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!

What makes the Cube so wonderful?

gogopix

Subscriber
I guess the bulk of work with tripods here is with short lenses.
For [long] lens, rather than body mounting, a gimbal mount has many advantages.
The biggest advantage seems to be in leveling. For 'scanning the horizon to see the best composition a ballhead just seems so much faster.

Under what circumstances are people finding the Cube so useful (other than just gawking at it! :)

Victor
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I may be thick but I'm still wrestling with this. With a B!, I plonk it down loosen the ball and compose by moving the ball around. If I can't level it that way, I can use my levelling base to fix it. Getting very fine adjustments with a B1 can be tricky. If I want to do the same with a Cube, can I loosen it move it around and then lock it as easily, or am I using multiple locks to achieve it. I hated teh Manfrotto thing that I had because I had to make adjustments one at a time.
There are no free movement controls - you need to adjust the different axis (i.e. two) but it's very very easy and quick to do. The gearing is smooth with no play so it's easy to adjust correctly the first time. Sure you need to do some spatial calculations in your head as you adjust the controls but you get the hang of it very quickly. If you want precise control of the camera and leveling then the Cube works wonders. I've never found the need to use the sliding base adjustment, primarily because I use an L bracket anyway. The only locks necessary are on the base & rotating clamp.

For nature I use the B1 & B1G heads because they are much simpler and faster to adjust. However, they are very crude by comparison to using the Cube if I want to precisely adjust the rotation or pitch of the camera - even with the B1s it's a loosen & slide & counter slide etc until you get it right.

I ditched my BH-55 long ago because it was so rough compared to the Arca heads and never achieved anything like the smoothness that the B1's have.

Guy: I'd VERY interested to hear how the new design Arca P heads perform. They look like they may be even easier and smoother to control given the flipped design.
 

Jeffg53

Member
Graham, thanks. I can understand that, and see why it is a good thing. I agree about the B1, precise composition is certainly problematic. My previous experience with geared heads was not good so I was missing the benefits that you have explained.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
There are no free movement controls - you need to adjust the different axis (i.e. two) but it's very very easy and quick to do. The gearing is smooth with no play so it's easy to adjust correctly the first time. Sure you need to do some spatial calculations in your head as you adjust the controls but you get the hang of it very quickly. If you want precise control of the camera and leveling then the Cube works wonders. I've never found the need to use the sliding base adjustment, primarily because I use an L bracket anyway. The only locks necessary are on the base & rotating clamp.

For nature I use the B1 & B1G heads because they are much simpler and faster to adjust. However, they are very crude by comparison to using the Cube if I want to precisely adjust the rotation or pitch of the camera - even with the B1s it's a loosen & slide & counter slide etc until you get it right.

I ditched my BH-55 long ago because it was so rough compared to the Arca heads and never achieved anything like the smoothness that the B1's have.

Guy: I'd VERY interested to hear how the new design Arca P heads perform. They look like they may be even easier and smoother to control given the flipped design.
I will certainly report on the P1. It looks very interesting for sure. Love the idea of no matter where the tripod head is i can lock down. I always had to spin the knob to my left side for that hand, here it won't matter with this head. Like that idea. It comes tomorrow
 

carstenw

Active member
Or wait just a few weeks, you will be able to buy the Photoclam MultiPeeOne for just $220 in a 7-11 near you!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I know you where I was not. Won't buy there products. I have a issue with copyright, trademark and intellectual property and such. As a working image maker you could understand why.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Under what circumstances are people finding the Cube so useful (other than just gawking at it! :)
I've written about it several times - a google will turn up a couple for sure. The main points are 1) you can level your camera instantly and EXACTLY and 2) you can tweak side-side (roll) and fore-aft (pitch) independently while the other remains perfectly fixed. When you try adjusting say roll with a regular ballhead, invariably pitch will change a bit at the same time, requiring multiple iterations of taps and nudges to get both axis to the "perfect" set at the same time. (FWIW, the newest Gitzos have solved this by making the pitch axis on thier ball looser than all the others, so when you set roll, it stays pretty much set as you tweak pitch.) The next benefit is the Cube pans normally at the base to set yaw just as in conventional ballhead, but also pans independently at the clamp so you can also do a dead level yaw adjustment -- which is what we want to do when making cylindrical pano captures.

So the net is if you're the type of shooter who is satisfied with "close enough to level" then a regular ballhead is fine, but if you like a truly level platform for your camera, the Cube is a godsend in ease of setting that.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Jack
Thank you for a real answer. Sounds like you get a lot of use.

One of the reasons I have considered the Cube is that I have some pretty heavy lenses for wildlife and birds. For ground subjects it may be the cube's pan capability would be fine, but for others, really need free movements. The ball heads are just scary!! With a 8# lense and 4 # budy/back even balanced it is tough to handle, thus I go gimbal mount.

It appreas there is no 'clutch' that is, a way to disengage, move fast and re-engage. Is that right (from the post above.) THAT would be something for ARCA to consider, but a lot trickier to design and build.

One of the things that I have found and others as well, is how critical the damping and stability is in the world of 40-60 MP backs. The gimbal mounts SEEM fine, but the cube has a bigger base (while the gimbal suspends well, and is balanced it also creates a long lever arm for vibrations.)
I would love to see a ballhead vs cube damping test.

Now, the last question; how fast CAN you move in the vertical. With the bottom goni set for level, it only leaves the vertical to follow a subject with the knob turning. Given that the gimbal and ballhead need to be moved, then tightened down, I am wondering if just using the movement of the cube and shooting would be as quick. Maybe more stable.

I am NOT talking about following bird flight-i am talking about wildlife moving or birds flitting around perch to perch or people moving. Do you think the Cube would work?

Thanks again for the input

regards
Victor
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack
Thank you for a real answer. Sounds like you get a lot of use.

One of the reasons I have considered the Cube is that I have some pretty heavy lenses for wildlife and birds.
Hi Victor:

I used to shoot a LOT of wildlife from big game to birds in flight to small birds and mammals flittering about. For that application my hands-down favorite head remains the Wimberley -- simply THE fastest and most stable solution for that application, regardless of camera size and weight. A really good professional video fluid head would be another good choice here, but now you're talking serious dollars (probably over $5K for one you'd be happy with.) I would add that the Cube would be one of my last choices for this application.

However, for landscape, studio, product and architecture, things are different, and here the Cube shines for the reasons previously mentioned.

For occasional, non-specific use like travel, I prefer the lightest-weight and less expensive solution of a basic ballhead. Here take your own personal pick as they all get the job done, but my favorite remains the new style Gitzo, though the new one-handed Arcas look compelling too. Secret to using any of these is to not lock them up fully tight, just tight enough that it stays put but you can still nudge to adjust.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
.... The main points are 1) you can level your camera instantly and EXACTLY and 2) you can tweak side-side (roll) and fore-aft (pitch) independently while the other remains perfectly fixed. When you try adjusting say roll with a regular ballhead, invariably pitch will change a bit at the same time, requiring multiple iterations of taps and nudges to get both axis to the "perfect" set at the same time. ....
Great description in a nutshell--- for me, I realized the true value of the Cube in sub-freezing weather in Death Valley last year (so cold my knees started locking up), shivering and trying to level my tripod quickly with an attached ballhead as jack describes above. The cold made this an extremely difficult exercise for me.

Saw Don's Cube last February, and I was fully assimulated (I tried not to touch it!). I bought the Cube.

The Cube makes leveling so fast and easy. (also makes emptying your wallet fast and easy).
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Looking at the setup of the Alpa with the Cube, two thoughts occurred to me. First, there is a lot of "stuff" between the platform of the tripod itself and the base of the camera. I would expect that the best solution in terms of rigidity would be to attach the camera directly to the platform. That's obviously not practical. However, you would generally not want to use a center column to raise the camera above the tripod platform. The Cube at least appears to violate that principle by putting the camera up there on a perch with lots of "stuff" to vibrate. Second, one of the major advantages cited for the Cube is the ability to precisely compose your photograph. With a tech camera, you have no ability to compose accurately anyway, unless you remove your digital back each time you frame a shot.
It would be interesting to see some careful comparisons of 60mp shots with longer lenses(200mm or 300mm) using the Cube v. a regular RRS ballhead.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Taking a break from stretching canvas and wanted to jump in with a couple thoughts…

I like taking multiple images with my Cambo WRS1000\P45+ and have found the Cube to be the very best there is for this type of application. The Cube allows me not only to achieve a fast level it also allows me to achieve a near perfect level. As many know it’s very important to achieve as near perfect level as possible when doing panoramas. The combination of the near perfect level and flat stitching of the Cambo gives me a finished product that in many cases has less than one pixel missing in the completed stitch. I will often times achieve perfect lines on the bottom and one side and will only have spots on the other two sides where I missed. These spots are so minute that I can either clone them in or crop as desired. I never achieved that level of preciseness with any other head; of course it also helps doing flat stitching.

The ease of use of the Cube is amazing as well. Set the tripod on the ground and level in seconds it’s that easy! Doesn’t matter the terrain, I’ve been able to achieve level in 99.99% without the need of touching the legs.

The Cube has been my primary (actually only) head on my tripod since I got it and the only thing I use for the Cambo. I used it last week in the South Rim for my 1DsII IR and found I also achieved the same results as with the Cambo.

Am I spokesman for the Cube? No, but if they ever ask I would be.

Cheers

Don
 

vieri

Well-known member
... With a tech camera, you have no ability to compose accurately anyway, unless you remove your digital back each time you frame a shot
...
You can if you have a sliding back adapter. Cambo doesn't, as far as I know, but Silvestri does, and so does Linhof for some model (if I am not wrong).

Just new to the Cube btw... :D I just received a few days ago, a real thing of beauty! Will report as soon as it will have seen enough use for me to have something meaningful to report :D
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Howard, the Cube sits no taller than any equivalent ballhead, so is NOTHING like extending the center column. Also, a tech camera with movements allows you to tweak composition while maintaining camera level through the rise/fall/shift adjustments.

To add to Don's and my pano comments, here is my regular set-up with the Cube, complete with sliding RRS rail plate with SCREW down clamp, which I prefer to QR clamps. I simply slide to rail in or out to achieve the nodal or null parallax point point for the stitch:

 
Top