Comparison & Conclusion

  1. Introduction & Specifications
  2. Design & Operation
  3. Test Results
  4. Head Choice
  5. Comparison & Conclusion

Like the rest of Leofoto’s line, the LN-324C provides excellent build quality for an unmatched price.  However, the performance aspect of that value equation is somewhat lacking here.  The stiffness is simply not what we expect out of a large heavy systematic style tripod.    The probable culprit is the quality of the carbon fiber tubing, though it is difficult to say for sure.  This isn’t to say the stiffness is bad.  It will happily support most gear that the average amateur photographer will throw at it, but at this weight we expect more.  


  • Price
  • Build Quality


  • Not terribly stiff for the weight
  • Somewhat heavy
  • Odd 55mm top plate diameter

Compared To:

For a more complete list, see the systematic tripods ranking page.

 Leofoto LN-324CLeofoto LS-324CFeisol Elite CT-3472 M2Induro GIT304Manfrotto MT055CXPRO3
Stiffness Nm/rad1095.01095.01550.01443.01289.0
Damping Js/rad0.460.470.270.260.39
Weight lbs (kg)4.87 (2.209)3.064 (1.39)3.88 (1.76)4.506 (2.044)4.261 (1.933)
Height in (cm)59.7 (151.6)51.3 (130.3)58.3 (148.1)51.7 (131.3)55.1 (140.0)

Leofoto LS-324C:  This is a natural comparison as these tripods share the same CF tubing at the same diameters, as indicated by the similar model numbers.  The LS version is from Leofoto’s more portable “Ranger” line.  It is shorter and has a fixed style apex that cannot accept the variety of accessories that the LN version can.  However, it is just a stiff, much lighter, and significantly cheaper.  If you don’t need the height, and don’t plan on using the center column or video bowl, the LS version is the obvious choice.

Feisol Elite CT-3472:  The Feisol is more expensive, but better in nearly every way.  It is the same height, significantly stiffer, all while being a pound lighter.  The damping isn’t quite as good, but this is an acceptable trade off for the increase in stiffness, which is more broadly beneficial.

Induro GIT304:  Rounding out the comparable mid-range systematic tripods is the Induro.  The induro is a little lighter and stiffer, but the comparison isn’t totally fair as it is also a much shorter tripod.  If we were comparing an equivalent version of the Induro that was the same height, we would likely see the specs as similar.  I would personally take the Leofoto for the better build quality, but it is a toss up.

Manfrotto MT055CXPRO3:  The Manfrotto isn’t a systematic tripod, but again, its stiffer and lighter, all while being cheaper.  This is despite the fact that the Manfrotto is tested with its center column, which only adds weight and reduces stiffness.

Who is it for?

Given the plethora of other, better performing options, it is somewhat difficult to figure out who should be seriously considering the LN-324C.  The answer is that you must want the versatility of a systematic style tripod at the lowest possible price, and aren’t too concerned with the weight.  If that is the case, you will be well rewarded by the excellent build quality and reasonable value that the Leofoto presents.

***Note:  The availability and support for Leofoto tripods varies wildly.  These tripods are well built and claim to have a 10yr warranty.  However, using that warranty likely would require sending the tripod back to china, which means it is effectively worthless.  The round trip shipping cost and time is impractical.

The Leofoto LN-324C can be found at the following retailers:


Using the links above to make your gear purchases helps fund more gear to review.  100% of the revenue generated goes towards the purchase or rental of more tripods and heads to add to this site’s test results.  Thank you for the support, -David.