NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Other => Topic started by: jhinkey on April 05, 2016, 20:43:46
-
I do a lot of 400mm+ landscape tele work where a stable geared head is absolutely necessary.
The part I'm missing right now is the stable part.
I've been using the Manfrotto 405 head and it's OK, but with my newly-acquired 500/4P and 600/5.6 AIS it's kind of reached its limits for stiffness. It handles well during positioning, but locking it down to minimize vibration or movement during critical focusing is troublesome.
Love the portability and relatively low weight.
So I'm looking for something that's as adjustable (and easily flippable between portrait and landscape orientation) due to the gearing, but is much more solid/stiff than the 405.
I see lots of really really expensive options out there (Arca D4 & Cube in particular), but I was wondering if any of you more experienced folks have alternatives that might meet my needs.
Remember, not doing wildlife, so rapid tracking of anything is not needed - the current 405 gearing works great for that. I just need precise movements that can be locked to being very stiff.
Thanks - John
-
What kind of tripod ('legs') will this head be used on? No need for a sophisticated head if the legs are inadequate ...
Without any comparative value perhaps, for my 500++ lenses up to say around 2000mm I'm using a beefy yet not very heavy Sachtler ENG 2 CF HD and their Video 20 Fluid Head. Really long lenses cannot rely on stiffness alone, active dampening is essential in addition.
-
I have had (some) success with using two tripods. One for the lens and one for the camera. Not the easiest exercise I have tried but its sturdy and functional on stationary objects. A Berlebac for the lens and a Benro for the camera.
-
This approach will work, but is slow and cumbersome. Plus you can get unhealthy stress leverage from the lens to the camera mount, thus be very careful when you set up this kind of rig.
-
I'm using a Manfrotto 475B with the legs minimally extended and decently angled out as necessary:
(https://cdn.manfrotto.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/u/u/uuid-1800px-inriverimage_368822.jpg)
When I mount everything up as tight as I can get it, the most flex in the system is clearly from the 405 geared head - the small gears they use, even after locking them, just have too much flex.
I hear what you are saying about damping, that must be there too, but first order is to get a lot of the flex out of the system. I can add damping later if needed (I am an engineer that theoretically can figure this out).
So, I have the 475B tripod->3/8" bolt->Manfrotto 438 Leveling Base->3/8"bolt->405 Geared Head/QR Plate->3/8" bolt->Arca-Compatable Clamp->Short Plate->1/4"bolt->600/5.6 Tripod Foot
Occasionally if desperate I will extend the column a bit, but I usually don't need nor want to.
- John
-
Manfrotto tripods are not known for any high torsional resistance. That is absolutely necessary when you work with long lenses. If the finder image "swims", then the setup and support is inadequate.
-
Manfrotto tripods are not known for any high torsional resistance. That is absolutely necessary when you work with long lenses. If the finder image "swims", then the setup and support is inadequate.
As I indicated, the majority of the flex is in the geared head, though I'm sure the tripod and everything in-between contributes, it does not appear to be the major player - that is until I get a more stiff geared head!
-
You need a better tripod for those long lenses. That is my conclusion. And a geared head can never be locked down enough.
-
You need a better tripod for those long lenses. That is my conclusion. And a geared head can never be locked down enough.
You are certainly correct, but it's not the majority of the current problem. The play/lack of stiffness of the 405 is at least half of the overall flex in the system. I may see if I can open up the 405 and get some of the lash out of the gearing, though I'm not sure that will nearly cure things because the design is not very sophisticated. I have a geared alti-azimuth telecope mount that is hugely heavy and bulky and the geared movements have very very little lash in them and are very stiff (the lash is adjustable too which helps a lot).
The other problem the 405 has is that the lens axis is very far away from the rotating axes, thus aggravating the flex.
I've taken great measures in the past to weigh down the 475B, spring out the legs so they are in tension, etc. so that it's rock solid, but that geared head lets me down. Hence my quest for something better, though it may not exist.
-
All field practice shows you cannot weigh down the support for a lens and hope that solves the vibration issue. It never will. Put your lens onto the ground. Now it is supported by the mass of the entire planet. Still will vibrate.
The geared head is the weakest link in a chain of not too robust components I'm afraid. The contact areas are small and a lot of strain is put on those teeth of the centre column.
A tripod system capable of handling 600 mm lenses adequately for landscape photography and long exposures should have a static load capability of many times more than the weight of the lens. Can you stand on top of your tripod and it won't break? then the tripod in itself is robust enough. This has of course nothing to do with the tripod being heavy. Just robust and torsionally rigid. The Sachtler tripods I deploy for long lenses weigh 2-4 kg and easily accept a static load up to 100 kg (in practice, even more, but the make won't support you if it fails). My smaller Sachtler, the one I put in the suitcase for air travel, weighs a little over 1 kg and still can handle a 600 mm lens with ease.
Sports and bird photographers have entirely different criteria for what kind of long lens support they require.
-
All field practice shows you cannot weigh down the support for a lens and hope that solves the vibration issue. It never will. Put your lens onto the ground. Now it is supported by the mass of the entire planet. Still will vibrate.
The geared head is the weakest link in a chain of not too robust components I'm afraid. The contact areas are small and a lot of strain is put on those teeth of the centre column.
A tripod system capable of handling 600 mm lenses adequately for landscape photography and long exposures should have a static load capability of many times more than the weight of the lens. Can you stand on top of your tripod and it won't break? then the tripod in itself is robust enough. This has of course nothing to do with the tripod being heavy. Just robust and torsionally rigid. The Sachtler tripods I deploy for long lenses weigh 2-4 kg and easily accept a static load up to 100 kg (in practice, even more, but the make won't support you if it fails). My smaller Sachtler, the one I put in the suitcase for air travel, weighs a little over 1 kg and still can handle a 600 mm lens with ease.
Sports and bird photographers have entirely different criteria for what kind of long lens support they require.
Yep to everything you said - I'm going to solve the connection between the tripod and lens first, see where that gets me, then work on the tripod part.
-
All field practice shows you cannot weigh down the support for a lens and hope that solves the vibration issue. It never will. Put your lens onto the ground. Now it is supported by the mass of the entire planet. Still will vibrate.
The geared head is the weakest link in a chain of not too robust components I'm afraid. The contact areas are small and a lot of strain is put on those teeth of the centre column.
A tripod system capable of handling 600 mm lenses adequately for landscape photography and long exposures should have a static load capability of many times more than the weight of the lens. Can you stand on top of your tripod and it won't break? then the tripod in itself is robust enough. This has of course nothing to do with the tripod being heavy. Just robust and torsionally rigid. The Sachtler tripods I deploy for long lenses weigh 2-4 kg and easily accept a static load up to 100 kg (in practice, even more, but the make won't support you if it fails). My smaller Sachtler, the one I put in the suitcase for air travel, weighs a little over 1 kg and still can handle a 600 mm lens with ease.
Sports and bird photographers have entirely different criteria for what kind of long lens support they require.
I suppose the Sachtler ENG 2 CF HD is not the light one you mentioned in the quote above. Which one is the smaller one?
My "big" tripod is not OK for long lenses and long exposure times, sooner or later I might try to something about it.
-
The Sachtler ENG 2 CF HD is 4 kg, the ENG 2 CF is 2.4 kg, and a cut-down (for travels) Sachtler DA-75 is 1.2 kg. All can support a 600 mm lens.
-
I have this tripod as well, it's an old school Video tripod, but completely unstable/unsuitable for stills with long lenses IMHO
Go get yourself a Gitzo Series 5 and your worries are over.
-
BTW your 405 Geared Head is also not suitable at all for the 600mm!
You need a big ball head like Burzynski or fluid head and for action RRS series 2 gimball head or big Wimberley
-
The Sachtler ENG 2 CF HD is 4 kg, the ENG 2 CF is 2.4 kg, and a cut-down (for travels) Sachtler DA-75 is 1.2 kg. All can support a 600 mm lens.
Sachtler DA-75, is that the one Bjørn Jørgensen was using in Lofoten at the get together in September 2011?
I don't remember whether that is aluminium or carbon fiber - maybe both versions exist...
And what do you mean by "cut-down", a smaller model, some part removed or actual cutting down?
-
You could also just use Manfrotto 438 Leveling Base as ball bead if it's stable enough, I don't know it,,,
The more close you are with the lens to the base. the part with the legs attaching to, the more stable the set up is.
When you get a new tripod you can eliminate the leveling base,,, only used for gimball if in a hurry or for video heads.
-
Yes Simone Bjørn cut down/off the unneeded leg length, my Gitzo's are also cut down,,,
-
DA-75 exists in a number of versions as to number of leg sections (2 or 3) and material (carbon fibre, aluminium). Plus there is a special 'Speedlock' version as well designed for people in need of rapidly setting up or taking down the tripod.
i have several cut-down editions of the DA-75, for use under special scenarios, for travels, and so on. Plus of course the original DA-75L, DA-100, ENG 2CF, and ENG 2CF HD.
-
Sachtler DA-75, is that the one Bjørn Jørgensen was using in Lofoten at the get together in September 2011?
I don't remember whether that is aluminium or carbon fiber - maybe both versions exist...
Yes, I use the DA75L (aluminium) for all my outdoor photography. It is lightweight (just below 2 kg), can take all kinds of weather and climate, can be submerged all the way to the head in sea and sand with no need for cleaning afterwards, is incredibly quick and efficient in use, and two spikes under each leg ensures it is rock stable on any surface outdoors. I use it with a RRS BH-55 ballhead - a perfect match for the tripod.
I don't use supertelephoto lenses, but I guess a 600mm is too much even for the DA75.
(I also have several Gitzo carbon tripods, but frankly - they are rubbish ;D . I use them for indoor work, I don't trust them outdoors in our arctic climate.)
-
A 600 mm lens needs dampening almost more than anything else. You simply cannot make a "stiff" enough rig with normal working height to hold it in place unless use of materials comes to near ridiculous proportions. Do note we are discussing use of such a lens for long exposures, not for shooting birds or sports. There is a world of difference in the requirements for these applications.
A Gitzo class 5 is sturdy, but much heavier than any comparable Sachtler. Even then its use in snow, mud, or water, is questionable. It comes into its stride under civilised situations such as indoors or studios though.
-
Thanks both Bjørn and Erik.
I am sure I will pick your brains again the day I finally decide to go for it.
In the meantime, no superteles means my tripod is not pushed beyond its capabilities.
-
Bjørn J you seem to have a lot to learn about engineering and field work regarding Gitzo Series 5
-
Both Bjørns are Sachtler men as I recall. And there I was in Lofoten with my tiny little RRS Ground Pod. I wonder if I could mount my Wimberley on the Ground Pod?
-
The force of this site is that we are many people with different types of equipment for different jobs, sure RRS makes now some very fine tripods as well, the series 4 seems to be suitable for the job, only problem is they use too many leg sections, 4 and 5 - RRS is very much focused on how tall you are, and collapsed height for transport, not so much about what is the most stable for the lens in use,,, a bit wrong IMHO.
One of the major issues with large lenses is twist around the vertical axis, many designs do well in that regard,,,
-
Both Bjørns are Sachtler men as I recall. And there I was in Lofoten with my tiny little RRS Ground Pod. I wonder if I could mount my Wimberley on the Ground Pod?
Most stuff can be attached to any tripod given they support 1/4" or 3/8" screws.
-
Bjørn J you seem to have a lot to learn about engineering and field work regarding Gitzo Series 5
I have the largest, biggest and horribly expensive Gitzo 5 (I think it is 250cm high fully extended). It is sturdy and stable enough, but like all my Gitzos I don't use it much outside. I would never submerge it in saltwater or in deep snow or sand, and the twist locks tend to get stuck, and they are so much slower and inefficient in use than the Sachtler locking system. Not to mention the stupid and fiddly locks for spreading the legs!!
You are right I don't know much about engineering, but I know the difference between a good and a bad tripod when I use them ;D
-
Both Bjørns are Sachtler men as I recall. And there I was in Lofoten with my tiny little RRS Ground Pod. I wonder if I could mount my Wimberley on the Ground Pod?
Well, the Ground Pod may be tiny, but the quality is typical RRS! Please mount the Wimberley on it , put on a huge lens and post a photo of the setup ;D
-
Well, the Ground Pod may be tiny, but the quality is typical RRS! Please mount the Wimberley on it , put on a huge lens and post a photo of the setup.
If only I had a huge lens, I would do that. ;D
My current largest lens is the 70-200/4 AF-SED VR. Small but nice.
-
My Series 5 is only 3 sections and only about 150cm tall if full extended, there is the stability.
The ball head is locked down inside the base for stability.
A video tripod is not designed for a ball head so it needs to sit on top via a leveling base or a bolt through the base, not the same stability and heavier.
The lover leg of the Sachtlers are single tube very small diameter on most versions even the big carbon fiber ones, quite useless for preventing twist so cant be used extended, just adds weight for the bracket and extra lock,,,
-
for what you want, the key is very sturdy legs that are suitably braced. Anytime you raise the head on a geared head system, you create instability no matter how good the tripod claims to be. To have a tripod perform suitably the way you want to use it, the tripod would have to have a largish size of components, very accurately machined and probably a mass that would not be comfortable to carry around. The head is not the problem necessarily - it is in the telescoping central member most likely and secondarily, possibly, the legs.
Frankly, you would be better off always sitting the head hard up against the top seat of the tripod (i.e in a completely untelescoped position), have good sturdy tripod legs and vary the height of the lens by raising and lowering the tripod itself or by extending or lowering the tripod's legs. Of course, wherever possible, keep the legs as short as feasible and spread as far apart as feasible and braced at least against each other.
This has been Mongo's experience and 2 cent's worth.
-
I can't justify a very expensive Sachtler head for my use, but I remember one advice I got and that I have followed: Don't buy a tripod with a center coloumn, and if there is one don't use it, as Mongo says. The legs of the tripod must be long enough for the intended use without relying on a center column. That has worked well for me, and it actually makes a tripod easier and faster to deploy and use, I think. The tripod becomes much more enjoyable to use this way.
-
Indeed the needs are different, and I have to say that even the Gitzos series 3~5 are good choices they cannot stand along the Sachtlers or similar.
I use Cartoni ones. They are like the Sachtlers but not so expensive and much easier to find and service around here.
My recommendation always go to the ones with 100mm bowl, carbon legs in two stages, quick lock and on top a fluid head rated at least to 12Kg.
If the shooting will occur in lighter environments, where speeds are expected to be on the high side (please consider high on big lenses >1/500s) a series 3~4 Gitzo with a gimbal head could do the trick
Don't make shorcuts here...
-
Yes, I fully realize I need a better tripod, but I also must have a geared head - non-geared ball heads, gimbals, etc. are not an option for what I do.
My current 405 geared head is clearly where most of the flexure in the system I currently have - makes no sense to get a much heavier tripod and not fix the geared head issue and vice versa.
Thus, as the post title says, I just want to talk about geared heads and not tripods at the moment.
Some have suggested I not use a leveling base, but that's typically not an option either as I need to rotate about a pretty vertical axis and using the tripod legs to achieve accurate leveling is typically impractical. I currently use a 438 Manfrotto leveling base, but if someone has a suggestion for a better leveling base I'm all ears.
I also indicated I only extend the center column when I have no other choice, which is rare and clearly is very prone to low frequency low damping oscillations, but sometimes that 5 ft. fence is just in the way!
Based on the on-point responses my options for a geared head system seem limited and expensive, which just may be what I have to suck up and purchase due to lack of options. Folks in other forums have suggested I look at heavy duty geared alt azimuth telescope heads as they may be more suitable for my needs, though they may be quite heavy - fortunately I don't have to lug my gear that far.
I do in fact own a medium duty alt azimuth mount that does well with a 1,000mm Mak, but have not used it due to needing plate adapters, etc., but I may give that a try. The matching tripod is unbelievably heavy and stiff and not practical to transport.
Thanks!
john
-
Yes Simone Bjørn cut down/off the unneeded leg length, my Gitzo's are also cut down,,,
I am curious how one practically go about cutting down a CF tripod tube and getting it remounted/reglued to the part that forms the hinge. I imagine the CF fiber being too brittle to be cut by a hacksaw?
Often when I have evaluated tripods I find that the 3-section ones are too long for my travel needs while the 4 section ones get too short if one limit to extending only two of the 3 extendable sections. (So I have so far stuck to my rather minimalistic second hand 3-section Gitzo Reporter performance 120 with center column removed - for up to 300mm use, but sometimes with a TC attached - a pretty low tripod, but in between the two above-mentiioned collapsed sizes).
A comment on John's initial requirement, not sure if it has been commented above:
"So I'm looking for something that's as adjustable (and easily flippable between portrait and landscape orientation) due to the gearing, but is much more solid/stiff than the 405."
I do not see why one would want a flippable head when using long lenses as they usually come with a rotating tripod collar, and the flipping mechanism (where the platform, not the main axis flips) is typically an inherently weak and unstable point.
-
Hi John,
The only geared head to work with big tele that I endorse is the Cube
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029552-REG/arca_swiss_8501003_1_c1_cube_geared_head.html
-
I am curious how one practically go about cutting down a CF tripod tube and getting it remounted/reglued to the part that forms the hinge. I imagine the CF fiber being too brittle to be cut by a hacksaw?
.....
I have cut them in the other end, toward the ground, there is no need for a long thin leng, the innermost. then you re-glue the end piece with the inside 3/8 UNC threads.
A Dremel and mask will do it ;)
-
This is what I end up with on top of the Burzynski for panning as the last thing before the camera/lens
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/PC-PRO-Round-screw-knob-panning-clamp (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/PC-PRO-Round-screw-knob-panning-clamp)
Here it is on/inside a Series 5
Bjørn, Jakov; here are the new stainless steel knobs for the Burzynski
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1522/25718344004_5bce85e523_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FbDeEd)Stainless steel knobs Burzynski Ball head (https://flic.kr/p/FbDeEd) by Erik Gunst Lund (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_lund/), on Flickr
-
Erik,
Looks great! Is the integrated dovetail base on the RRS panning clamp removable? Or did you make some special surgery?
How did you get the stainless steel knobs for the Burzynski?
-
I'm finally getting upgraded to Super-Burzynski ... how great is that ??
-
Yes Erik, yes!
I love the knobs! 8)
-
My clap is an old one that came without dove tail,,,
I'm happy you like the new Knobs ;)
They are called: DIN 6335-NI-32-M6-E
6335 - Four arms
NI - Stainless steel
32 - Ø diameter in mm
M6 - thread
E - Open out end for 'captive' screw so you don't loose it (https://nikongear.net/revival/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You need special 4mm captive screws with ø 5.5mm heads, I have made extra for you Jakov and Bjørn.
Brd. Klee is the Danish supplier.
-
I always dreamed of being in possession of DIN 6335-NI-32-M6-E four arm stainless steel knobs 8)
-
How about an exclusive club for DIN 6335-NI-32-M6-E and Burzynski owners?
-
Kim, I support your idea :)
-
Since Nikea also has shared an interest - I'm collecting orders in Denmark for anyone who would like to become members of this club - they are about 30$ for a set.
-
Here is the larger relative to the Burzynski head. This is the Berlebach LEVELLING ADAPTER 33° Ø 100 MM/4 " on a Gitzo series 5 tripod. It is excellent with my Nikkor 500/4 AFS VR and the D800. The build quality is quite high, although not quite as high as that of the Burzynski. The panorama base is a Feisol PB-70 and the quick release clamp is from Really Right Stuff.
-
Here is the larger relative to the Burzynski head. This is the Berlebach LEVELLING ADAPTER 33° Ø 100 MM/4 " on a Gitzo series 5 tripod. It is excellent with my Nikkor 500/4 AFS VR and the D800. The build quality is quite high, although not quite as high as that of the Burzynski. The panorama base is a Feisol PB-70 and the quick release clamp is from Really Right Stuff.
Wow that does not look light, but it sure looks stable!
-
OK - while I'm working on a better geared head solution, I have been listening about the tripod recommendations.
Just locally a Vinten 3819-3 has popped up on Craigslist. $600 including the head (don't need) and spreader.
Here's the model on the Vinten web site:
http://www.vinten.com/en/product/75mm-bowl-pozi-loc-tripod
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vinten.com%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fimage%2FNew-Tripods%2F75mm_Pozi-Loc.jpg&hash=6da40b370c7da90666d65c27f0f77f8791f5bbfd)
It's rated to 55 lbs (just the legs) and has a 75mm bowl.
Assuming I get the mid-level spreader - what you guys think of it's usefulness with my 600mm (and hopefully far more stiff geared head solution)?
-
Pardon my naive question: how do you attach a head (ball or fluid, does it matter?) to a bowl, either 75mm or 100mm size?
-
The video heads have a 'levelling bowl' as their base. This can be purchased separately to make a foundation for other kinds of heads. There are adapter rings to convert from 75 to 100 mm class tripods.
Some heads, such as the legendary Burzynski, can be seated directly into the tripod head and secured from below.
-
Some heads, such as the legendary Burzynski, can be seated directly into the tripod head and secured from below.
And what about other ball heads normally used in still photography?
Deleted, I should have read more carefully Bjørn's post, the answer to my question was already there
-
I bought one of these back in 1984 for about $35.00 (USD)...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sinar-Pan-Tilt-Head-Black-/262526832947?hash=item3d1fd19133:g:1sYAAOSwqfNXiSfB (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sinar-Pan-Tilt-Head-Black-/262526832947?hash=item3d1fd19133:g:1sYAAOSwqfNXiSfB)
Today that would cost about $83.00 in Consumer Price Index adjusted USD. If one can be found at a reasonable price it could allow one to spend bigger money on a worthy set of legs. I don't think $350.00 (USD) is a reasonable price. As I recall it was part of a Sinar 8x10" view camera setup. I pair it with a Wimberley C-30 Arca-Swiss type clamp.
Dave