Site Sponsors
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 193

Thread: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

  1. #101
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Glad it's not the Fraternal Union of the Cube....

  2. #102
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    There are, however, certain secret rites of the cube.
    I however am not at liberty to speak of them.
    -bob

  3. #103
    Senior Member etrump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    My .02:

    I really liked the idea behind the cube but decided I would try the Manfrotto 410 first. At $165 on amazon with overnight shipping for another $4 it seemed like a no brainer. If it didn't work I would return it and ante up for the cube.

    I fell in love with it immediately. It fits seamlessly into my workflow. All the features that made the cube appealing without the $1600-$2400 price tag. So for me the cube is no longer in my future, the savings can be applied toward upgrading to D glass.

    Since I have RRS plates for everything I mounted the RRS pano clamp on top of the Manfrotto clamp. Makes things a little tall but if I need to get low I can crank things over 90 degrees.


  4. #104
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Ed - I'm a huge fan of gadgets and have to admit your kit looking good. That said I'll give up my Cube when you pry it from my dead cold hands!

    Don
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by etrump View Post
    I really liked the idea behind the cube but decided I would try the Manfrotto 410 first. At $165 on amazon with overnight shipping for another $4 it seemed like a no brainer. If it didn't work I would return it and ante up for the cube.
    IMO for such a small view camera like the WRS the cube is the last head I would think about. What is such a camera for? To be leveled. You don't need to turn the camera for vertical composition as you just turn the back. You don't need to tilt the camera as you use shift. You may need a pano base, of course. The perfect head for the WRS IMO is Cambo's new leveling base that fits to the camera as a consecutive extension. It's small, light, rock solid and a real joy to work with as it is easy and fast to level the camera. Using the cube with the WRS is like using a crane to put on a hat.
    If the Manfrotto head does what you need it for - to level the camera - and obviously it does... than why spend so much money in features you'll never need (at least not with this camera) and cary a heavy, big head?
    Have fun with your new head!

  6. #106
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Guys, as Tim Ashley can tell you after I pounded the point home on him, if you want the absolute sharpest images possible it's all about RIGIDITY of the ENTIRE imaging system...

    1) The higher you are above the top plate of your tripod, the less rigid you are due to increased load moment on the imaging system;

    2) The weaker or more wobbly your tripod legs are, the less rigid the entire imaging system will be, and the greater the deleterious effects of #1 above will be;

    3) The slightest bit of play, slop or "sponge" (as with cork or rubber based plates) in how the plates mate to the camera or clamps mate to the tripod head, the less rigid the entire imaging system will be and the greater the negative effect #1 will have on the overall system.

    None of this is saying the 405/410 are not good solutions, they are decent alternatives, especially for those that use a tripod infrequently. But FWIW, I went there BEFORE I bought the Cube too and also because of cost --- and take it from me, the Cube (and possibly the Chinese knock-off) is a full step ahead for overall system rigidity.

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Guys, as Tim Ashley can tell you after I pounded the point home, if you want the absolute sharpest images possible it's all about RIGIDITY of the ENTIRE imaging system...

    1) The higher you are above the top plate of your tripod, the less rigid you are due to increased load moment on the imaging system;

    2) The weaker or more wobbly your tripod legs are, the less rigid the entire imaging system will be, and the greater the effect of #1 will be;

    3) The slightest bit of play, slop or "sponge" (as with cork or rubber based plates) in how the plates mate to the camera or clamps mate to the tripod head, the less rigid the entire imaging system will be and the greater the effect #1 will have on the overall system.

    None of this is saying the 405/410 are not good solutions, they are decent alternatives, especially for those that use a tripod less often. But FWIW, I went there BEFORE I bought the Cube too and also because of cost --- and take it from me, the Cube is in a entirely different league on overall rigidity.

    Cheers,
    Jack, this is a manifesto for the WRS leveling base to use with the WRS ;-)
    Does # 1.) apply to such a camera as well? The weight is virtually centered. No mirror.
    I am sure that you know very well what you are talking about and I trust your experience! Still begs the question if one would need a cube for such a view camera. I shoot the the WRS on the WRS leveling base tack sharp from long exposures all the way to the shortest exposure (admittetly on wood tripods). There is simply nothing that could be better. Just heavier. And more expensive (though the WRS leveling base is not a steal as well).

  8. #108
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Thomas:

    A leveling base is super if you never need to point your camera up or down -- but in landscape, you are often aiming a camera at a significant downward (and sometimes even a moderately upward) angle depending on subject.

    Most leveling bases allow for a few degrees of change maximum, and the specs on the Cambo WRS base say it allows for 5 degrees max. So while they're good accessories for leveling a camera, they are not a replacement for a tripod head.

    http://www.captureintegration.com/20...leveling-base/
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Thomas:

    A leveling base is super if you never need to point your camera up or down -- but in landscape, you are often aiming a camera at a significant downward (and sometimes even a moderately upward) angle depending on subject.
    In this case you still can use the tripod legs (but why not use shift - this is what it is all about). That's - in this case - a bit more fiddly, but you won't do it often... more often you'd like to have the camera leveled (why than buy a WRS?).
    I mount my heads always strictly straight on the tripod so that I just have to lower or lever up the front leg. Still fiddly but I need that very, very rarely. The upside is that I have a lean, light and very well outfit for what I need mostly: a leveled camera.
    Last edited by thomas; 5th August 2009 at 13:31.

  10. #110
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    In this case you still can use the tripod legs (but why not use shift - this is what it is all about).
    Try both

    If you try to use your tripod legs to point your camera at a downward angle of say 30 degrees, all of a sudden you no longer have a tripod, but a monopod with two rear arms -- try it out and you'll see immediately it won't work.

    Shift is great for raising or lowering your relative elevation point of view, but it will not change your ANGLE of view, which is what you often need in landscape -- hence the need for the head to tilt...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  11. #111
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Guys, as Tim Ashley can tell you after I pounded the point home on him, if you want the absolute sharpest images possible it's all about RIGIDITY of the ENTIRE imaging system...

    1) The higher you are above the top plate of your tripod, the less rigid you are due to increased load moment on the imaging system;

    2) The weaker or more wobbly your tripod legs are, the less rigid the entire imaging system will be, and the greater the deleterious effects of #1 above will be;

    3) The slightest bit of play, slop or "sponge" (as with cork or rubber based plates) in how the plates mate to the camera or clamps mate to the tripod head, the less rigid the entire imaging system will be and the greater the negative effect #1 will have on the overall system.

    None of this is saying the 405/410 are not good solutions, they are decent alternatives, especially for those that use a tripod infrequently. But FWIW, I went there BEFORE I bought the Cube too and also because of cost --- and take it from me, the Cube (and possibly the Chinese knock-off) is a full step ahead for overall system rigidity.

    Cheers,
    What Jack says is true, and that's the bad news because it is expensive news.

    The good news is that the 'frotto 410 is very very nearly as good as the cube in my tests. That makes it best value by far. But at the limit, when we're looking for the very best results, value gives way to the need for the last drop of quality and the cube is that last drop.

    T

  12. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Try both

    If you try to use your tripod legs to point your camera at a downward angle of say 30 degrees, all of a sudden you no longer have a tripod, but a monopod with two rear arms -- try it out and you'll see immediately it won't work.
    30?? Motivs like this I actually shoot with my Contax on a Gitzo 3series head... the WRS is virtually always leveled.

  13. #113
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    I use a Cube for my WRS and couldn't think of a more friendly head. I don't have to worry about my tripod legs, all I do is place the WRS on the Cube and within a very short couple of seconds I'm completely leveled. I've had to play with my tripod legs in the past and can tell you it has the potential for disaster especially with a 1000' fall in front of you. I want the tripod legs fully extended to add the stability.

    Jack is 100% correct regarding the downward movements of the camera/Cube combination especially for landscape applications. Imagine standing at the 1000" cliff and wanting to capture an image that is beyond the fall capabilities of the WRS/lens combo. It's no problem tilting the Cube downwards towards the area you want to capture; fast and easy to do this all the while keeping the camera level.

    I don't doubt there's better heads; likewise there's probably more expensive and less expensive heads. I've lost count of the number of various types of heads I've used over the years and in each case I was left with the unsatisfied feeling that I was "settling" "close but no cigar" not with the Cube. I personally like everything about the Cube and do not feel that's it overkill.

    Also remember the higher you are from the center of the tripod the less stable you're apt to be and this is the primary reason I don't have and dislike any type of center column.

    Don
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  14. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Creek View Post
    I use a Cube for my WRS and couldn't think of a more friendly head. I don't have to worry about my tripod legs, all I do is place the WRS on the Cube and within a very short couple of seconds I'm completely leveled.
    well, as to leveling this is what a leveling base is all about. You'll certainly have no advantage with the cube over the WRS leveling base regarding leveling. I don't have to worry about tripod legs as well... only in the very rare cases I'd like to point the camera slightly.
    Actually I have the WRS for the very reason to have the camera leveled and compose within a straight image with shift/movements.

    Also remember the higher you are from the center of the tripod the less stable you're apt to be and this is the primary reason I don't have and dislike any type of center column.
    are you closer to the center with the cube or with the WRS leveling base? ->


    If you point the camera very often, you have a point. If leveling and stability is the matter, there is no way that the cube is superior to the WRS leveling base.

  15. #115
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Thomas:

    The Cube is about the same height as the Cambo leveling base and probably just as rigid when zeroed -- so I'd agree there is no advantage to the Cube if always shooting in a leveled or zeroed position... However, that's not always how I shoot ()!

    Howeverbut -- and not that it's particularly important -- I am willing to bet you a steak dinner that I can level my camera on my Cube to dead zero faster than you can do it with your Cambo leveling head
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  16. #116
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Well, I'm so in love with THE CUBE that my comments need to be censored. I have been using tripods and heads for over 50 years and I've had'em all. Even today I have a Gitzo, a Leitz Tiltall, and Induro in regular use, with RRS, Acratech and Gitzo heads along with a few I've forgotten the names of.

    Not one gives me the pleasure to use that THE CUBE does and I'm sure that none of them is steadier or more rigid.

    But I'm still not sleeping or showering with it....

    Bill

  17. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    The Cube is about the same height as the Cambo leveling base and probably just as rigid when zeroed -- so I'd agree there is no advantage to the Cube if always shooting in a leveled or zeroed position...
    the contrary! don't forget that you don't use ANY clamp with the leveling base. You mount the "whole" camera directly on the tripod!!
    Howeverbut -- and not that it's particularly important -- I am willing to bet you a steak dinner that I can level my camera on my Cube to dead zero faster than you can do it with your Cambo leveling head
    agreed whenever I am near your region I am going to Email you ;-)

  18. #118
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Thomas:

    The RRS clamps when mated to their rail and properly tightened is as one piece, so no advantage there I'm afraid...

    You are on for the steak!
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  19. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    Well, I'm so in love with THE CUBE that my comments need to be censored.
    :-) Bill, that's fine! Question is (initially brought up by "etrump") is there anything else that works for the WRS if you don't want or don't have to spend the money? The cube is certainly not the answer to all questions and the very best solution for all purposes (but I know what you are going to reply )

  20. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    You are on for the steak!
    well done please

  21. #121
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    YUCK! Here in beef country, that is a sin! (When I win, mine will be steakhouse RARE! But if you win, you can have yours any way you want it )
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  22. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    YUCK! Here in beef country, that is a sin! (When I win, mine will be steakhouse RARE! But if you win, you can have yours any way you want it )
    :-)) "well done" for me is what Italians call "ben cotto" which is probably between medium and well done. Must still be soft and mellow but not bloody :-)
    I prepare my filet rosted shortly in the cube, err... pan and than put it at not more than 120 in the stove for 20min or so (together with some carrots and onions and sometimes garlic). Like no other!

  23. #123
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Still sounds overcooked, especially for a filet FWIW, no steakhouse in the states will guarantee any steak cooked over medium-rare
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  24. #124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Still sounds overcooked, especially for a filet
    no, sounds french (you know the country where all cooking arts come from? )
    FWIW, no steakhouse in the states will guarantee any steak cooked over medium-rare
    yes, for some reason I am just infrequently in the States

  25. #125
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    ...snip...

    Not one gives me the pleasure to use that THE CUBE does and I'm sure that none of them is steadier or more rigid.
    I think that's a really important point: I consistently find that equipment that gives me tactile pleasure to use give me better results. My M8 may be flawed but it feels so good that it gives me a wildly disporoportionate number of keepers. Same with my Olympus Pen. My 5DII is neutral - I know it's good but it feels dull, so it represents the 'average success rate' for me.

    I dislike the Phamiya so much that after nearly a year of ownership I can count my real keepers on my fingers and toes, which is pathetic of me. But put the P45+ on a WRS and all that on a cube and whoah, things start to tick.

    So many artists and writers had favourite paintbrushes, papers and pens - and I think this tactile relationship is very important in helping to unlock creativity.

    My 2 cents!


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    But I'm still not sleeping or showering with it....
    Bill
    We only have your word for that.

  26. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    I think that's a really important point (...)
    to some extend I find this is reasonable but at the same time I find this is overloaded with misplaced prejudice about the "value" of things. Honestly, when people say, that a certain camera or shooting technique "slow" them down or let them relax or feel fine I don't fully understand it. I am concentrated and focussed on what I see in exactly the same way using my old Polaroid or my newest piece of gear. What turns me on, or slows me down, is what I "see" and what I "imagine" to create with my "cadrage". It's maybe the crux of photography that it is so much based on techinque and gear.
    I love photography... but very, very often I drive and walk around (hours, days) and do not take a single picture. Because the clouds are not like I would like them to have. Because there is something in the forground I don't like. Or anything else. But I memorize the places and return again and again and again... until the motif is like I want it. I'd never take out the camera of my case and set it up just because I like to shoot (something) or just because I want to touch it. When I do I appreciate that I like the materials and the haptic. But actually it's totally peripheral.
    Hope it's somehow reasonable explained...

  27. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    I like to play with pretty things and I avoid ugly things in life.

    Design and style is very important to me. I fnd that I dont use cameras that aren't pretty - this is why I love my Alpa and my M8 more than any other system - and because I like to hold these things I tend to use them.

    When one pays a lot of money for discretionary expenditure items - one should not only get basic utility from them - but also a tactile pleasure that appeals to one's senses.

    However I guess I am different to many photographers in that the outcome is not very important to me - more the journey. I have on disc over 5000 shots I have made over the years which I keep for record and diary reasons - but on my walls I only have about 20 prints printed large which I am happy to display in that fashion.

    It must be very frustrating to Phase One who are design focussed to have to hang their backs off a very very ordinary piece of camera equipment in Mamiya. Hasselblad should hang their heads in shame as well regarding design the ergonomics are ok - but the colour and look of their camera - is very ugly. I believe that peopel love their V systems - because the camera has a beautiful look and feel about it.

    I am not ashamed to say that the S2's look will draw many people to buy it - its ergonomics are immediately appealing but so is teh colour , shape and impression - I say this while never haviong seen or held one. Good design POPs off the page.

    I take the same approach to all things in my life - clothes, cars, pens, furniture, electronic goods, stationary, bags etc etc etc..

    I think a lot of the reson why the Americn auto industry has failed so badly - is that the American designed car is extremely ugly in appearnace - this preparedness to deliver ugly cars is of course alo reflected in their preparedness to deliver inefficient engineering - crap basically.

    The sad thing is that good design is not necessarilly any more expensive to manufacture and more often than not cheaper.

    One coudl save themselves a lot of trouble by insisting that they limit purchases to quality in all senses of the word.

    Arca understand good design and pretty things - hence I bought the Cube.

    QUOTE=thomas;123444]to some extend I find this is reasonable but at the same time I find this is overloaded with misplaced prejudice about the "value" of things. Honestly, when people say, that a certain camera or shooting technique "slow" them down or let them relax or feel fine I don't fully understand it. I am concentrated and focussed on what I see in exactly the same way using my old Polaroid or my newest piece of gear. What turns me on, or slows me down, is what I "see" and what I "imagine" to create with my "cadrage". It's maybe the crux of photography that it is so much based on techinque and gear.
    I love photography... but very, very often I drive and walk around (hours, days) and do not take a single picture. Because the clouds are not like I would like them to have. Because there is something in the forground I don't like. Or anything else. But I memorize the places and return again and again and again... until the motif is like I want it. I'd never take out the camera of my case and set it up just because I like to shoot (something) or just because I want to touch it. When I do I appreciate that I like the materials and the haptic. But actually it's totally peripheral.
    Hope it's somehow reasonable explained...[/QUOTE]

  28. #128
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    I like to play with pretty things and I avoid ugly things in life.......
    Arca understand good design and pretty things - hence I bought the Cube.
    My museum of pretty things:

    A Cube
    A Riva Aquarama
    An M8
    A Ferrari California
    Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico
    Winona Ryder
    Old style British phone boxes and London buses
    The Brooklyn Bridge
    The Guitar on the front of Brothers in Arms
    A closed Macbook Air


    ....to be continued

  29. #129
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    :-) Bill, that's fine! Question is (initially brought up by "etrump") is there anything else that works for the WRS if you don't want or don't have to spend the money? The cube is certainly not the answer to all questions and the very best solution for all purposes (but I know what you are going to reply )
    Well, I have no experience of the WRS so my comments would have no value. (Even though I'm always tempted to spout off on subjects about which I have no personal experience!).

    I'm using the Phamiya P45+, typically with the 75-150 zoom, and THE CUBE is definitely better than my various ball heads. Try attaching a laser pointer to your lens and watch it's spot quiver as the shutter releases (MU, of course).

    I also use THE CUBE with the Sony a900 and 300 mm f2.8 with the TC1.4X and again it is noticeably steadier.

    Having said that, I admit that much of that "quiver" may come after the shutter has closed and thus makes no difference to the sharpness of the image. But I reckon the less quiver the better, whenever it occurs.

    Much of the joy of THE CUBE comes from the micro-precision achievable in framing your shot.

    And damn, it looks sharp too!

    Bill

  30. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    err... I also like nicely designed and high-quality things and prefer them.
    But that has nothing to do with successful imaging ...

  31. #131
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    err... I also like nicely designed and high-quality things and prefer them.
    But that has nothing to do with successful imaging ...
    With respect I think that is both personal and unscientific! I could easily make a hypothesis that those areas of the brain that are responsible for creative endeavour are stimulated by interaction with objects and processes that themselves give aesthetic pleasure.

    In fact, I believe that to be the case and, not having a behavioural laboratory and an MRI scanner to hand, I'd further say that even the placebo effect of my belief probably has a significant effect.

    I bet if you were to hand the proposition to an evolutionary behaviourist they could offer an explanation as to what selective advantages such a trait might confer!

    Yours musingly,

    Tim

  32. #132
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Well one thing is for certain -- if you believe something is better/higher-quality, you will likely use it more, and by using it more will gain facility in extracting the maximum potential from it. The converse is also true...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  33. #133
    Senior Member etrump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post

    the Manfrotto plate is also rubber (if somewhat larger) and that the 410 I have both looks and feels very rigid indeed.
    I would have to agree Tim. The 3/8 screw in combination with the rubber on the top of the 410 plate allows and extremely rigid fit. I compared it to the BH-55 with clamp and couldn't tell any difference.

    I would imaging the Cube has a similar rigidity or we would have heard that by now.

    One thing is for sure, now that I have used a geared head I couldn't imagine slumming back to the ball head.

    Now that I am thinking about it, I suppose if I was on a multi-day hike in the wilderness I would change my attitude after the first couple of days. I spent a few days with Guy Tal in Escalante and one of his tripods with an acratech head felt like a feather compared to my gitzo and BH-55. After 15-20 miles of hiking, which didn't seem to bother him but was killing me, I would have welcomed a lighter kit.

  34. #134
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,354
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Thomas:

    -- I am willing to bet you a steak dinner that I can level my camera on my Cube to dead zero faster than you can do it with your Cambo leveling head
    This is a skewed bet that I wouldn't take, Thomas! The Cube is disgustingly fast and easy to level---and 2-3 seconds max to level the camera body is no exaggeration.

    I can't recall why, but I think I already owe Jack a steak dinner.....maybe it was for making him eat Pigs in a Blanket at the Wagon Wheel when Capture Integration came to Carmel....


  35. #135
    David A
    Guest

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    "And how would sir like his Steak?"
    "Just cut the horns off, wipe it's a** and keep it away from the salad I don't want it grazing"

  36. #136
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Charred Medium Rare . I like a little blood after the kill. Heck i may take this bet with my Gitzo head and eye-balling it. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  37. #137
    tetsrfun
    Guest

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    My museum of pretty things:

    A Ferrari California
    ********
    The waiting list is out to 2013 and it's a 2+2. Buy a used Fiorano, instead.

    Steve

  38. #138
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Just finished a 8oz bloody rare filet and I didn't even have a bet going on!

    The way I figure is that there will always be those that for what ever the reason will never succumb to the wiles of the Cube and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.


    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  39. #139
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Creek View Post
    Just finished a 8oz bloody rare filet and I didn't even have a bet going on!

    The way I figure is that there will always be those that for what ever the reason will never succumb to the wiles of the Cube and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.


    They're called Vestal Virgins and every society needs them...

  40. #140
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by tetsrfun View Post
    My museum of pretty things:

    A Ferrari California
    ********
    The waiting list is out to 2013 and it's a 2+2. Buy a used Fiorano, instead.

    Steve
    But it's a museum... of pretty things... and as curator I have a responsibility to acquire the best works.

    I'd rather hoped others would take up the idea and add exhibits. C'mon guys, what are yours?

    For reference my original list was:

    A Cube
    A Riva Aquarama
    An M8
    A Ferrari California
    Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico
    Winona Ryder
    Old style British phone boxes and London buses
    The Brooklyn Bridge
    The Guitar on the front of Brothers in Arms
    A closed Macbook Air

  41. #141
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    819
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by etrump View Post
    I really liked the idea behind the cube but decided I would try the Manfrotto 410 first. At $165 on amazon with overnight shipping for another $4 it seemed like a no brainer. If it didn't work I would return it and ante up for the cube...
    I started with a 410 about 5 years ago moved up to the 405 about a year later. I love the 405. It might be too clunky for travel, etc., but in a studio setting I really enjoy using it. Compared to the 410, the 405 controls are smooth and have a finer resolution (at least it feels that way). The Arca head looks nice, etc., but its too spendy for me. Anyway, the 405 has been great and is probably the only piece of gear I haven't flipped! LOL

  42. #142
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by kdphotography View Post
    This is a skewed bet that I wouldn't take, Thomas! The Cube is disgustingly fast and easy to level---and 2-3 seconds max to level the camera body is no exaggeration.
    2 screws are 2 screws... how can they be faster on the cube? are they motorised?
    Apart from that this it's honestly the very last thing I care about; as long as you can level smooth, easy and accurate that's all fine.
    I still don't understand how you could think the cube is superior over the WRS leveling base regarding leveling the WRS. Other than fetishism :-)

  43. #143
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Lets face it - we all have our opinions on camera gear. Some of us also have what has become an obsession to prove others wrong if they disagree.

    I think the bottom line here is if "it" works for you - each and every time you use "it" then great. More power to you for finding the right fit.

    Just my 2 worth this morning....
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  44. #144
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    2 screws are 2 screws... how can they be faster on the cube? are they motorised?
    Well for one thing, the Cube does not use screws! It levels via a rack and pinion cradle, very different from a screw or worm drive...

    ,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  45. #145
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Curious this morning -

    How many folks here brought the Cube and found they don't like it?

    How many people who actually tried it and don't like it?

    How many people who can honesty answer the above 2 questions found the Cube "lacking" or "over-kill"?
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  46. #146
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Creek View Post
    How many folks here brought the Cube and found they don't like it?
    Not me. I've rationalized that it's not a good choice for me as I shoot on the beach frequently and believe that blowing sand is not where this head was designed to be used. I sure hope nobody tells me otherwise

  47. #147
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    David - you might want to close your eyes, leave the room or open another thread.

    While I normally don't shoot on a beach I do normally shoot in the Southwest where sand is everywhere! Sand will get into places nothing has or should. I've had to empty my camera and tripod bags and vacuum the inside just to get the sand out. I've open the rear door of my jeep and found several inches of sand on the sill.

    On the other hand I've shoot in several feet of snow and sleet. Cold blowing snow and cold freezing sleet. I've had my beard frozen, batteries last minutes before having to change to re-warm them.

    I've used my Cube in each instance without any problems whatsoever.

    I'm sure others have their own experiences....

    Cheers


    Don
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  48. #148
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Creek View Post
    How many folks here brought the Cube and found they don't like it?

    How many people who actually tried it and don't like it?

    How many people who can honesty answer the above 2 questions found the Cube "lacking" or "over-kill"?
    That is not the question.
    The cube is beyond doubt by far the best allrounder head.
    The question is: is any other head BS? No, it is not.
    Overkill? Weight maybe? And the price for features one may not need (of course only in the case that certain features are in fact not needed).

  49. #149
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    Not me. I've rationalized that it's not a good choice for me as I shoot on the beach frequently and believe that blowing sand is not where this head was designed to be used. I sure hope nobody tells me otherwise
    Actually David a ball head maybe worse since it may get in there and grind away. The Cube I believe can actually be taken apart to clean but better check with Jack on that one for sure. He has done some work on them
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  50. #150
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    That is not the question.
    The cube is beyond doubt by far the best allrounder head.
    The question is: is any other head BS? No, it is not.
    Overkill? Weight maybe? And the price for features one may not need (of course only in the case that certain features are in fact not needed).
    Just from years of doing this there is no such thing as overkill when it comes to a tripod and the head . The bigger, the stronger, the better. Size matters here
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •