The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leveling Bases

B

Ben Norton

Guest
I think everyone knows of the Arca and the Clam but how do people rate the Nodal Ninja and Manfrotto options?
Obviously they don't have the scope for correction as the big daddies but does anyone prefer one to the other? Ltd budget means no big toys for me right now... :(
 
B

Ben Norton

Guest
Nice mate but it's about 5 times the price of the NN and Manfrotto's. I've got a panning head already so it's really just a base that i'm thinking about getting.

Unless of course you've got an Arca Cube stashed away in your treasure trove you fancy hooking me up with cheaply? ;)
 

thomas

New member
I have all the three...

Manfrotto: heavy, bulky, the screws are extremely tight (but you can loosen them a little bit). Limited leveling degree... i.e. leveling within 5° or so.
Super rock solid.
Great for studio work, simply too heavy to carry around.

Nodal Ninja: lightweight, very nice and smooth operation. Quite large leveling degree.
Actually a perfect leveling base... BUT: you have to tighten the counter screws otherwise the base can have play... i.e. camera shake will be introduced easily.
With the counter screws tightened it's solid (for a MF camera with DB and a medium sized lens).
I use it in conjunction with a Novoflex pano base as tripod head for my Contax when shooting subjetcs that ask for perfect leveling but were I don't have to tilt the camera very much.

Cambo: entirely different league. Super smooth, relatively lightweight, no counter screws, very accurate, quite large leveling degree.
Absolutely worth the price!
It's constantly mounted on my Cambo WRS camera, however I also have the additional mounting and rail to mount the Contax on it (requires to remove it from the Cambo... this is why I mostly use the Nodal Ninja for the Contax).
 
but leveling is not geared. It's a pain to level a camera accurately with those ballheads...
I can't see how it could possibly be easier and faster to level a camera plate than it is with the Gitzo leveling base. The leveling base post is long enough to give you good leverage so all it takes is a twist of the post to loosen, adjust level by moving the post (bubble level on base), then twist post to lock. All it takes is one hand and it is very quick, simple, and easy.

The levelhead posted below does look very good.
 

thomas

New member
I can't see how it could possibly be easier and faster to level a camera plate than it is with the Gitzo leveling base. The leveling base post is long enough to give you good leverage so all it takes is a twist of the post to loosen, adjust level by moving the post (bubble level on base), then twist post to lock. All it takes is one hand and it is very quick, simple, and easy.
I don't talk about "somewhat leveled". I talk about very accurate leveling. Now, with the camera and lens mounted on a ballhead this is nowhere near the handling of a geared leveling. A very good ballhead with friction control is okay for leveling, but without friction it's nearly impossible to work really precise.
Once you've used geared leveling with one of the above mentioned leveling bases or the Cube you will see the difference.
 
I don't talk about "somewhat leveled". I talk about very accurate leveling. Now, with the camera and lens mounted on a ballhead this is nowhere near the handling of a geared leveling. A very good ballhead with friction control is okay for leveling, but without friction it's nearly impossible to work really precise.
Once you've used geared leveling with one of the above mentioned leveling bases or the Cube you will see the difference.
I'm listening Thomas so please explain how geared leveling is more accurate. Does it have more accurate or higher resolution level indication (e.g,. bubble level)? After all, the limiting factor in achieving level is in the resolution/accuracy of the level indicator - not the mechanism which tilts the base.

Sure, geared leveling forces small incremental changes in level which will give the impression of precision. However, the rate of change in achieving level does not guarantee more accurate level in the end. Level accuracy is dictated by the accuracy of the level indicator. In fact ,I recall reading a post a while back where a user reported the level indicator on his Cube was incorrect.

There real question is just how accurate does level need to be for a photograph, especially in today's world of the digital darkroom.
 

cly

Member
What about this? The manfrotto as always looks as a good compromise at less than $100.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...tnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
i bought the manfrotto a while ago: adjusting is a pain unless you take a pair of pliers with you. when the cube was available for a special price i bought it. it's an awful lot of money (and i'm still a bit disappointed that one of the levels isn't exactly level) but i can't imagine going back to a different head.

chris
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Another opinion... I've owned the Gitzo, Sinar and Manfrotto and used the Nova. Of all, I preferred the Nova for accuracy and the Gitzo for speed, but all did the job. Bottom line however, since I got my Cube, I simply have had no need for a leveling head, so sold them off after about two months of non-use.

FWIW,
 
To have a Cube would be pure bliss I'm sure (being serious here). I looked into the Cube back when everyone here was getting one. The design looks like the best compromise of speed and precision. One of these days I may get one, but for now I have other priorities for my money since I don't use a tripod very often anyway.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
My cube is pretty accurate and although it might be a touch off, it matters little to me since it is far far better than any alternative I have come across.
I even use it in-studio with model shoots which I guess says more about me than the cube, but it is fast enough to tilt up to grab a fresh focus then back to the framing I want.
I just do not see the point of using a gitzo style leveling base (which I have owned) and then topping it with a ball head.
I didn't like the ghastly manfrotto geared head since I could see it jiggle as it recoiled from a mirror slap.
-bob
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I used to use a combination of a ballhead and leveling base till I got the Cube. Using a ballhead is good in certain circumstances where speed of movement is needed however they have (in my opinion) a major drawback. The drawback is a lack of precision which is based on the knob/pressure holding the ball. Geared movements (again in my opinion) offer better control of movements which add to the precision. If I had to do it all over again I'd also look at the Cambo head which wasn't available when I got the Cube; then again this is based solely on what and how I shoot.

Just a couple more thoughts re the Cube. I don't depend on the Cube to set me level, rather I use the levels which are built-in to the Cambo WRS to show me when I'm level. I'm beginning to use the M9 on the Cube and there I use the leveling of the Cube to insure I'm level. While we can certainly use software to achieve level you need to be as close as possible first as the software can at times drastically crop the image to a degree when while you have a level image it's not what you were after. Time spent setting up the image will pay huge dividends when you process.

Once again just my 2¢
 

thomas

New member
I'm listening Thomas so please explain how geared leveling is more accurate. Does it have more accurate or higher resolution level indication (e.g,. bubble level)? After all, the limiting factor in achieving level is in the resolution/accuracy of the level indicator - not the mechanism which tilts the base.

Sure, geared leveling forces small incremental changes in level which will give the impression of precision. However, the rate of change in achieving level does not guarantee more accurate level in the end. Level accuracy is dictated by the accuracy of the level indicator. In fact ,I recall reading a post a while back where a user reported the level indicator on his Cube was incorrect.

There real question is just how accurate does level need to be for a photograph, especially in today's world of the digital darkroom.
Mark, that sounds a bit like grey theory.

true. the main limiting factor is the level indicator. if the level indicator is off it's all a waste of time and effort.

however the mechanism that tilts the base also plays a role in terms of practical usability.
The heavier the gear on the head and the more its centre of gravity is off the center axis of the tripod the more the thing will wobble back and forth. Mostly this leads to too large movements when you try to level on a ballhead (this is why friction control and geared movements were invented after all). Whereas geared leveling will allow very, very fine adjustments - i.e. small movements. You will see the difference immediately if you try to algin the grid of the groundglass/finder screen with a straight rectangular motif.

As to straightening/rotation in software: every interpolation degrades IQ. Matter of personal choice whether the trade off is okay or not. As far as I am concerned I try to keep the number of interpolation steps in software as low as possible (ideally I only use distortion correction).
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I typically find that the leveling bases with center spot levels are inaccurate anyways as parallax affects how accurately you can adjust & see the level unless you view from directly above. Ditto the levels always seem to slightly off, even with the cube.

I find it best to eyeball level in camera and make sure that I don't frame too tight so that straightening afterwards is possible without losing too much in a crop. I'll use the levels to get it approximately right but then go manual from there.

I've yet to find a truely accurate level on a base, head, hot shoe, in-camera or even the sensor/viewfinder alignment combo. :mad::mad:
 
B

Bob Davis

Guest
I find it best to eyeball level in camera and make sure that I don't frame too tight so that straightening afterwards is possible without losing too much in a crop. I'll use the levels to get it approximately right but then go manual from there.
Graham,

I agree for many single image shots you can just eyeball it. For multi-shot panos, level is critical. Whenever I've tried to eyeball level on a pano, I'd often loose 20%, maybe 25% on the horizontal stitch. With a good leveling base you would only loose a few pixels on the top and bottom after stitching.

Bob
 

thomas

New member
I typically find that the leveling bases with center spot levels are inaccurate anyways as parallax affects how accurately you can adjust & see the level unless you view from directly above. Ditto the levels always seem to slightly off, even with the cube.
unfortunately this is very true.
The popular bull's eye spirit levels are mostly not really accurate… in my experience. I have bull's eye levels in an Induro tripod, a Berlebach tripod, the Manfrotto leveling base and in a Novoflex pano base. They are all off.
Besides, I absolutely agree that you have to view them from straight above. So usabilty is extremely limited (actually you always have to unmount the camera to view the levels… and if the camera is mounted high, above head level, you can't see them at all).

I use a Gitzo GH3780QR ballhead that is equipped with 3 (actually 4) tubular spirit levels. You can always view them when the camera is mounted… even when it is mounted above head level. The nice thing is: you can adjust the levels. I've "synchronized" the levels of the Gitzo head with my Cambo WRS levels (which are accurate). So that works really well.
I'd love to have quick release plates/bases with tubular levels (adjustable levels would be a dream).

However all the levels (either way tubular or bull's eye) suck in oxygen (at least a photo engineer once told me so). So they have to be adjusted (or replaced) after some time anyway.
 
Top