the lonely photographer wrote:
I'm in need of some durable C stands, don't know a lot about them moving up from just adequate fold up  light stands, Samy's is offering  Kupo brand, and Mathews, similar  price though, anybody  care to  offer an experience with these products, also is a turtle mount  really useful? I'm mounting profoto D1's on them  this will be , used in an auditorium

Matthews is the Hollywood standard and you can find them on film, tv, and photo sets around the world.  They are made in Burbank, CA.  Kupo is a new company with a quick release idea.  They are made in China.

I have half a dozen Matthews c-stands, I have beefy babies, a mombo combo, and numerous other Matthews gear.  You could run a truck over any of it, pick it up and use it like nothing happened.

Best of luck with your decision. 

MN camera wrote:
Just to complicate things a bit further, American Grip is also very good stuff.  They were the first with the "Hurst shifter" style handle on grip heads and the like.  They're roughly equal in price and quality to Matthews.

http://www.americangrip.com/

The handle is kewl, but they are not equal.  Mathews had better engineering in terms of both materials and parts design.  Look carefully at the heads, there is a clear difference.  I have owned them both!

Robert Feliciano wrote:
I've never put lights on my C-stands. I use them for flags, scrims, reflectors, etc. I've never been on a pro shoot where someone did have lights on them.

I would hope the C stands are stronger than standard light stands that come in the  kits. No comment on your pro shoots.

the lonely photographer wrote:
I would hope the C stands are stronger than standard light stands that come in the  kits. No comment on your pro shoots.

The lightstands that come with those kits are to hold the umbrellas, which also come with the kits. They aren't being use to hold up 4'x6' softboxes with grids and a sandbag.
The biggest shoot I've been on had junior roller stands each holding 2 pro packs superclamped to the stand as weight leading into a twin head.

Robert Feliciano wrote:
I'm saying horses for courses. If portability is important, C-stands fail the test; awkward base that doesn't fit in a case well, no wheels to move while on set.
The beauty of a C-stand is the small footprint of the base. It's great for moving it in close or having many of them close together. Your OP never mentioned those 2 things, just portability and strength. There are better options if those criteria are important. I'm saying get strong folding light stands, not a C-stand and not a weak stand. You can get any good stackable Manfrotto stand, an AC stand, a steel instead of aluminum stand, or something like this if you want versatility:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5 … Stand.html

That certainly is a viable option  and I would certainly consider it that foot print is much wider than the  C-stand and portability is good,   though I'm not using the boom arms to position  lights   namely to mount a light directly to the bolt.
but I'd like to hear the Members opinions, I don't think I'm wrong in assuming the C stands are stronger, than the fold up type and can handle heavier  weight with the right attachments, my concern is stability, I don't want that thing tipping over and bonking someone ,  this will be used in a theratre arena  amongst rows of  seats   and probably weighed down the equivalent of a small car.

If anybody wants to chime in  they are welcome to.  I am looking at the best option   thank you

the lonely photographer wrote:
I don't think I'm wrong in assuming the C stands are stronger, than the fold up type and can handle heavier  weight with the right attachments, my concern is stability, I don't want that thing tipping over and bonking someone ,  this will be used in a theratre arena  amongst rows of  seats   and probably weighed down the equivalent of a small car.

You're neither right nor wrong, but you're both right and wrong. It all depends on which C-stand you are comparing to which light stands. I feel you're only comparing Matthews C-stands to lightweight stands meant to hold umbrellas, then yes, C-stands will hold more weight. But if you're comparing it to a stronger steel (not aluminum) folding stand, then you're wrong, by about 3 pounds.
If it will be in between the seats, it depends on the theater whether either base will even fit between seats. Given that most theaters have angled floors, you should look for a stand that has a variable height on one leg to compensate for the incline, like this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2 … _Boom.html

Robert Feliciano wrote:
You're neither right nor wrong, but you're both right and wrong. It all depends on which C-stand you are comparing to which light stands. I feel you're only comparing Matthews C-stands to lightweight stands meant to hold umbrellas, then yes, C-stands will hold more weight. But if you're comparing it to a stronger steel (not aluminum) folding stand, then you're wrong, by about 3 pounds.
If it will be in between the seats, it depends on the theater whether either base will even fit between seats. Given that most theaters have angled floors, you should look for a stand that has a variable height on one leg to compensate for the incline, like this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2 … _Boom.html

I have  a kit  with lightstands,  so thats whats supplied,  you're saying those  stands should only be used for umbrellas   leaves me to wonder how to attach the monolight to the stand  since the monolight has a little hole the shaft of the umbrella goes through. And there is no  other attachment in the kit for the umbrella other than the light itself...

Robert Feliciano wrote:
I've never put lights on my C-stands. I use them for flags, scrims, reflectors, etc. I've never been on a pro shoot where someone did have lights on them.

All the time...hot lights mostly but I use them from my Photogenics as well. In TV we used Matthews almost exclusively.

the lonely photographer wrote:
I have  a kit  with lightstands,  so thats whats supplied,  you're saying those  stands should only be used for umbrellas   leaves me to wonder how to attach the monolight to the stand  since the monolight has a little hole the shaft of the umbrella goes through. And there is no  other attachment in the kit for the umbrella other than the light itself...

Robert Feliciano wrote:
I've never put lights on my C-stands. I use them for flags, scrims, reflectors, etc. I've never been on a pro shoot where someone did have lights on them.

I really don't know what kind of pro shoots you've been on, but you have apparently been missing numerous pro shoots that use C-Stands to hold light heads in EVERY DAY use. I have personally seen that they are a staple in studios all over NYC where I work on my own professional shoots regularly, not only for flags and grip equipment.

Was your comment implying that pros don't put strobe heads on C-stands or that it is unprofessional to do so? If so, it would be incorrect and easily contradicted.

Robert Feliciano wrote:
I'm not saying the kit stands are just for the umbrellas. I'm saying they're for lights with the small umbrella included as the modifier. Of course the light goes on the stand and the umbrella in the light.
By professional, you mean payment for services, then yes, of course, C-stands are used by professionals. But on most shoots I've been on, stands with WHEELS are the preferred method, thus no C-stands for the lights.

LOL   I guess Robert  forgot  most MM here don't live in the exalted world of being amongst luxury of wheeled lightstands, use $150 dollar  Cstands to hold a flag or scrim (I use a potato chip clip and on a dowel and ask someone to hold  it). It sucks to be po' and broke most of the time.  Hell my idea of visiting a foreign country is going down to Tijuana.
Its all good Robert, I like the $200 dollar light stand with the adjustable leg,  its pretty much exactly what I need for the job. Its a hell of a lot safer than the C stands I had in mind.
Thanks for the tip

Robert Feliciano wrote:
I'm not saying the kit stands are just for the umbrellas. I'm saying they're for lights with the small umbrella included as the modifier. Of course the light goes on the stand and the umbrella in the light.
By professional, you mean payment for services, then yes, of course, C-stands are used by professionals. But on most shoots I've been on, stands with WHEELS are the preferred method, thus no C-stands for the lights.

Then I would suggest you get out of the studio for a while.  Because on location (beach, carpeted home, historical buildings, etc.) you'll get run on out on a rail for trying to wheel anything around or you gear won't work.  Want to run a set of casters?  Put them anywhere near beach sand.  The ball-bearings will implode.

I've been on set with HBO films (in my historical building) and there was not a wheeled stand to be found.  Plenty of baby and junior stands and booms, plenty of c-stands, plenty of HMIs.  But no wheels. 

In my studio we do use wheeled stands, but also c-stands, and traditional light stands.  You use what you need for the job at hand.  Wheeled stands don't work well on uneven floors, inclines, carpeting, or outdoors on rough terrain.

Robert Feliciano wrote:
I'm not saying the kit stands are just for the umbrellas. I'm saying they're for lights with the small umbrella included as the modifier. Of course the light goes on the stand and the umbrella in the light.
By professional, you mean payment for services, then yes, of course, C-stands are used by professionals. But on most shoots I've been on, stands with WHEELS are the preferred method, thus no C-stands for the lights.

For still photography and strobe lighting, wheels are NOT the preferred method. C-stands with sandbags are.

MDWM wrote:
For still photography and strobe lighting, wheels are NOT the preferred method. C-stands with sandbags are.

There are many tools for many jobs and I'm sure C-stands work for you and many others. But most standard 40" C-stands don't go much higher than 10'. Sorry, but I'd be a lot less productive with a 7' Profoto umbrella on a C-stand. I'll take a 13'-14' roller any day over a 10' C-stand. My 1st studio had 15' ceilings, I was spoiled rotten. I'm down to 12' now.
I do like the floating leg C-stand, but still too short.

Robert Feliciano wrote:

There are many tools for many jobs and I'm sure C-stands work for you and many others. But most standard 40" C-stands don't go much higher than 10'. Sorry, but I'd be a lot less productive with a 7' Profoto umbrella on a C-stand. I'll take a 13'-14' roller any day over a 10' C-stand. My 1st studio had 15' ceilings, I was spoiled rotten. I'm down to 12' now.
I do like the floating leg C-stand, but still too short.

The OP's question is about c-stands. Hell Yeah, if you're light is big or you're going high, I would use a high roller as well.

Jim Lafferty wrote:
I like Avenger stands over both.

I can give you several reasons why I think Avengers are inferior to Matthews.  I have both.

Brian D wrote:
Avenger is the Hollywood standard by far.  They may cost ten bucks more each, but they'll last the life of your career.

Avenger grip was started in the 90's by Italian company Manfrotto.  Matthews grip was started in 1968 by a guy formerly working for Paramount studios.  I have grip gear from both companies.  But I will say this and you can stake my name to it.

When it comes to flying gear in the air, where a failure could KILL someone, it's my Matthews gear or nothing.  Period.  When I rigged my 2K Mole 20+ feet up, you can bet it was on my MSE Combo stand.  And when I had to rig strobes for an outdoor fashion show this summer with spectators 40ft down, that Avenger gear stayed RIGHT in the bag.  If I am rigging up a camera behind the soccer goal or to the post over at first base, that big plastic handle on the superclamp is very convenient.  But I don't make life bets on convenience.  And neither does any grip or gaffer worth his union card.

You are free to do what you want and use what you want.  But you call up guys like Shawn Cullen from Sports Illustrated and ask him what he rigs with at the NBA finals, the Superbowl, or the London Games this year.  Then you call over to the grip dept. of the studios and ask where they get their grip from.  Then call Ed Philips over at MSE and ask for a Hollywood/Burbank client list.

NOBODY lasts 40+ years in Hollywood unless they are doing something very right.

ei Total Productions wrote:

I can give you several reasons why I think Avengers are inferior to Matthews.  I have both.

OK. I'd like to see the reasons. I've heard the Canon/Nikon type back and forth about Matthews vs. Avenger, and I would like to know what really makes one brand better.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I can give you several reasons why I think Avengers are inferior to Matthews.  I have both.

GeM Photographic wrote:
OK. I'd like to see the reasons. I've heard the Canon/Nikon type back and forth about Matthews vs. Avenger, and I would like to know what really makes one brand better.

With pleasure.  Avenger is a very good piece of equipment.  I have no problems with them.  There are, however, several things about Matthews which are definitely better.

First, Matthews uses a metal disk rather than rubber in the junctions of the heads.  There have been iterations over the years, but the new metal disk in the latest generation, (rather than cork or rubber), is far more durable.  It also bites better, allowing it to carry more weight on the gobo arm.

Next, Matthews had designed a hexagonal openings in their heads which grip better than the round ones in the Avengers.  It is a much better design and if you try to prevent your load from rotating, you will see the difference.

The other features are really preferences. Things such as the handle size/shape (which Matthews has evolved) Are examples.  Some prefer the castings of one to the other, etc, etc, etc.  I think there are pros and cons to each.

There is no doubt though, the hexagonal openings and the metal disk are substantial improvements.  Those things may not be important to you but it is impossible to argue that they are not better.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Some prefer the castings of one to the other, etc, etc, etc.  I think there are pros and cons to each.

Castings make the Matthews a bit lighter.
Their black paint sucks though...the Avenger black paint is much better.
I still have a Matthews...

ei Total Productions wrote:
Some prefer the castings of one to the other, etc, etc, etc.  I think there are pros and cons to each.

SKITA Studios wrote:
Castings make the Matthews a bit lighter.
Their black paint sucks though...the Avenger black paint is much better.
I still have a Matthews...

I don't like painted stands, period.  They reduce glare but they are all bad, as far as I am concerned.  Have you ever broken a Matthews casting?  They use a different alloy than Avenger.  I have never broken either.

The bottom line though is that the Matthews will bear more load on the gobo arm.  As I said, I have them both and like them both.  The rest is just nitpicking.