 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / March 2004Lightweight tripod head for MF
Hi, I've settled on a digital SLR and Fuji MF rangefinder as my holiday travel kit. In the past I have taken a fairly heavy Gitzo tripod, but decided to cut the weight by switching to a carbon fibre type. I bought the Manfrotto 440, which is very nice, but now I find need a lighter head - I put my large 168 QR ball head on it but this is so heavy that it negates the advantage of the lightweight carbon. The only other head I have is a small Gitzo 1175 ball head, but this is probably too flimsy for the MF - and doesn't do portrait shots on the Manfrotto. Can anyone recommend a compromise head for the Manofrotto? I think the recommended head is a magnesium 3D head, but I prefer balls heads. I also would like a quick-release type. Thanks Andy > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > recommended head is a magnesium 3D head, but I prefer balls heads. I also > would like a quick-release type. The Acratech Ball Head is very light and will support 25lbs very securely. It can be had with an Arca/Swiss style QR clamp. http://www.acratech.net Lisa Good morning, I have a similar problem. My Manfrotto 055CB is too heavy with the standard head, so I'm not carrying it in the field often (especially when walking). I'm thinking about a lightweight ballhead to reduce the total weight drastically, and I think about using a basic Manfrotto 486 without release plates. That Acratech head looks impressive on specification, but too costly for my tastes. I have two 35mm SLR bodies (without boosters), a 70-200/2.8, a 28-70/2.8, a 50mm/1.4 lenses and sometimes an external flash, plus a Fuji MF rangefinder. All this equipment barely can fit inside a backpack with a bottle of water and something to eat - and it's rather heavy... The Fuji is so light you shouldn't have a problem even with a very light tripod (they don't have mirror slapping), except in very windy conditions. . In fact, I think the 35mm gear with telephotos etc. places bigger demands on tripods compared to the Fuji RF. Any opinions on this? Still thinking about it, N.F > Good morning, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Still thinking about it, My opinion, which was expensive to arrive at, is that you can either get a really good ball head, or you can save money. Arca, Kirk, Acratech, etc., there's a reason why all the good ones start at around $300. The Acratech weighs very little and will securely support up to 25lbs. It's a spartan solution, for those looking for exactly that. And I agree about 35mm with very long lenses being more demanding than a relatively light MF rig. Lisa > The Acratech weighs very little and will securely support up to 25lbs. > It's a spartan solution, for those looking for exactly that. Spartan is good. > And I agree about 35mm with very long lenses being more demanding than a > relatively light MF rig. Depending upon the usual degree of enlargement one wants. But we know that. If I may just interject - to date, the CF tripod designs for still photography that I have seen are plain wrong-headed. All that's been done is to recast the aluminum design to CF. So you save weight, but you loose steadiness, gain resonance and in most cases, introduce flex (regardless of the impressionistic marketing mismeasures to show rigidity). So you have to ask yourself: To what extent can you tolerate to lose the qualities that make a tripod worthwhile. Now it seems that many photography mavens have more love for hardware than outcomes, and many others haven't the critical eye to tell the difference between good and bad 'pods. So be it. But if I were to choose between the virtues of an adequate tripod and seven pounds less weight, I'd choose to accept the weight. > If I may just interject - to date, the CF tripod designs for still > photography that I have seen are plain wrong-headed Then you haven't seen these. http://www.giottos.com/eng_public/frameset.htm  SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > > If I may just interject - to date, the CF tripod designs for still > > photography that I have seen are plain wrong-headed > > Then you haven't seen these. > http://www.giottos.com/eng_public/frameset.htm I'm afraid I didn't find any carbon fiber tripods there, Bob. I saw the Bazooka series, and while it definitely does transcend the tube profile, it's still aluminum and an unspecified alloy - not CF... unless they can't say "Carbon Fiber" for some reason. It's not a trademark yet, that I know of. > > > If I may just interject - to date, the CF tripod designs for still > > > photography that I have seen are plain wrong-headed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > say "Carbon Fiber" for some reason. It's not a trademark yet, that I know > of. You didn't look at the professional category. This link might be easier for you: http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/PR/Giottos%20pr.html SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > You didn't look at the professional category. This link might be easier > for you: > > http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/PR/Giottos%20pr.html Still looks like the transposition of a conventional design with the same liabilities. > > You didn't look at the professional category. This link might be easier > > for you: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Still looks like the transposition of a conventional design with the same > liabilities. Well let's see: The Giottos has a central control around the center column that sets the leg spread angle to one of 3 positions for all legs at the same time. To my knowledge no other tripod does this. Then there is an individual lock on each leg top to adjust each leg to a different angle if desired. And the tension of the leg spread and the leg lock are adjustable by the user. The column goes up and down like most tripods and then racks over, from the center, to any position from straight down to almost straight up. It is adjustable for the amount of overhang and a seperate control, beneath the column tube allows for 360? rotation of the column - a feature not found on any other tripod. A spring loaded hook is at the bottom of the column for a counter weight. When the column is not used the top plate becomes a 3-way pan tilt head. A feature not found on other tripods. The feet are rubber balls covering large aluminum spikes. these can be unscrewed and replaced with a large diameter rubber disk which has it's own ball head with adjustable tension control. The disk has a small hole in it to put a nail or spike through to anchor the disk on sand, snow, mud, etc. Or a snow shoe with an attached spike can be used. The tripod comes with a shoulder strap and a tool kit for adjustments. Each is attached to the tripod with a 3/8" screw on the side of the casting for the column. These can be replaced with Novoflx gooseneck arms either 10 or 18" long. Each arm has a ball head with a flash shoe mount. The arms also accept Novoflex reflector clamps or plant clamps. That means the tripod can be set up in the field with the column pointed at any angle and the gooseneck arms can hold a flash on each side, a flash on one side and a reflector on the other side, or a clip to hold a leaf, stem or electronic part in front of the lens so your hands are free to operate the camera. Again not seen in other tripods. Then add the other standard features, leg covers, 14 layer French carbon fiber, case, etc and a M.A.P. of $268.00 to $326.00 or in aluminum from $145.00 to 160.00. So how do you envision a tripod to be different? SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > > > http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/PR/Giottos%20pr.html > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > leg spread angle to one of 3 positions for all legs at the same time. To > my knowledge no other tripod does this. > [... snip good stuff ... see the article...] > The column goes up and down like most tripods and then racks over, from > the center, to any position from straight down to almost straight up. Finally, a better answer to Benbo's approach, which was fine for machine guns, but... > [... more great stuff snipped ...] Yes, I admit those are _very_ nice features, in fact possibly truly groundbreaking. Very exciting stuff! However, I was addressing specifically a design to obviate the usual liablities of CF in a tripod. Wait... read on, please. > 14 layer French carbon fiber [...] :) What's that mean? I have right here some of the world renounded Winona CF used by all sorts of presigious concerns, including NASA, the US Military, even Carnegie Hall musicians. No French clients, however. > So how do you envision a tripod to be different? Before I answer that - my original concern was fixing the liablities of CF in particular. Perhaps the Giottos has achieved that, but you understand my skepticism. By its looks (a bad measure, to be sure) it appears to be a bit overextended and subject to the same liabilities as conventional material. However, the proof is in the practice, and if the CF version were priced at the aluminum product level I would get one regardless of my doubts and then I would _know_. Heck, even if it turns out to have only some very cool macro and lightweight applications, it would be worth it. But the price... too high for me. Still much better than CF used to be, but... damn, I work almost exclusively under government grants, project to project. $ is always an issue. Oh, what do I envision? What I envision I've found to be beyond my competence to put together alone, and since I'm old enough to understand that I'll probably never live to see it made, here it is: It's a slender six-legged device, with each leg having three articulations that move much like spider legs (constrained to vertical and very little rotation). The camera mount would hang under the center or be put on top. You pull a release and the legs unlock enough so you can move them to where you like, or simply place them against an uneven area so they naturally conform to the surface, (uneven area such as rocks, stream, stairs, Mars, the Moon, etc), push the center to seat the feet, then hit the lock and all the legs lock firmly in place. The camera mount can be canted separately. Of course it is the operator/photographer's responsibility to make sure it's balanced, just like real life. There's a trick to making this thing just right (and to obviate a patent problem) - possibly using miniature hydralulic channels and valves, but I'm just not smart enough to pull it off. Now if someone wants to put up a few $ I can get the best composite materials engineers in the world and some very good mechanical engineers on it. Whoops. That's the day job. Never mind. Aw, maybe I should just tough it out and get the CF version. > news-east.ash.giganews.com Something like this perhaps? http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/products.htm or this http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/products.htm The nice thing about 3 legs is that they are able to position something and maintain stability easier then 4 or more legs. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > > news-east.ash.giganews.com > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or this > http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/products.htm Nope. Not like those. More like something from War of the Worlds. :) Spindly, spider-like thing. Definitely not a mainstream thing one would put at a point-of-purchase display. > The nice thing about 3 legs is that they are able to position something > and maintain stability easier then 4 or more legs. That could very well be true. Four would probably be enough. With six you can use as many as you like. > > > http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/PR/Giottos%20pr.html > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > leg spread angle to one of 3 positions for all legs at the same time. To > my knowledge no other tripod does this. <SNIP> You've missed the point: jjs and I feel that the bounce and sproing of the CF tripods (at least the under 2kg CF tripods) is so severe as to make them worse than handholding in the 1/15 to 1/125 shutter speed range for MF cameras. IMHO, it's only when you get into the Velbon Neo Camagne 730 class that CF tripods are better than handholding for 645 and larger cameras. (And jjs might not even accept the 730<g>.) > So how do you envision a tripod to be different? Bells and whistles are irrelevant if the tripod doesn't hold the camera steady, and we're not convinced those tripods are capable of doing that. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > and we're not convinced those tripods are capable of doing that. Is that because you have looked at the Giottos? Or is that your belief without seeing it? SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > > and we're not convinced those tripods are capable of doing that. > > Is that because you have looked at the Giottos? Or is that your belief > without seeing it? The pages you pointed us to were extremely sparse on specs, so it's hard to tell if they have the mechanical strength I'm looking for. The trick overly aggressive salesman who persuaded me to buy the tripod I use used was to swing his whole weight from the thing. He was a short scrawny guy, but it blew me away. Will the Giottos hold 45 or 50 kg without collapsing? David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > > and we're not convinced those tripods are capable of doing that. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan It is rated for 33 lbs. If you want a tripod that can support your house then you need to look at the Linhof Heavy Duty Pro 003323. It is used to support cameras as well as radar and satellite dishes. It can also be used to add a support beam in your basement. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > > The pages you pointed us to were extremely sparse on specs, so it's hard to > > tell if they have the mechanical strength I'm looking for. The trick overly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It is rated for 33 lbs. They sure don't look adequate for a Fuji GX680, a camera that's well under 33 lbs. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > > The pages you pointed us to were extremely sparse on specs, so it's hard > to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Look at them first to make an informed opinion. A photo won't tell you much. Then let peopel know. As it is know your comments are guesses. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > They sure don't look adequate for a Fuji GX680, a camera that's well under > 33 lbs. I might buy one to find out. If it's crap, I'll send it to you, David. :) > > They sure don't look adequate for a Fuji GX680, a camera that's well under > > 33 lbs. > > I might buy one to find out. If it's crap, I'll send it to you, David. :) Sounds good. I'll test it again, and if it's still crap, I'll send it on to Stacey or Bob. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan If you plan to send it to Stacey make sure you don't contaminate it by mounting your digital camera on it. > > > They sure don't look adequate for a Fuji GX680, a camera that's well > under [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > If you plan to send it to Stacey make sure you don't contaminate it by > mounting your digital camera on it. Better yet, leave the digicam attached, and see if it comes back in pieces. > > If you plan to send it to Stacey make sure you don't contaminate it by > > mounting your digital camera on it. > > Better yet, leave the digicam attached, and see if it comes back in pieces. That's complicated. Presumably Stacey'd be sending the tripod on to Bob or Rafe after determining that the sproing was unacceptable. So we'd have to ask for a report from the next tester. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< By the way, Really Right Stuff has a new ball head (not out until May, though) that looks quite nice. (They also have a new panorama head that's just a panorama base with spirit level and clamp. It's on order: I'll report back if it works.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > If you plan to send it to Stacey make sure you don't contaminate it by > mounting your digital camera on it. Not a problem for the near future: I haven't shot digital in two years. Canon hasn't produced the digital I want. 6MP just isn't enough for A4 prints for the stuff I do (I like detail). Even with a Stacey-despised inkjet printer, MF looks better at A4. But if they ever make a 16MP sensor with 10D quality pixels, I'm outta the MF business. But I suspect that that's several years away yet. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan O.K., I was mistaken. I thought you owned a digital camera. Would you mind renting one, attach it to the tripod for a few minutes, and then send the tripod on to Stacey? This would serve as a test to see if the tripod emits some sort of odor that allows her to recognize that a digital camea has been on it. > > If you plan to send it to Stacey make sure you don't contaminate it by > > mounting your digital camera on it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Apologies for coming in late. I have owned the Manfrotto toy CF tripod. It was hopeless. I then bought the Gitzo 1325. It is stunning and 2KG. My normal trick is to mount a big camera on it and give it a whack and see how the camera responds to the impact. My then GX680II damped its movement in no time at all. By comparision, at the same height a Benbo was a perfect pendulum and the Manfrotto 075 (don't know the bogon equiv no) resonated and moved more than the CF version. In fact this tripod (£300 in the UK) was so impressive that I had wished I had bought a lighter and smaller one. My scepticism had forced me inadvertently to buy bigger than needed. BTW, in common with the thread, I used the Arca Swiss ball head and I will check out the lighter ones when I buy another lighter CF pod. On 19/3/04 12:54 pm, in article <teemax@film.net> wrote: > O.K., I was mistaken. I thought you owned a digital camera. Would you mind > renting one, attach it to the tripod for a few minutes, and then send the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> David J. Littleboy >> Tokyo, Japan > > and we're not convinced those tripods are capable of doing that. > > Is that because you have looked at the Giottos? Or is that your belief > without seeing it? Seeing one won't help. Maybe next month I'll dip into the personal budget and buy one and put it up to task in the field with a 'blad. Then I'll let you know. Stay tuned. It's my money this time. If it's a vibrating POS, everyone will know. > > and we're not convinced those tripods are capable of doing that. > > Is that because you have looked at the Giottos? Or is that your belief > without seeing it? I played with one of the Giotto CF twistie head things at Helix; don't know which model. It was light; the center column tilted. Both are important things I was looking for in a new tripod. It was also sproingy and somewhat resonant when I batted the legs lightly with my fingers, with about 7 lbs on the head. I'm still looking for a solution: lightweight, four section, tilting center column, stable and sturdy. Maybe backwards in order of priorities. > I played with one of the Giotto CF twistie head things at Helix; don't know > which model. [...] So, are you a Chicago fellow? Where abouts? > > I played with one of the Giotto CF twistie head things at Helix; don't know > > which model. [...] > > So, are you a Chicago fellow? Where abouts? The west 'burbs. I work downtown, across from the CME. > If I may just interject - to date, the CF tripod designs for still > photography that I have seen are plain wrong-headed. All that's been done is > to recast the aluminum design to CF. So you save weight, but you loose > steadiness, gain resonance and in most cases, introduce flex (regardless of > the impressionistic marketing mismeasures to show rigidity). That's true for the under 2 kg leg sets, but the larger CF leg sets are fine. Starting at the Velbon Neo Carmagne 730 (2.35 kg) level, the flex and sproing are gone. I own a (metal) Slik 300DX, which although painfully short, is clearly significantly better (less flex and sproing) than any CF tripod lighter than the 300DX. > So you have to > ask yourself: To what extent can you tolerate to lose the qualities that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > were to choose between the virtues of an adequate tripod and seven pounds > less weight, I'd choose to accept the weight. Really. It looks to me that a flex and sproing tripod would be _worse_ than handholding, at least in the 1/30 to 1/125 range. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > recommended head is a magnesium 3D head, but I prefer balls heads. I also > would like a quick-release type. The Kirk BH-3 is like a scaled down Arca monoball (more or less: it doesn't have the progressive damping) and is what I use on a Manfrotto 444. I know Lisa uses an Acratech on hers and I think with this tripod these are the two leading choices. Either is more rigid than the tripod itself, and as light as you are likely to get for the support you need. Peter > The Kirk BH-3 is like a scaled down Arca monoball (more or less: it doesn't > have the progressive damping) and is what I use on a Manfrotto 444. I know > Lisa uses an Acratech on hers and I think with this tripod these are the two > leading choices. Do you use your BH-3 to hold your camera flopped over on the side for vertical shots? If so, what camera/lens and how well does it work? (I've been thinking about the BH-3. I'm currently using a Foba Superball M-1, and I'm not happy with it for flopping my Mamiya 645 over on it's side for vertical shots. (The camera moves as I tighten down on the knob, very irritating.)) David J. Littleboy davidjl@gol.com Tokyo, Japan > > The Kirk BH-3 is like a scaled down Arca monoball (more or > > less: it doesn't have the progressive damping) and is what I use [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 645 over on it's side for vertical shots. (The camera moves as I > tighten down on the knob, very irritating.)) Yes, but not often. I much prefer to use an 'L'-bracket for portrait oriented shots, so only 'flop the ball' when I'm travelling light. I use this head mostly with 35mm gear, usually putting my MF cameras on an Arca B1 on a big Gitzo. Having said that, the BH-3 really doesn't seem to move when I tighten the knob. It'll hold a Pentax LX and 300mm F4 A*, for example, like this. I like it, and it seems exactly the right size to match up to the 444. I have used the 444/BH-3 combination with my 6x6 gear when travelling and it has worked pretty well, certainly fine with a 180mm f2.8 (though probably not if it was very windy.) Of course, with 6x6 I don't need to flop the ball. My 35mm stuff is probably similar in weight to your 645 though, so I'd expect it to be fine. In fact, my preference for using an 'L'-bracket rather than flopping the ball isn't really to do with the head: it has more to do with the tripod and keeping the mass above the apex. It also just seems easier to use that way rather than work with the ball flopped and then need to use the panning base to adjust side-to-side, etc. Peter > > (I've been thinking about the BH-3. I'm currently using a Foba > > Superball M-1, and I'm not happy with it for flopping my Mamiya [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > seems easier to use that way rather than work with the ball flopped and then > need to use the panning base to adjust side-to-side, etc. Hmm. Thanks for the comments. Sounds as though I should probably get at least the BH-1. (One of those buying the right tool first saves money in the long run sorts of things.) I have an L-bracket for my Mamiya but it gets in the way of hand-held operation, and getting it on and off the camera is awkward enough that I'd not want to futz with it in the field. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan [SNIP] > Hmm. Thanks for the comments. Sounds as though I should probably get at > least the BH-1. (One of those buying the right tool first saves money in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > operation, and getting it on and off the camera is awkward enough that I'd > not want to futz with it in the field. My 'L'-bracket is the RRS one - very nice. But not knowing the control layout on the Mamiya well I don't know if it would get in the way. A custom one probably exists from either Kirk or RRS which would be designed not to, of course. As well as my Kirk BH-3 on a lightweight tripod I also have an Arca B1 on a bigger 'pod. The Arca is so nice that if I was going to get a ball-head that size anyway, I'd go for that rather than anything else. The progressive damping on the Arca certainly improves matters when flopping the ball. There was a thread on the BH-1 to Arca comparison in rpe35 recently that you might want to Google for. Peter >Hmm. Thanks for the comments. Sounds as though I should probably get at >least the BH-1. (One of those buying the right tool first saves money in the >long run sorts of things.) For once I learned from other folks' experience on this and other groups, rather than going ahead and making their mistakes all over again - I bought an Arca B1 for my MF (RB & C330F) and 35mm kit with RRS plates for each body. Definitely not lightweight and not cheap but it stays where I put it and I'll never need to buy another head. Rod Weed my email address to reply http://website.lineone.net/~rodcraddock/index.html Dear all, Thanks for your input. I was hoping for a slightly cheaper head than the BH-3, but maybe I could monitor Ebay for a while. I too have the Pentax A* 300/4 so a sturdy ball is important. Also, I guess I could use this with my Bronica ETRSi and Wista 5x4 field camera? Any idea of the maximum weight for the BH-3? (although I guess it depends on how that weight is balanced - the ETRSi with 150/4 and 2x converter is pretty front-heavy. > >Hmm. Thanks for the comments. Sounds as though I should probably get at > >least the BH-1. (One of those buying the right tool first saves money in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Weed my email address to reply > http://website.lineone.net/~rodcraddock/index.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.