Biting the bullet - the Cube

[tashley]

Tim:

Curious about the Arca L plate.

1) Is is a generic fit, or designed specifically for the Mamiya -- meaning does it have the two registration pins in the base that fit into the corresponding pair of holes in the base of the Mamiya?

2) Is the mounting screw a 1/4" thread or a 3/8" thread bolt?

Hi Jack,

Yup it has the registration pins and the 3/8th inch thread. Arca themselves kindly sent it to me as a test sample. It looks very similar to the RRS one you suggested. My feeling is that neither of them can be very stable when used vertically because they are cantilevered in that orientation, and IMHO the cantilevering is less stable than that on the Manfrotto when used vertically. However when used horizontally it seems very stable.

Best
Tim

 

[thomas]

is the test meanigful at all regarding the camera plate and the heads if the comparsion is done without MUP?

 

[tashley]

Very interesting, and mildly disappointing. I wonder if the tripod is too light? Now I am curious if anyone has done similarly rigorous tests of the 410 vs. the 405?

In the end, every tripod is too light. It's just a matter of degree. I got this tripod on the recommendation of many here after my previous rig proved too light. Ultimately my feeling is that the Phase 645III is just very very slappy and that even with MUP, the shutter is very kinetic. I can't see any rig short of a one tonne concrete block with a 3/8th screw directly into the camera body that will totally nix shake at every shutter speed so I'm really just trying to work out what's the best practical compromise. In the studio it doesn't matter because the flash duration loses the shake for you so my interest is in finding stuff I can take on in planes and trains and automobiles for available light photography. I am slowly concluding that unless you are using wide to normal focal lengths on the Phamiya, and have enough light to give at a minimum F 5.6 at ISO 200 or better and 1/100th or better, you are taking a risk with most commonly used rigs.

Best

T

 

[tashley]

is the test meanigful at all regarding the camera plate and the heads if the comparsion is done without MUP?

Yes. There are plenty of times I want to use the camera without MUP because I want to do what photographers everywhere like to do: choose my moment! But as I have stated above I will do further MUP tests (I have done some already) because for my landscape work I generally can and do use MUP.

 

[thomas]

There are plenty of times I want to use the camera without MUP because I want to do what photographers everywhere like to do: choose my moment!

that's self-evident. It's maybe just not the right configuration to judge about the camera plate or the head...

 

[Jack]

I have the RRS L plate and I can tell you it is as rock solid in either orientation with my Cube/Mamiya. The way the angle is structured may be relevant, and the RRS's turn is radiused, not a hard 90, and fairly thick at the bend.

 

[tashley]

that's self-evident. It's maybe just not the right configuration to judge about the camera plate or the head...

I guess that's almost philosophical: my aim here is not to give any gear a chance to show what it can do in fair weather but to start with what I want to achieve then see if there's equipment that lets me do it. But I do have to say that when I got into digital MF towards the end of last year, I had no idea how much I would need to learn and how many assumptions I'd have to challenge. For example, if someone had said to me, will this kit, mounted with a very very good head on a pretty darned good tripod be able to take a shake free shot at 1/12th of a second without MUP, I would have said 'yes'.

Now from what I am hearing from others, the answer is in fact yes. But I haven't got there myself!

Tim

 

[tashley]

I have the RRS L plate and I can tell you it is as rock solid in either orientation with my Cube/Mamiya. The way the angle is structured may be relevant, and the RRS's turn is radiused, not a hard 90, and fairly thick at the bend.

They look almost identical to me Jack: as soon as I get a chance I'll post a shot of the Arca version but it is indeed radiused.

If you (or anyone else!) has the chance to run a similar test I'd be really interested to hear their results. There's obviously sample variation amongst a lot of variables (camera, lens, focus, floor, tripod, head, plate) but I think my methodology here has been pretty ok...

 

[thomas]

Now from what I am hearing from others, the answer is in fact yes. But I haven't got there myself!

I'd like to see (and not just hear about) those shots at 1/12'' without MUP and tack sharp of a highres back. With MUP, sure, but without? Maybe if you can set an offset for mirror up and exposure but even then I'd be curious to see those shots.

 

[tashley]

I'd like to see (and not just hear about) those shots at 1/12'' without MUP and tack sharp of a highres back. With MUP, sure, but without? Maybe if you can set an offset for mirror up and exposure but even then I'd be curious to see those shots.

Yup, me too: maybe I'm chasing a will o' the wisp here! If it's not possible then fine, I'll get me a Nikon for those situations where the MF stuff can't give me choice of moment with enough DOF to get a head in focus at three metres and good enough high ISO performance to let me use a shutter speed that doesn't cause blur on a good tripod/head rig.

 

[carstenw]

Tim, when you announced that you had bought the GT3541LS, I was wondering if it would be vibration-free enough. Regardless of whether wood or carbon fiber dampen better, the weight of the tripod appears to be the primary factor in vibration dampening (according to that formal study by LFI, which while incomplete, does suggest certain conclusions), and yours weighs just 1.72 kg.

If I were to spring for a Gitzo, then I would probably pick up a 5-series, which weigh around 3-4kg, probably either the GT3541LS or the giant GT5561SGT, which should be even more rigid if I don't open up the last two segments, i.e. normal use. The extra kilo or two are not going to be that noticeable if you carry an MF camera with back, and several lenses.

Do you have some way of repeating the test with the Arca plate horizontal, but on a heavier tripod, to see if this is a factor?

 

[tashley]

For Jack

Hi Jack,

here's a coupla shots of the Arca plate. I can't fault its construction: design and execution are beautiful. They will cost around 110 €.


View attachment 18953

View attachment 18952

 

[carstenw]

Looking at that right-angle bend, I can't help but wonder if Jack is right. I know from my aborted mechanical engineering studies that this type of bend will fail sooner, and I suppose that it might also pass vibration more. Anyway, even in the horizontal position, the Cube only does slightly better than the 410, which is disappointing, considering that it is about 10x more expensive.

But I don't think that the Cube is necessarily at fault. Check the tripod if you can. What about this plate's grip-surface? Is the gripped part as long as the clamp it goes into? It looks awfully short in these photos, almost as if Arca made a compromise in stability to allow turning it sideways in the clamp.

Jack, what clamp do you have on your Cube?

 

[tashley]

Looking at that right-angle bend, I can't help but wonder if Jack is right. I know from my aborted mechanical engineering studies that this type of bend will fail sooner, and I suppose that it might also pass vibration more. Anyway, even in the horizontal position, the Cube only does slightly better than the 410, which is disappointing, considering that it is about 10x more expensive.

But I don't think that the Cube is necessarily at fault. Check the tripod if you can. What about this plate's grip-surface? Is the gripped part as long as the clamp it goes into? It looks awfully short in these photos, almost as if Arca made a compromise in stability to allow turning it sideways in the clamp.

Jack, what clamp do you have on your Cube?

Hi Carsten,

The tripod is fine, it and its feet and joints are all tight and it's pretty new too. I think the apparent shortness of the clamp is due to foreshortening effect of the photo: it seems to me that the clamp is as sensibly could be given what it has to fit into and avoid blocking on the body. It's camera-bottom gripping length is 7.5 cm (i.e. the length of the bit that actually is in contact with the camera bottom) and width is 4 cm so if Jack has a moment to measure his RRS we can see if there's a significant difference.

My view is that at this level of the game, small improvements cost large amounts of money. The Cube performs better than the Manfrotto by a small margin but it's nicer to use and a better weight and shape for travel. Whether it's worth the extra is a matter of personal choice and whether it can perform better still with a RRS bracket only Jack or someone else with the right gear can tell us if they have the time and inclination to run a similar test! Let's put it this way, I might be selling my 410 but I won't be selling me Cube!

In the next post are further test findings which are pretty encouraging!

Best

Tim

 

[tashley]

More test results from the Cube

OK, yesterday was a comparative test of the Cube against the Manfrotto 410 in pretty challenging and exact conditions. See page two of this thread for details.

Today's test saw me using the same basic setup as yesterday but testing some MUP behaviours and also trying the 80mm Mamiya kit lens with and without MUP. Having established yesterday that under the most critical conditions the Cube has a minor lead over the Manfrotto 410, today I just tested the Cube. Again, orientation was portrait for all shots.


Results: (and remember all focus is tethered live view)

Test 1: 150mm F3.5 MF lens mounted on the L plate HORIZONTALLY but with the Cube providing portrait orientation via 90 degree tilt.

At 1/200th through 1/12th second and six second MUP the results were all good. a repeat of 1/50th, 1/25th and 1/12th but with three second MUP also gave good results.

Test 2: 150mm F3.5 MF lens mounted on the L plate VERTICALLY so as to provide portrait orientation and with the Cube flat.

Short answer, whether MUP is six it three seconds, don't use it this way. there is visible shake at all but 1/200th and 1/100th though at 1/12th second the result is almost useable.

Test 3, 4 and 5: 80mm kit lens using portrait orientations achieved both ways, with MUP of three and six seconds and without MUP, at shutter speeds of 1/200th thru 1/12th - all results are good. The only slight mild doubt is over the shot where the cube was in tilt mode and the L plate was used horizontally, with no MUP, at 1/12th. I personally would avoid that one unless I was up against an ISO ceiling but then I'd use it and go for MUP.

Summary results in total:

With the 150mm lens you should use MUP, three seconds delay will do, with the L plate mounted horizontally and the Cube providing 90 degrees tilt. This same method of achieving orientation is the best way of using the set-up if you can't use MUP but avoid 1/12th. With or without MUP, DO NOT use the Arca L plate's Vertical mount facility with a 150mm lens.

With the 80mm lens, go for it. MUP, no MUP, vertical mount or horizontal mount with tilted cube, at all tested shutter speeds, the Cube will let you shoot sharp with the possible exception of 1/12th second no MUP and a tilted cube.

Remember, this is my rig and yours might well have different dynamics. I truly believe they're ll a bit different!

Phew, now I just have to remember that when I go shoot!



Tim

 

[carstenw]

Hmm, I lost my first attempt at the tripod post, and I seem to have forgotten to add something: try the tripod with no parts extended, and with 1 part extended, etc. If there is no problem with the tripod, there should be no difference in the performance. Your tripod should be pretty damn stable with no legs extended!

Also, rather than shooting into variable atmosphere, what about sticking a tube on the 150 and shooting some close-up shots of something which high-frequency detail? Shooting close up should stress the setup as much as far away.

 

[carstenw]

Tim, it doesn't make much sense to buy an expensive Arca L-plate if you can't get portrait use out of it, but I wonder if there isn't a way to fix it: wedge something suitably firm in between the plate and the body somewhere near the top. If it is firm, then it should provide another point of support. A piece of very dense foam might even absorb some vibrations, although I guess this would be minimal.

 

[tashley]

Hmm, I lost my first attempt at the tripod post, and I seem to have forgotten to add something: try the tripod with no parts extended, and with 1 part extended, etc. If there is no problem with the tripod, there should be no difference in the performance. Your tripod should be pretty damn stable with no legs extended!

Also, rather than shooting into variable atmosphere, what about sticking a tube on the 150 and shooting some close-up shots of something which high-frequency detail? Shooting close up should stress the setup as much as far away.

Hi Carsten,

All this batch of tests, yesterday and today, were made indoors with a test chart so no variable atmosphere. I will try the foam wedge idea but frankly I think that using the tripod set lower is of theoretical interest only since I need it at or around eye height. I'm testing here (and sharing the results) so I can see what is possible in real world conditions. Not sure if you've ever felt the vibrations in a Phase/Mamiya 645III but they are pretty brutal even with MUP. I am not surprised that there is evidence of shake even with some great supporting gear. The Phamiya is in my mind a cruddy piece of design!

Tim

 

[Jack]

Re: For Jack

Hi Jack,

here's a coupla shots of the Arca plate. I can't fault its construction: design and execution are beautiful. They will cost around 110 €.


View attachment 18953

View attachment 18952

Tim,

No offense, but that bend is not very radiused and is essentially a hard 90! I suspect that junction is where your vertical instability is emanating from -- all else equal, a hard 90 is more of a spring than a radius. If you look at the RRS, you can see it is not only radiused for the 90 bend but also very thick material at the bend -- maybe half-again or twice as thick as your Arca version. Check the images: http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=BM645-L&eq=BM645L-001&Tp=

 

[Jack]

Re: More test results from the Cube

Short answer, whether MUP is six it three seconds, don't use it this way.

Correction: Don't use it in portrait mode with an Arca L plate!

I will add that quite frankly the Cube is far less stable when tilted to 90 than my RRS L bracket on its portrait side is. With the Cube tilted 90, you have two sections extended and your camera is hanging both higher above and pretty significantly to one side of the centerline of the tripod, which in turn *definitely* adds instability to the system. The fact it's better than your plate in portrait mode for you should confirm an issue with your plate's design...

(Sidebar: I had a student with a bad Kirk plate that would not fully tighten to the base of his Mamiya. It worked fine horizontally, but almost always showed a few pixel motion if used in portrait. The culprit was his base's machining was bad and allowed the plate to move within the registration pin clearance. This allowed the camera oscillate on the axis of the mounting bolt my a few hundredth's of a mm whenever the camera was mounted portrait, which in turn showed up as a few pixels of motion in his images at any speeds under 1/125th. In his case, using longer lenses alleviated the problem as the extra off-center weight held the plate against the pins in a basically stable position. This is an example of precisely the type of little error in a part that causes problems, yet so many folks take for granted it being a "perfect" part of the system...)

Sorry,