all became to much. Remember you can always add weight with your pack hung for extra stability, but you can't make the yoke smaller or the legs lighter.

I had the an old Carbon Getzo that I think was about $2k and it was about the same weight as the 404. It was just way to heavy, the yoke to large. Packing it, or moving it with one hand while kneeling holding the gun (as in using a leg for rear support), is a more awkward task than it sounds, especially when the legs are all spread out.

My point is that while the differences may seem very small today, the weight differences really do, or might in the future, matter to someone and may limit were and how one uses it.
3472 is really 2.5lbs without foam?
 
Mar 31, 2013
57
3
8
Cape Girardeau,Mo.
#77
Update: I have had my L-364C tripod since December and I am still satisfied with it. Though I have not had a chance to put it to any heavy duty use, I haven't found any weaknesses yet. I did some night time coyote hunting with it over the winter in southern Illinois and the tripod functioned well in the extreme cold. One night we started about 9:00 pm, the temp was 38 with light fog. Our gear quickly became drenched with condensation. By 1 am the temp had dropped to 20 and the condensation became a layer of frost. I tell this because I was concerned about the functionality of the leg locks in the icy conditions but we had no problems. Sliding the legs in and out would shave the ice off and they never failed to unlock when we reached the next setup. I used the tripod this past weekend at a match as a dedicated spotting rig. The winds were a steady 8-10 mph with gusts up to 14. I have a pair of Swaro 15x56 binos on a Outdoorsman bino mount and I only experienced vibration during the most extreme gusts. I think the Outdoorsman mount acts like a tuning fork to amplify the wind effects. So far I like the tripod and I feel like it offers a great value for the price. If the tripod ever fails to perform any tasks that I ask of it or if it breaks, I will report that also.