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!
Arca Cube Vs Z1?
- Thread starter Laurent
- Start date
J
Jim2
Guest
So the D4 is not yet available?
I took delivery of a Linhof 3D Micro. It's nicely built and solid as expected. Having used RRS before the Linhof, I really like how the plate snap into the head. It feels like a magnet was in place. Once attached, there is zero play!
It a lot heavier than the RRS (40) and the Markins head I used before, but a lot more portable than the cube I previously tried. I didn't order the angle attachment, but will probably do at a later time. The movement is very similiar to the cube without the 90 degree.
I'm happy to answer any question or post picture on request.
It a lot heavier than the RRS (40) and the Markins head I used before, but a lot more portable than the cube I previously tried. I didn't order the angle attachment, but will probably do at a later time. The movement is very similiar to the cube without the 90 degree.
I'm happy to answer any question or post picture on request.
no !
Does anyone know how much the D4 is going to cost?
I'm considering one so I can attach my Arca monorail straight to the head rather than the multiple adapter way presently on my Manfrotto 405. The 405 is a wonderful head apart from being less than ideal with my M2 but if its priced anything like the cube then forget it for me.
I'm considering one so I can attach my Arca monorail straight to the head rather than the multiple adapter way presently on my Manfrotto 405. The 405 is a wonderful head apart from being less than ideal with my M2 but if its priced anything like the cube then forget it for me.
vieri
Well-known member
As others said, it's a bit like "better a Ferrari or a Hummer?" They both are great, choosing one or the other would depend on what you are shooting. If your main use for a head is landscapes/architectural/product and the like, then there is nothing that beats the Cube IMHO. As Guy, I shoot a lot of different stuff, but I only use tripod and a head for landscapes & architectural: since getting the Cube I never looked back, nothing touches it for ease of use, flexibility and precision of alignment. If you need support but speed as well, then the Cube is most definitely not the best way to go... if you shoot wildlife, then you'd need a gimbal head, for sports a monopod would probably be your best bet, and so on.
Bottom line with tools is: up to a point of involvement in something, you can adapt general purpose tools to various situation and be more than happy with the results. Once you get past that point, and you aim for the best results you can get, then your need for better tools starts to multiply at a scary, impressive rate and so does the amount of money you need to spend to get there :deadhorse:
This thread is about tripod heads, but it's the same thing in any field, from the most sophisticated crazy technological things you can think of to the most daily items (try buy a set of REAL good kitchen knife and compare prices with the same set from Ikea...). Take cameras: a Nikon D3/D3x would be providing enough or even too much quality for most shooters shooting anything; however, once you get into trying and squeezing the best IQ you can get out of your gear, then even the new IQ180 would soon start being not enough and you'll want to be able to stitch to get even more resolution in that landscape... :ROTFL: hence, this forum's motto "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." I am starting to think that my old countryman Dante knew about MF gear when he wrote this!! :ROTFL:
if you shoot wildlife, then you'd need a gimbal head, for sports a monopod would probably be your best bet, and so on.Bottom line with tools is: up to a point of involvement in something, you can adapt general purpose tools to various situation and be more than happy with the results. Once you get past that point, and you aim for the best results you can get, then your need for better tools starts to multiply at a scary, impressive rate
and so does the amount of money you need to spend to get there :deadhorse:This thread is about tripod heads, but it's the same thing in any field, from the most sophisticated crazy technological things you can think of to the most daily items (try buy a set of REAL good kitchen knife and compare prices with the same set from Ikea...). Take cameras: a Nikon D3/D3x would be providing enough or even too much quality for most shooters shooting anything; however, once you get into trying and squeezing the best IQ you can get out of your gear, then even the new IQ180 would soon start being not enough and you'll want to be able to stitch to get even more resolution in that landscape... :ROTFL: hence, this forum's motto "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." I am starting to think that my old countryman Dante knew about MF gear when he wrote this!! :ROTFL:
Don't really follow you?
I fully appreciate, actually owning Arca gear, they make beautifully equipment but we are talking about a tripod head here aren't we?
Speaking from a practical and realist point of view, apart from the mounting plate situation I really don't see what for three times the cost of a 405 the cube could offer apart from that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you own the best.
Without being rude but perfectly honest, I'd never heard of the cube until I started contributing to this forum and have always associated it with one's level of income rather than its status as the ultimate head.
Audii-Dudii
Active member
As it happens, I came to the Cube from a 405 and while I find it's definitely "better" -- i.e., more precise -- I wouldn't disagree with your conclusion as to its value. I sometimes think those who are the most enthusiastic about it are those who came to it from a ballhead, which I abandoned more than a decade ago. Yes, it's an incremental improvement, but it certainly didn't change my life or improve my photographs in any noticeable way and the only reason I was willing to pay the price for it is because I bought mine used. <shrugs>
vieri
Well-known member
I can see that you didn't follow me
The OP asked to compare the Cube to the Z1, not the 405, and this is what I did. Two top line heads, of two different genre: a geared one vs a non-geared one. Among these two, I said that for landscape & architecture the Cube wins hands down. Comparing the Cube with the 405 is a different thing; I'd still take the Cube personally, I think it's better & works better, but is it so much better as the price difference between the two? That's up to you, the buyer, to decide according to your need & wallet, of course. I hope this helps making my previous post clearer Agreed, I am pretty sure that coming to the Cube from a ball-head the difference would strike much stronger than coming from another geared head. I know I was coming from a BH but had a chance to try the Manfrotto & the Cube prior to buy, and I definitely liked the Cube better - and believe me, my wallet was very unhappy to hear that
gazwas, I try to base my purchases on reason and needs rather than "fuzzy feelings" of sorts: like many here, I have to justify my purchases business-wise (at least to a point) and I would have loved to spend less, believe me. I checked out the almost-identical-but-cheaper Cube-clone but discarded it due to business ethics first and foremost, I don't like intellectual propriety theft much, and warranty-related reasons after (they have no distribution where I am based). So, it wasn't an easy purchase to justify for me: however, I thought the time I would save working with the Cube vs other heads, ball or geared, was worth the extra money. Sure, it was my decision, based on my needs - other people will decide differently according to their needs and experiences.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
When thinking about the cost of the cube (or Z1) it's probably worth considering how much you use it, the importance of a rock solid tripod head for every single shot you take plus how much you've no doubt spent on the camera/back/lenses sitting on top. Also think about how long you are going to own and use this thing. These factors apply to your tripod too.
When you go through this rationalization process it's not hard to justify the costs of a Cube sitting on top of a Gitzo GT5541SGT tripod at all IMHO.
When you go through this rationalization process it's not hard to justify the costs of a Cube sitting on top of a Gitzo GT5541SGT tripod at all IMHO.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Good point and the reality is the use versus cost over a long lifespan is actually pretty cheap . Let's face it how often do you sell a tripod and head compared to our cams and lenses . Not very often even for me and that's scary. The legs I had for 3 years but I did go through 3 heads before settling in on the Z1. Which I do really like a lot and now with the new IQ backs with auto corrections for vertical and horizontal corrections it becomes even better. I can cheat a little. LOL
LOL, you guys make the 405 head (or any non-Arca head for that matter) sound as if they're made of papier mâché and would crumble at a single touch.
And Guy, have you noticed that for a little while now you've been referring to the IQ backs as if you already own one? Unless there's something you're not telling us. Or your wife. :toocool:
And Guy, have you noticed that for a little while now you've been referring to the IQ backs as if you already own one? Unless there's something you're not telling us. Or your wife. :toocool:
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
No, not at all. The Manfrotto is an excellent geared head too. In fact I used to use one and I'd no doubt still be using it were it not for that horrible plate assembly that doesn't fit Arca style camera specific mounts. Once you've gone down the route of RRS/Kirk custom camera L brackets you're never going to want to live with screw on plates again. Ever.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I can't believe you going for the cross upgrade Guy. Extra expense for the same image quality but with a nice screen. P40+ to IQ160 I understand but considering your going to get the same IQ seems from the upgrade seems like a needless expense to me.
You sure your thinking with your head on this purchase.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Oh it's a checkbook issue no doubt about. I want the 160 for sure. But 18k right now is just not in the cards unless I sold something major to do it. Already sold the kids off. LOL
My body parts ain't worth crap any more either. LOL
My body parts ain't worth crap any more either. LOL
J
jeffacme
Guest
Shot with a 405 and 410 for many years and now use the cube. The Manfrotto heads are excellent but do have drawbacks.
They are both larger and heavier. They lack stability when fully loaded and are prone to loosening with extended heavy use. So the user must send them in for service or pop the cover off the pan mechanism and tighten it themselves.
The QR system is fine if you only use a single bottom plate. If one ventures into L plates or an Arca camera with a rail you need a dovetail clamp added to the plate which increases size, weight, cost, and reduces stability.
I did recover nearly half of my original investment when I sold the 405 and 410 but have noticed that even older versions of the cube go for at least 70% of original cost when sold used.
I feel the C1 is far more flexible and precise.
As to the Z1 I did switch to the Arca P0 and really like it as a much lighter, compact, but still excellent alternative to the Z1.