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!

Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

Bob

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

etrump

Well-known member
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.

 

Don Libby

Well-known member
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! :D

Don
 

thomas

New member
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!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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,
 

thomas

New member
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).
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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/2009/04/07/cambo-leveling-base/
 

thomas

New member
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:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
In this case you still can use the tripod legs (but why not use shift - this is what it is all about).
Try both :D

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...
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
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
 

thomas

New member
Try both :D

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.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
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
 

thomas

New member
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.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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 :)D)!

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 ;)
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
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
 

thomas

New member
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:thumbup: whenever I am near your region I am going to Email you ;-)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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!
 

thomas

New member
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 :rolleyes: )
 
Top