Shashin
Well-known member
There are only really two topics in the world: archery and those other things we talk about when would rather be talking about archery...
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!
The great tripod & head thread!
- Thread starter danlindberg
- Start date
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Oh yes. The real world may show me that, except under extraordinary usage, a Gitzo 2 or RRS 1 with an 8 oz. head may be fine.
I did discover a way to turn the FLM reasonably quickly into a pan/tilt head. The base of the FLM has to be level to start. Now, with the tilt lock knob engaged, the ball can only rotate towards and away from the notch. So far, so good. But if the clamp is not also aligned with the notch, then the camera will twist as it is tilted. "If", and here's the big "if", the clamp is arranged so that the plate slides left/right, i.e., the tightening knob is facing towards you,
then tilting the head all the way into the notch (having loosened the main lock and the tilt lock knobs first) we see a bubble level set into the end of the clamp knob.
Once THAT is leveled, the tilt lock (the small knob that seems to skewer the ball - because it does) can be engaged, the pan lock loosened, and the system will now tilt and rotate freely, keeping the horizon level.
What's the problem? The problem is that long lens feet and nodal rails slide fore/aft and not left/right.
There is no analogous method (that I have thought of) for this clamp orientation to guarantee a level horizon. With a level built into the camera, which most digital cameras have, nowadays, the correct clamp angle can be found by trial and error. But a set-it-once algorithm would be nice.
Matt
Last edited:
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
How to turn the FLM into a pan/tilt head with a fore/aft lens foot:
This is the best I could come up with. As it actually works, I don't mind.
We start with the head in some random position. If we locked the tilt knob now, we'd have chaos.
We have a bubble level, so let's get it centered.
But you see that the clamp, while level, is at an angle to the tilt axis. If we locked the tilt knob now, we'd get twisting of the horizon as we tilted the camera.
So the final step is to keep the bubble centered, but twist until the clamp knob is parallel to the knobs below it (tilt lock and pano lock).
At THIS point, we can engage the tilt lock, and we have an extremely stable pan/tilt head for long lenses. Any other methods most welcome!
Matt
This is the best I could come up with. As it actually works, I don't mind.
We start with the head in some random position. If we locked the tilt knob now, we'd have chaos.
We have a bubble level, so let's get it centered.
But you see that the clamp, while level, is at an angle to the tilt axis. If we locked the tilt knob now, we'd get twisting of the horizon as we tilted the camera.
So the final step is to keep the bubble centered, but twist until the clamp knob is parallel to the knobs below it (tilt lock and pano lock).
At THIS point, we can engage the tilt lock, and we have an extremely stable pan/tilt head for long lenses. Any other methods most welcome!
Matt
Last edited:
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
One problem when explaining things to a silent audience is that you can't tell if they a) don't care, b) are totally lost, or c) got the point in the first 10 seconds and are now bored. Of course, an actual class usually has all three.
In the event that it's not clear what is special about the FLM head, and the difficulty of making use of that specialty, I will start from the top. The reviews I've seen seem to miss the point. They recognize the unique features, but don't talk about how to use them. Obvious? Confused? I don't know. There's no real documentation with the thing, so I had to figure it out.
One nice feature is a panning lock. Ever have trouble getting your cube off the tripod because the panning friction is weaker than the tripod/head friction? The FLM has a button that LOCKS the panning so that you can twist it off. Nice. It also has a knob to dial in how much 15-degree click you want for panning. So far so good. Nice, but not confusing.
Heads like the Arca Cube have axes of rotation predetermined. You can pan (rotate about z), tilt x, and tilt y. The x- and y- axes are ALWAYS orthogonal. Panning changes the locations of the x- and y- axes, but they don't change their perpendicularity. This, as much as the gearing, is what makes it easy to frame an image on the Cube. The Cube also makes it easy to level the clamp for horizontal panning. A nice feature if one wants to do one-row stitching.
Then there are heads with only two axes. The Acratech panning head mentioned earlier. Once it is leveled, the horizon HAS to stay level, as there is no rotation axis that can tilt it.
Then there are ball heads. A sphere can rotate about ANY axis. This is a blessing and a curse. Most ball heads have a panning base so a) once the head is level and b) the ball is locked down with a level horizon, then the whole apparatus can be rotated. But that's IT. Change the ball in any way and you lose control of the orientation in all three axes!
The FLM has this weird (but not completely unique) tilt lock. It eliminates two of the ball's axes, leaving only a horizontal axis. The panning base gives us a vertical axis, so we're the same as a pan/tilt head, right? No such luck. The tilt lock axis is horizontal with respect to the head, but is random with respect to the ball, and the clamp and camera are attached to the ball. So the missing (and essential) step is - how do we make the tilt axis agree with the axis we want the ball to rotate around. There is only one line through the ball that works, and you have to find it. Since the only way to change the line through the ball is to rotate it (duh), and the only way to rotate it is by moving the clamp, all the discussion above has been "how do I position the clamp so that the tilt axis skewers the ball in the one correct place?" The reason for TWO solutions to this problem is that it matters which way the camera is mounted with respect to the clamp - fore/aft or left/right.
Ok, enough dead horse beating. I'm borrowing a camera tonight and will go out and take actual pictures with all this junk tomorrow or die trying.
Matt
In the event that it's not clear what is special about the FLM head, and the difficulty of making use of that specialty, I will start from the top. The reviews I've seen seem to miss the point. They recognize the unique features, but don't talk about how to use them. Obvious? Confused? I don't know. There's no real documentation with the thing, so I had to figure it out.
One nice feature is a panning lock. Ever have trouble getting your cube off the tripod because the panning friction is weaker than the tripod/head friction? The FLM has a button that LOCKS the panning so that you can twist it off. Nice. It also has a knob to dial in how much 15-degree click you want for panning. So far so good. Nice, but not confusing.
Heads like the Arca Cube have axes of rotation predetermined. You can pan (rotate about z), tilt x, and tilt y. The x- and y- axes are ALWAYS orthogonal. Panning changes the locations of the x- and y- axes, but they don't change their perpendicularity. This, as much as the gearing, is what makes it easy to frame an image on the Cube. The Cube also makes it easy to level the clamp for horizontal panning. A nice feature if one wants to do one-row stitching.
Then there are heads with only two axes. The Acratech panning head mentioned earlier. Once it is leveled, the horizon HAS to stay level, as there is no rotation axis that can tilt it.
Then there are ball heads. A sphere can rotate about ANY axis. This is a blessing and a curse. Most ball heads have a panning base so a) once the head is level and b) the ball is locked down with a level horizon, then the whole apparatus can be rotated. But that's IT. Change the ball in any way and you lose control of the orientation in all three axes!
The FLM has this weird (but not completely unique) tilt lock. It eliminates two of the ball's axes, leaving only a horizontal axis. The panning base gives us a vertical axis, so we're the same as a pan/tilt head, right? No such luck. The tilt lock axis is horizontal with respect to the head, but is random with respect to the ball, and the clamp and camera are attached to the ball. So the missing (and essential) step is - how do we make the tilt axis agree with the axis we want the ball to rotate around. There is only one line through the ball that works, and you have to find it. Since the only way to change the line through the ball is to rotate it (duh), and the only way to rotate it is by moving the clamp, all the discussion above has been "how do I position the clamp so that the tilt axis skewers the ball in the one correct place?" The reason for TWO solutions to this problem is that it matters which way the camera is mounted with respect to the clamp - fore/aft or left/right.
Ok, enough dead horse beating. I'm borrowing a camera tonight and will go out and take actual pictures with all this junk tomorrow or die trying.
Matt
Last edited:
Abstraction
Well-known member
The whole idea of a ball head is sacrificing precision for speed. If you need the type of precision you describe, you'd be much better off with a geared or a pan and tilt head, rather than a ball head. Trying to get a ball head to work with precision is essentially trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I could be done, but it's not pretty.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Agreed. But what the ball heads DO have is a level of stability that no other design can match. The FLM is primarily a ball head - there is no mistaking that. I admire their attempt to extend its functionality. It is actually useful. I think.
If I were to design a new head, it would have a ball with two sets of internal clamps (I don't know the correct term for the mechanism that holds the ball stable) - one geared for positioning, and then a second set of fixed clamps that hold the ball and takes the stress off of the gears themselves.
Last edited:
Shashin
Well-known member
I would just walk over to B&H, slap down your credit card, and ask them to give you something expensive that will do what you want.
I think you are going to have to try it with the camera and lens you want this for. I have found in practice, the rest of the world does not work like my living room or my wonderful ideas (I read something about quantum mechanics, where the universe is frothy and the physical properties can change in different places, like my living room). The weight and balance of the camera, unlevel ground, the environmental conditions all contribute to whether things work. I have always taken a Japanese approach to things: master the system you have, no matter if there might be something better. I have found I make very different choices, usually toward lighter more compact systems.
My biggest metric is if I stick with a particular setup. I have had all kinds of gear, but some just click better. I am getting better at identifying that, but I don't get it right all the time. When I got my Pentax 645D, I really had to work hard with the camera and start to learn to love a tripod. Once I hit a certain volume of images with it, it just started to work. It was really me adjusting to the system and learning how to make it work. Once I got there, I really enjoyed the camera and did some good work.
I really can't say what you are describing is a great solution or not. Or at least, it will work. But like I said, there is always B&H...
I think you are going to have to try it with the camera and lens you want this for. I have found in practice, the rest of the world does not work like my living room or my wonderful ideas (I read something about quantum mechanics, where the universe is frothy and the physical properties can change in different places, like my living room). The weight and balance of the camera, unlevel ground, the environmental conditions all contribute to whether things work. I have always taken a Japanese approach to things: master the system you have, no matter if there might be something better. I have found I make very different choices, usually toward lighter more compact systems.
My biggest metric is if I stick with a particular setup. I have had all kinds of gear, but some just click better. I am getting better at identifying that, but I don't get it right all the time. When I got my Pentax 645D, I really had to work hard with the camera and start to learn to love a tripod. Once I hit a certain volume of images with it, it just started to work. It was really me adjusting to the system and learning how to make it work. Once I got there, I really enjoyed the camera and did some good work.
I really can't say what you are describing is a great solution or not. Or at least, it will work. But like I said, there is always B&H...
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Oh, completely agree. I continue to use the equipment I do because I like using it and I like the results. The only reason I've been doing living-room stuff is that my camera is doing the season in Wetzlar. But just this evening, a friend dropped off his S(007), and so tomorrow it's "drag all this junk to the photo I had in mind and see if any of it matters." I really have no idea what I'll find.
Bear in mind that I am not trying to change what I'm using. I'm trying to expand into a longer focal length than I have used in the past. That means using a tripod for stability and not just for placement. Twenty seconds with a tech cam and a 40mm lens is different from twenty seconds with a Medium Format DSLR and a 300mm lens. This is new to me, despite the gear collection (B&H and I are well acquainted).
We'll see...
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Real world test. Leica S(007) - yeah, only 37.5 MP. Hasselblad HC 300mm/4.5. Two tripods and three heads. RRS TFC-14 and Gitzo GT5533LS for legs. RRS BH30, FLM CB-58, and Acratech Pan/tilt/leveler for heads. Our first test was to see if the 1-series RRS would be obviously shakier than the 5-series Gitzo. Assuming *that* was true, would there be a difference between the stiffest and least stiff combinations from my living room experiments.
It was overcast with no wind. But it *was* on a running track.
Conclusions, subject to the disappointingly mild test conditions. Yes, you don't want to use a 1-series RRS tripod with an 8 oz. head for long exposure telephoto shots, but it was a LOT better than I thought it would be. You need 200% to be sure that the heavier support did better. Did I mention no wind? I got slightly sharper results with the Acratech combo than with the FLM. It's possible that I didn't tighten everything down properly on the FLM. There are a lot of knobs to tighten. It's also possible that this was small sample error. But the Acratech combo was very sharp out past 12 seconds at f/22, as seen below. (At f/45, everything was soft, though sharpening in post makes a usable picture if you need the DoF.)
And for ease of use, the Acratech wins by a large margin.
More images when I get more challenging conditions.
It was overcast with no wind. But it *was* on a running track.
Conclusions, subject to the disappointingly mild test conditions. Yes, you don't want to use a 1-series RRS tripod with an 8 oz. head for long exposure telephoto shots, but it was a LOT better than I thought it would be. You need 200% to be sure that the heavier support did better. Did I mention no wind? I got slightly sharper results with the Acratech combo than with the FLM. It's possible that I didn't tighten everything down properly on the FLM. There are a lot of knobs to tighten. It's also possible that this was small sample error. But the Acratech combo was very sharp out past 12 seconds at f/22, as seen below. (At f/45, everything was soft, though sharpening in post makes a usable picture if you need the DoF.)
And for ease of use, the Acratech wins by a large margin.
More images when I get more challenging conditions.
Last edited:
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Yes, it's me again. I made one of those pleasant discoveries that, well I didn't know about it, so maybe other people don't know about it. As I mentioned in one of the posts above, there is the perennial problem of attaching the head so tightly that its own panning lock is too weak to unscrew it. FLM has one solution. But as someone said, "there is another".
Meanwhile, there is the leveling problem. For heads with a panning clamp, that isn't necessarily an issue, but everything is easier when the head itself starts level.
Gitzo has a solution to both of those problems, and I never realized it. Sure, they have a leveling base, but it's design is the old Gitzo style of their other metal tripod parts, and not the brushed aluminum and fancy carbon look of the RRS stuff. To make it even uglier, it has a lever sticking out of its side. I always assumed that that was part of the leveling mechanism, and so it was thus a clunky mechanical design in addition to being ugly.
But NO!
The Gitzo leveler works the way the RRS ones do. There's a handle sticking down from the bottom, and you loosen, level, and tighten all from the same grip. So what's the ugly side lever for? It turns the central screw! To attach a head, you very loosely tighten it, since the base has a rubber top, engaging the lever pulls the head down instead of simply rotating it along with the lever. The result is a tighter connection than you could make by hand. Want to remove the head? Disengage the lever and it's now back to loosely screwed on. It then comes off without drama.
Genius.
Meanwhile, there is the leveling problem. For heads with a panning clamp, that isn't necessarily an issue, but everything is easier when the head itself starts level.
Gitzo has a solution to both of those problems, and I never realized it. Sure, they have a leveling base, but it's design is the old Gitzo style of their other metal tripod parts, and not the brushed aluminum and fancy carbon look of the RRS stuff. To make it even uglier, it has a lever sticking out of its side. I always assumed that that was part of the leveling mechanism, and so it was thus a clunky mechanical design in addition to being ugly.
But NO!
The Gitzo leveler works the way the RRS ones do. There's a handle sticking down from the bottom, and you loosen, level, and tighten all from the same grip. So what's the ugly side lever for? It turns the central screw! To attach a head, you very loosely tighten it, since the base has a rubber top, engaging the lever pulls the head down instead of simply rotating it along with the lever. The result is a tighter connection than you could make by hand. Want to remove the head? Disengage the lever and it's now back to loosely screwed on. It then comes off without drama.
Genius.
Last edited:
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
I *think* this is still in the Tripod and Head subject heading.
With the HC 300mm/4.5I am finding a blur in the dreaded 1/4 to 1/30 second range, even with Gitzo 5 and RRS BH55. Now the Leica S has a focal plane shutter and, despite mirror lockup and a 2 second delay, the shutter causes noticeable - well - shutter shock.
Is this consistent with general experience? I wouldn't expect this with a leaf shutter, but perhaps I just have to work around that shutter speed range.
Thanks,
Matt
Edit: An inexpensive long lens support bracket cut the vibration by a factor of 3. Extra mass? Actual support? I dunno, but it definitely helped!
With the HC 300mm/4.5I am finding a blur in the dreaded 1/4 to 1/30 second range, even with Gitzo 5 and RRS BH55. Now the Leica S has a focal plane shutter and, despite mirror lockup and a 2 second delay, the shutter causes noticeable - well - shutter shock.
Is this consistent with general experience? I wouldn't expect this with a leaf shutter, but perhaps I just have to work around that shutter speed range.
Thanks,
Matt
Edit: An inexpensive long lens support bracket cut the vibration by a factor of 3. Extra mass? Actual support? I dunno, but it definitely helped!
Last edited:
On the Leica S, you should be able to activate the leaf shutter of your HC lens by switching from "FPS" position to "CS" position. Have you tried, and if yes haven't you noticed an improvement ?
I should add that I haven't had too many problems with the HC300 on H camera so far, whatever speed I use (on D4 Arca Swiss head + 3 series or 5 series Gitzo tripod most often).
I should add that I haven't had too many problems with the HC300 on H camera so far, whatever speed I use (on D4 Arca Swiss head + 3 series or 5 series Gitzo tripod most often).
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
I *thought* I tried the leaf shutter when I first got the HC 300, and thought it didn't work with the S. Now, of course, it works just fine and the improvement is large. Thank you!
Matt
Last edited:
Dear Matt,
Bwahahahahahahaha...
John
P.S. Seriously, though, I think that the long lens rail does help add stability and vibration dampening, especially if using a mechanical shutter of any type. Note that for this little demonstration I just happened to use my mostly retired 3-series Al Gitzo as a base.
Bwahahahahahahaha...
John
P.S. Seriously, though, I think that the long lens rail does help add stability and vibration dampening, especially if using a mechanical shutter of any type. Note that for this little demonstration I just happened to use my mostly retired 3-series Al Gitzo as a base.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
While GAS knows no limits, I've been pretty happy with the HC 300 and its mysteriously now functional leaf shutter. I've seen your spectacular photos with the setup above. Fortunately, I've not encountered a direct comparison between the HC and Superachromat. No doubt I will do it myself and end up owning both systems. It's the Dante way.
Matt
Actually my post was aimed more at encouraging the use of a long lens rail, not acting (so much) as Dante's little helper...
While GAS knows no limits, I've been pretty happy with the HC 300 and its mysteriously now functional leaf shutter. I've seen your spectacular photos with the setup above. Fortunately, I've not encountered a direct comparison between the HC and Superachromat. No doubt I will do it myself and end up owning both systems. It's the Dante way.
Matt
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
You are correct! I tested with and without a support bar, and with FP shutter and Leaf Shutter. The combination of support bar and leaf shutter makes for astonishingly annoying Moiré
. I'm afraid that the focal plane shutter is just too harsh for the 1/15 second range. This is just one of those things to avoid. As Will would say, "learn your equipment." Now while the HC 300 without teleconverter can use the leaf shutter, I don't think any other combination does, including the Superachromats. Well, where there's a Dante, there's an unnecessary purchase...
And my low-rent stabilizing bar. Kind of off balance, now that I look at it...
I'll try this configuration when it's light again.. Tests at 1.5 seconds show great clarity.
Ok. I'm REALLY sorry about this, but we mathematicians are all frustrated experimental physicists. so...
This is the first 1/2 second after the shutter fires from four configurations. The bottom two are as seen in the picture immediately above - support rail with no head. The other two are some sample heads, and I forget which shutter was used, but the difference, especially decay, is stark. The x-axis is 1/100 seconds, but the y-values are already averaged over 1/10 second windows. I have an idea how to better show the initial disturbance, but it will have to wait.
Matt
Last edited:
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Have you put me on ignore yet? No? Well, here's a "better" analysis of the support bar and no head....
That's proportional to the displacement of the system measured, alas, only 100 times/second. Primitive phones! But with no windowing! This is an advertisement for mirror lockup and keeping your hands off the camera. The first huge spike at 1.5 seconds is me firing the 2-second delay and the mirror slapping up. At 3.5 seconds, the focal plane shutter opens. This was a 1 second exposure, so the shutter closing and the mirror coming down starts at about 4.4 seconds.
Now the blur of the image is the average displacement over the exposure (I'm making that definition up - if the displacements were uncorrelated, it would be the square root of the average of the variances - or something, but this thing is ringing like a damped bell). This only counts once we reach the flash synch time, as the sensor is only fully exposed then, but since we can only measure intervals greater than 1/100 second, that doesn't arise. If only I knew what was *really* going on in that blip at 3.4 seconds. But we'll take our data as given and proceed.
The longer the exposure, the less effect the initial vibration has on the final image. Here is a plot of that average vs. exposure time. Again, this plot depends critically on what goes on in that first 1/100 second, and the units are meaningless, so take it as motivational. The same computation mounting the support bar on the Acratech Pan head shows only a small degradation. Compare that to using the Acratech with NO support bar. It shows that the bar gives a 2-3 stop improvement in vibration blur at these intermediate exposures. I don't know what horizontal line represents the resolution floor, so I can't say exactly when this effect matters. But you can see why telephoto exposures less than 1/3 second might be affected without superior support. I still notice some effect around 1/15 second, which is consistent. That 1/25 second exposures look great I just cannot explain. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'll try to stop now, but I'm not optimistic.
Matt
That's proportional to the displacement of the system measured, alas, only 100 times/second. Primitive phones! But with no windowing! This is an advertisement for mirror lockup and keeping your hands off the camera. The first huge spike at 1.5 seconds is me firing the 2-second delay and the mirror slapping up. At 3.5 seconds, the focal plane shutter opens. This was a 1 second exposure, so the shutter closing and the mirror coming down starts at about 4.4 seconds.
Now the blur of the image is the average displacement over the exposure (I'm making that definition up - if the displacements were uncorrelated, it would be the square root of the average of the variances - or something, but this thing is ringing like a damped bell). This only counts once we reach the flash synch time, as the sensor is only fully exposed then, but since we can only measure intervals greater than 1/100 second, that doesn't arise. If only I knew what was *really* going on in that blip at 3.4 seconds. But we'll take our data as given and proceed.
The longer the exposure, the less effect the initial vibration has on the final image. Here is a plot of that average vs. exposure time. Again, this plot depends critically on what goes on in that first 1/100 second, and the units are meaningless, so take it as motivational. The same computation mounting the support bar on the Acratech Pan head shows only a small degradation. Compare that to using the Acratech with NO support bar. It shows that the bar gives a 2-3 stop improvement in vibration blur at these intermediate exposures. I don't know what horizontal line represents the resolution floor, so I can't say exactly when this effect matters. But you can see why telephoto exposures less than 1/3 second might be affected without superior support. I still notice some effect around 1/15 second, which is consistent. That 1/25 second exposures look great I just cannot explain. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'll try to stop now, but I'm not optimistic.
Matt
Last edited: