Geared Heads For Tele Work

[jhinkey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[BW]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[jhinkey]

I'm using a Manfrotto 475B with the legs minimally extended and decently angled out as necessary:



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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[jhinkey]

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!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

You need a better tripod for those long lenses. That is my conclusion. And a geared head can never be locked down enough.

[jhinkey]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[jhinkey]

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.

[simato73]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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