The Manfrotto MT190XPRO series is the smaller, lighter version of Manfrotto’s top of the line MT055 series. The construction quality is identical though, making the MT190 a good option for people who don’t need a tripod quite as large as the MT055, but still want one tripod that is competent at everything. It is still a bit too large to be considered a travel tripod, but could be carried hiking without too much fuss. The carbon fiber version performs quite well. The stiffness is better than we typically expect for tripods at this price point. The damping is acceptable, and significantly better than the aluminum version.
|Stiffness About Vertical Axis||503 +/- 3 Nm/rad|
|Damping About Vertical Axis||0.15 +/- 0.015 Js/rad|
|Stiffness About Radial Axis||1526 +/- 7 Nm/rad|
|Damping About Radial Axis||0.217 +/- 0.022 Js/rad|
|Weight||3.5 lbs (1.587 kgs)|
|Manufacturer weight rating||15.4 lbs|
|Maximum Height||53.5 in (135.9 cm)|
|Minimum Height||11.0 in (27.9 cm)|
|Max Height with Center Column||63.3 in (160.8 cm)|
|Base Diameter||2.3 in (5.8 cm)|
|Folded Length||23 in (58.4 cm)|
|Folded Circumference||12 in (30.5 cm)|
|Folded Volume||264.0 cu. in. (4.3 liters)|
|Primary Leg Angle||24.5 deg|
|Top Tube Diameter||24.8 mm|
|Second Tube Diameter||20.4 mm|
|Third Tube Diameter||16.1 mm|
The stiffness and damping data are the averages of 10 trials for each measurement. The reported error is the standard error, except in the case of the damping data. I have set the error in the damping at 10% as the standard error metric does not appropriately capture the error in fitting to the data. All of the reported specifications are measured, with the exception of the weight rating. The tripod is measured at full height, with the center column down.
Example data for oscillations about the vertical axis of the tripod:
The stiffness shown here is really quite good for a tripod at this price. The damping is acceptable.
Good fit, no problems.
Example data for oscillations about the radial axis of the tripod:
Very reasonable performance.
As is typical, the radial data is not quite as clean as the axial. But we are still clearly hitting the correct resonance in the fit.