Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 193

Thread: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    OK, this isn't what I expected, methodologies are always open to question, there are provisos and its a small sample so please don't shoot the messenger - he is simply trying to work out which kit does the job best!

    Methodology:

    Shooting a distant (between a third and a half mile away) scene, manually focussed on a Phase/Mamiya 645III (which has very jerky innards IMHO) with a Mamiya 150mm F3.5 lens. P45+ back at ISO 50. Shots were progressively taken as follows:

    F16 1/13th Sec no MUP
    F16 1/13th Sec MUP with 1 second delay before shutter
    F16 1/13th Sec MUP with 6 second delay before shutter

    Then shutter speeds of 1/25th, 1/50th, 1/100th/ 1/200th at apertures of F11, 8. 5.6 and 3.5 and at each combination, a shot with no MUP and with MUP + 1 sec delay and MUP + 6 secs delay. Cable release throughout. Tripod is a Gitzo Carbon Fibre GT3541LS on a stone tiled floor.

    Every shot was done first as above with a Cube and then with the Manfrotto 410 geared head, which I rate but find ungainly. Both heads needed only minor levelling since the tripod was more or less level.

    Provisos:

    1) The Manfrotto shots were taken with a big, stable camera plate whereas the Cube shots were with the only plate I have for it, which is the Small Universal Camera Plate 1/4" with rubber top.
    2) It's a very hazy day here and these were shot through (clean) glass. Light levels shifted a little throughout but I wanted to keep aperture, ISO and shutter combos comparable. All process in C1 initially, cropped and then exported to LR from whence to JPEG.

    I let the results speak for themselves and will post some comparable frames in the successive posts.

    Tim

  2. #2
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    They look all the same to me.

    Seriously, LOL, you forgot to post the resulting pictures Tim.

    Scratch that.... there they are. grin

  3. #3
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Georg Baumann View Post
    They look all the same to me.

    Seriously, LOL, you forgot to post the resulting pictures Tim.

    Scratch that.... there they are. grin
    I'm tearing my hair out here: I keep osting them and they keep coming up smaller than full size when I view the post, despite them being within forum guidelines. this makes them impossible to compare. I know I'm doing something stupid but I can't work out what! I'll keep trying til I get it right!

  4. #4
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    The only thing I can clearly see is that you attached a sniper rifle to the cube at the same time, note the missig cows being flat on the ground in shot two.

    Ok Seriously, so you are saying that the camera shake is much reduced on the cube, or do I misunderstand it? I would not think this to make a difference the way you shot in the first place, cable release and MLU, on top on a levelled stone floor.

    Tim, I think your original size should not exceeed 1200 pixels to be in specs for the forum

  5. #5
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Okay, excuse me for being a dilt but historically when I posted images that fell within forum guideline sizes, they were displayed at 100%. Now I have cropped all the comparable files I wish to post so that they fall very easily within the guidelines but they all appear as thumbnails and need clicking to see at 100% at which point you can't compare them in the same window!

    Never mind, I will just post them as I can and let people work out how to compare them but do please all be aware that what appears in your browser window is NOT at 100% until clicked, and therefore can't display the detail required to make the comparison:

    First shots are at 1/200th second @ F3.5, with MUP and 6 second delay.

    Cube:
    Attachment 18577

    Manfrotto:
    Attachment 18578

  6. #6
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Now the other end of the spectrum, shots at 1/13th F16 and no MUP:

    Cube:
    Attachment 18579

    Manfrotto:
    Attachment 18580

    Now as you can imagine there are 30 photos in this setup and the number of comparisons people might like to see is enormous so please let me know which permutation you'd like posted and I'll post it as soon as I can!

    Best

    Tim
    Last edited by tashley; 26th June 2009 at 03:58.

  7. #7
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    So what is your conclusion? Does it look like you get sharper results on the cube with the same shooting technique?

    If yes, I would like to understand why that would be the case on grounds of physics. You shot from a stone floor with cable release, the 410 being a very sturdy head, what would cause the additional blur, or other way around what would reduce it on the cube?

    Thanks for sharing your findings here Tim!
    Last edited by Georg Baumann; 26th June 2009 at 04:10.

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Georg Baumann View Post
    So what is your conclusion? Does it look like you get sharper results on the cube with the same shooting technique?

    If yes, I would like to understand why that would be the case on grounds of physics. You shot from a stone floor with cable release, the 410 being a very sturdy head, what would cause the additional blur, or other way around what would reduce it on the cube?
    Georg, the reason I am doing this comparison is that in February this year I took a Gitzo Aluminum tripod with Manfrotto ballhead to Iceland and lost a lot of shots with the 80 and 150mm lenses on the Phamiya body to shake. People here were very kind in helping me narrow down what might have gone wrong and it became evident to me that for example, CF tripods with no centre column tend to be more stable than Aluminium pods with columns. Also, some heads are better at dealing with heavier cameras and those with lots of vibration.

    I have ended up with the Gitzo GT3541LS tripod, a no column CF type, because it came highly reccomended here and has done me well so far. I have also tested it against my other tripods and it is the best. I now want to establish which of the heads is best with the Phamiya, which is a VERY slap-happy camera so I am running this test.

    As I noted above, I am using a smallish plate on the Cube and that might explain things to an extent but the shots I have made in this test so far clearly show that the only truly sharp shots are with the Manfrotto head at 1/200th second and with MUP of 1 or 6 seconds. Every other shot on both heads at any speed or MUP combo is less sharp and noticeably so. This is despite the fact that lens factors such as optimum apertures and DOF are working against that particular shot.


    My preliminary finding (there are lots of combinations to look at and this really is pixel peeping!) is that the Manfrotto did better at every comparable shutter speed.

    Best

    T
    Last edited by tashley; 26th June 2009 at 04:22.

  9. #9
    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 Georg Baumann View Post
    Does it look like you get sharper results on the cube with the same shooting technique?
    if the naming is correct (according to the file names it is) the shots with the Manfrotto are sharper... ?!

  10. #10
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Oh my God, I so know what you must have felt there. The very same happend to me on other grounds in Canada with a MFDB that messed up my files on the card. Super Gau so to speak!

    I am in the market for a new tripod myself, and your findings are a great help to me, I did not know about this particular Tripod, and will have a look now. Thanks!


    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Georg, the reason I am doing this comparison is that in February this year I took a Gitzo Aluminum tripod with Manfrotto ballhead to Iceland and lost a lot of shots with the 80 and 150mm lenses on the Phamiya body to shake. People here were very kind in helping me narrow down what might have gone wrong and it became evident to me that for example, CF tripods with no centre column tend to be more stable than Aluminium pods with columns. Also, some heads are better at dealing with heavier cameras and those with lots of vibration.

  11. #11
    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

    Peculiar,
    I had opposite results.
    -bob

  12. #12
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Peculiar,
    I had opposite results.
    -bob
    I have to say that there's always sample variation, that I was using a smaller camera plate on the Cube and that I just shot the 80mm lens on both at F9 and 1/13th on a subject about 5 metres away and there's just no difference at all with or without MUP so I suggest that this is only critical with longer focal lengths on distant objects. I will now shoot some landscapes with the 80mm on both heads.

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    if the naming is correct (according to the file names it is) the shots with the Manfrotto are sharper... ?!
    Correct!

  14. #14
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    OK I just ran a quick test on both rigs with shutter speed of 1/25th only at F9 on a distant radio mast and the Manfrotto trumps it clearly at all MUP settings. So much so that the Manfrotto with no MUP is sharper than the Cube with Mup of 1 or 6 seconds.

    I need to get the larger camera plate for the cube!

  15. #15
    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

    OTOH, I had a proper camera plate for my tests without that rubbery material as a potential cause of movement.
    I did my tests with a 300 mm lens too.
    -bob

  16. #16
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    OTOH, I had a proper camera plate for my tests without that rubbery material as a potential cause of movement.
    I did my tests with a 300 mm lens too.
    -bob
    I just ordered the 80mm plate from Robert White for delivery tomorrow. Those guys are the best!

  17. #17
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Hmmm....Hope it is just the camera plate Tim.

  18. #18
    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

    I use the RRS L-bracket for the Phamia. It is very solid and utilizes the indexing holes on the bottom of the body. There is NO squirm at all possible.
    -bob

  19. #19
    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 tashley View Post

    1) The Manfrotto shots were taken with a big, stable camera plate whereas the Cube shots were with the only plate I have for it, which is the Small Universal Camera Plate 1/4" with rubber top.
    Tim,

    IMHO results from this test will be essentially useless until you get a proper plate for the Cube. ANY plate with a rubber or cork top is a bad option and will skew results negatively. For MF that means it needs to be a perfect fit and have the registration pins AND needs to be perfectly mounted to the body -- I've helped more than one person "fix" a "bad MF back" by tightening their plate properly to their camera body!

    Frankly this result is just like when you did the MF test using the pistol grip ballhead and flimsy tripod and I told you to repeat it with a bigger head and the Gitzo 3-series CF pod... FWIW my results using the Cube on top of my Gitzo 3541 XLS and proper RRS L-plate are perfect, just like Bob's and just like Guy's with his Gitzo ball instead of the Cube...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

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

  20. #20
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Tim,

    IMHO results from this test will be essentially useless until you get a proper plate for the Cube. ANY plate with a rubber or cork top is a bad option and will skew results negatively. Needs to be a perfect fit AND needs to be perfectly mounted to the body -- I've helped more than one person "fix" a "bad MF back" by tightening their plate properly to their camera body!

    (This is like doing the MF test using the pistol grip ballhead and flimsy tripod.)
    Hi Jack!

    I'm quite sure you're right and have ordered a larger plate and also have an L bracket coming but I would add that the Manfrotto plate is also rubber (if somewhat larger) and that the 410 I have both looks and feels very rigid indeed - but I guess I won't be able to benefit from the full abilities of the Cube until the Phamiya is unambiguously attached to the Cube as well as humanly possible!

    Best

    Tim

  21. #21
    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
    ANY plate with a rubber or cork top is a bad option and will skew results negatively.
    does this apply to all plates/heads? So would you recommend to remove the rubber? Didn't do it by now as I thought the rubber absorbs...

  22. #22
    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 tashley View Post
    Hi Jack!

    I'm quite sure you're right and have ordered a larger plate and also have an L bracket coming but I would add that the Manfrotto plate is also rubber (if somewhat larger) and that the 410 I have both looks and feels very rigid indeed - but I guess I won't be able to benefit from the full abilities of the Cube until the Phamiya is unambiguously attached to the Cube as well as humanly possible!

    Best

    Tim
    Tim:

    The problem is a larger plate is still not the PROPER plate, at least IMO. You'll want the L plate from RRS or Kirk that has the registration pins and is machined perfectly to mate to the base of the camera... A "generic" plate, regardless of size, will be better, but still wasting your time IMO -- you simply cannot short-cut on precision digital capture and expect optimal results.

    Here is the plate Guy, Bob and I use on our Mamiya's and I know this one works well. Note that it has a 3/8ths mounting bolt (why I chose the RRS over the Kirk), so you first remove the reducer in the base of your Mamiya body (there's a tiny phillips head screw in its base holding it in place, so be sure to remove that before unscrewing the insert!), allowing you to use a much stronger mount bolt in addition to it being machined to fit your camera's base perfectly: http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Item...645L%2D001&Tp=
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

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

  23. #23
    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
    does this apply to all plates/heads? So would you recommend to remove the rubber? Didn't do it by now as I thought the rubber absorbs...
    No, I'd recommend you buy a plate designed specifically for your camera. Companies like Kirk and RRS make plates machined to match the contour of the base of your camera, providing a base that literally becomes part of the camera itself --- this is one of the main benefits of using the Arca-style clamp system.

    See Kirk: http://www.kirkphoto.com/index.html

    See RRS: http://reallyrightstuff.com/index.html
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

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

  24. #24
    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

    One of the first things I did while ordering the Cube was to pluck down a little extra an get a big honking camera plate as well; deciding on the Swiss Arca for my Cambo. Then shortly later added the Novoflex. I had a Kirk L-bracket on the Phase body that I used as well with very steady results.

    While in the category of close yet not quite the same, I've also tested this with a 1Ds III [with a Kirk L-bracket] and 400DO and got equally good results.

    Bottom line is that you need a very good camera plate, one shouldn't skimp here. You can have the best gear money can buy but if you use inferior support equipment you wind up screwing yourself. [Think of putting cheap gas in a race car]

    Don
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    The Cube appears to have a blue cast, whereas the Manfrotto has a green cast

    Seriously, did you take all of the Cube shots together and all of the Manfrotto shots together? There might have been a change in the air density in the time between...
    Carsten - Website

  26. #26
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    speaking as a precision machinist...those plates (and other goodies) from RRS are excellent. I haven't seen the Kirk's

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    I use all RRS plates as well, including the "L" plate for Mamiya, Canon and flat plates for others. I'm very happy with them. The Kirk plates that I have seen looked good too, though not quite as elegantly finished. I have not used Kirk plates myself, but would if RRS was not available to me.

  28. #28
    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've put Kirk L's on every camera that took them however on the other side of the coin I've used RSS pano gear and lens plates which are excellent. While I no longer have the Phase body I still have the Canon cameras and each has a Kirk L on them.

    Thinking about it now I no longer have the RSS pano gear either however I do have the lens plate for the Canon 400DO.

    Another way of thinking about this is when we were building our current home and I balked at having to spend $50.00 for an extra utility fixture then my lovely wife not so kindly reminded me that the cost was a mere pittance compared to the overall cost.

    Buy right the first time and save money in the long run as you won't be disappointed.

    Just my 2 here.

    Don

    Picture me stepping down from soap box....
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  29. #29
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    The Cube appears to have a blue cast, whereas the Manfrotto has a green cast

    Seriously, did you take all of the Cube shots together and all of the Manfrotto shots together? There might have been a change in the air density in the time between...
    Yup, well spotted - I wasn't after art though! However the shots were all taken pretty quickly and later in the day I've taken a bunch more with more stable atmospheric conditions and they all concur. Also, with shots taken at, say 1/25th and no mup, 1 sec mup and 6 sec mup within moments of each other you clearly see the blur reduce as you flick from shot to shot.

    I think Jack and the others are right, it's the plate. Another piece of learnin'!

    Best

    Tim

  30. #30
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    No, I'd recommend you buy a plate designed specifically for your camera. Companies like Kirk and RRS make plates machined to match the contour of the base of your camera, providing a base that literally becomes part of the camera itself --- this is one of the main benefits of using the Arca-style clamp system.

    See Kirk: http://www.kirkphoto.com/index.html

    See RRS: http://reallyrightstuff.com/index.html
    Jack Bob and Don,

    I have an L plate arriving from Arca themselves. Does anyone have experience of that one? Also, the base of the Cube itself has a smaller two concentric circles and the inner smaller one stands proud meaning that the entire weight of the device and camera is supported on it, which seems to me to improve the chance of wobble. Am I being daft here? Is there something that should go between the cube and the tripod?

    Best

    Tim
    Last edited by tashley; 26th June 2009 at 11:18.

  31. #31
    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

    Tim,

    I just screw my cube down tightly against the flat top plate on the Gitzo. John's the machinist and can probably answer this better than I can, but since the two surfaces are flat and the contact patch of the Cube base is still relatively large, the only flex I get from the Cube is that transferred directly to the tripod legs themselves... (Though heavy items mounted to the cube will show some flex from within the Cube's top clamp mechanism, and this happens long before anything happens at the tripod end.)
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

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

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Tim,
    thank you for this test. I wont even follow the thread any more (until you get the new plate) since I got myself the 410 head today. I had a ball head before but for levelling the Artec its a pain. Another guy recommended me the 410 and then I saw your post and went to the store and got the 410. First impression is very good. I do not doubt the cube is great but I cant see spending that much money for a tripod-head.
    Compared to the ball head I have used before (which works fine as a ball head) the geared 410 is a pleassure allready. I was impressed after just few minutes of using it.
    Sorry for the off topic comment. Of course I will follow up your thread.

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Tom, does this mean that your stuff arrived? Review!

    You should test the Hy6 with your longest lens at 1/15s to see if the head is steady enough. The 405 is much stronger, but double the price.
    Carsten - Website

  34. #34
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    Tim,
    thank you for this test. I wont even follow the thread any more (until you get the new plate) since I got myself the 410 head today. I had a ball head before but for levelling the Artec its a pain. Another guy recommended me the 410 and then I saw your post and went to the store and got the 410. First impression is very good. I do not doubt the cube is great but I cant see spending that much money for a tripod-head.
    Compared to the ball head I have used before (which works fine as a ball head) the geared 410 is a pleassure allready. I was impressed after just few minutes of using it.
    Sorry for the off topic comment. Of course I will follow up your thread.
    As you can tell, I am a fan of the 410 but I must say that neither of the heads I tested gave what I would call blur-free results until a 1/200th - and with a really good setup and MUP I would hope to get those results at much lower speeds!

  35. #35
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Ok! You folks convinced me on the choice of plates, I need to find a dealer for that RSS stuff in europe, need to get a plate for my sony and one for the phamiya. It si just not on to spend that much money on gear and then skimp on essential tools that define final output quality.

    Thanks for sharing, this is really important stuff!

  36. #36
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Jack Bob and Don,

    I have an L plate arriving from Arca themselves. Does anyone have experience of that one? Also, the base of the Cube itself has a smaller two concentric circles and the inner smaller one stands proud meaning that the entire weight of the device and camera is supported on it, which seems to me to improve the chance of wobble. Am I being daft here? Is there something that should go between the cube and the tripod?

    Best

    Tim
    Tim,

    I just screwed my Cube to the base of the tripod and the only trouble I get is when my big feet accidentally trip over a leg.

    My tripod of choice is the Gitzo GT5540LS that has a large surface to mount the Cube.

    No experience at all with the Arca L however if it's engineered half as good as the Cube it should be good; it'll be interesting reading your review.


    Don
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Georg, I have RRS gear, and buy directly from the States. I am not aware of a dealer here. I have some plates, a pano rail, and the BH-25 and BH-55. I love the stuff in general, but I find that both heads move a touch as you tighten them, which really annoys me. I am thinking about future options still. The Cube is attractive, but very, very expensive. That is two lenses for my Contax right there...
    Carsten - Website

  38. #38
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Yeah, could not make out any dealer for RRS here, must contact them directly.

  39. #39
    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 carstenw View Post
    I love the stuff in general, but I find that both heads move a touch as you tighten them, which really annoys me.
    try a Gitzo 2780 or probably better 3780 (#2 is enough by specs ... but with the #3 you don't have to worry about any movement after tightening the head).

  40. #40
    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

    I use the 3870 since about 3 weeks ago that i used on the workshop. I could almost sit on the darn thing. It's a rock
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Tim,

    IMHO results from this test will be essentially useless until you get a proper plate for the Cube. ANY plate with a rubber or cork top is a bad option and will skew results negatively. For MF that means it needs to be a perfect fit and have the registration pins AND needs to be perfectly mounted to the body -- I've helped more than one person "fix" a "bad MF back" by tightening their plate properly to their camera body!

    Frankly this result is just like when you did the MF test using the pistol grip ballhead and flimsy tripod and I told you to repeat it with a bigger head and the Gitzo 3-series CF pod... FWIW my results using the Cube on top of my Gitzo 3541 XLS and proper RRS L-plate are perfect, just like Bob's and just like Guy's with his Gitzo ball instead of the Cube...
    Me Too

    Woody

  42. #42
    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

    When i can do 3 shot Pano's at 8 seconds per image and get the detail like this with a 150mm than i know i got a rock for a setup.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  43. #43
    RHP
    Guest

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Now the other end of the spectrum, shots at 1/13th F16 and no MUP:

    Cube:
    Attachment 18579

    Manfrotto:
    Attachment 18580

    Now as you can imagine there are 30 photos in this setup and the number of comparisons people might like to see is enormous so please let me know which permutation you'd like posted and I'll post it as soon as I can!

    Best

    Tim
    Are you using a cable release?

  44. #44
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by RHP View Post
    Are you using a cable release?
    Yup - I think my methodology is fairly reasonable and I did at the outset say I suspected that the issue was the plate. As soon as I get the L plate on it I'll try again and see what I get!

    In the meantime I had fun with it in the studio today with extension tubes and a water lily that was wilting and wouldn't stay still: the way the Cube's adjustments work make it so easy to make quick and accurate adjustments...

    F20, ISO 50, 1/125th with studio flash (one huge softbox and one brolly), tethered.

    Attachment 18625

  45. #45
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Yup - I think my methodology is fairly reasonable and I did at the outset say I suspected that the issue was the plate. As soon as I get the L plate on it I'll try again and see what I get!

    In the meantime I had fun with it in the studio today with extension tubes and a water lily that was wilting and wouldn't stay still: the way the Cube's adjustments work make it so easy to make quick and accurate adjustments...

    F20, ISO 50, 1/125th with studio flash (one huge softbox and one brolly), tethered.

    Attachment 18625
    Looks good Tim like the little bug in the upper left
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  46. #46
    RHP
    Guest

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Yup - I think my methodology is fairly reasonable and I did at the outset say I suspected that the issue was the plate. As soon as I get the L plate on it I'll try again and see what I get!

    In the meantime I had fun with it in the studio today with extension tubes and a water lily that was wilting and wouldn't stay still: the way the Cube's adjustments work make it so easy to make quick and accurate adjustments...

    F20, ISO 50, 1/125th with studio flash (one huge softbox and one brolly), tethered.

    Attachment 18625
    Love the bug! what lens?

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    In the meantime I had fun with it in the studio today with extension tubes and a water lily that was wilting and wouldn't stay still: the way the Cube's adjustments work make it so easy to make quick and accurate adjustments...

    F20, ISO 50, 1/125th with studio flash (one huge softbox and one brolly), tethered.

    Attachment 18625
    Love the tones and textures, Tim.

  48. #48
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

    Thanks guys! The bug's agent was a nightmare to deal with - wanted it's own trailer, etc etc... ;-)

    The lens was the Kit 80D with an NA401 extension tube. The version I posted here is a crop of the central section: in the full frame version the water lily takes about 80% of the height of the composition.

    Best

    Tim

  49. #49
    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

    Tim,

    Here is the test shot I promised you. Set up is on my shooting table, just overhead lights which generated an exposure of 1/10th at f9.5 ISO 100, which I figured was adequately close to your 1/12th sec for our purposes here . Shot using MLU and a 6 second self-timer delay. Also note I did NO sharpening other than the basic capture sharpening in C1 and only pulled these into CS to convert for web.

    First image is the camera on the cube (via the RRS plate oriented vertically!) so you can see my set-up. Note first I used my 75-150 zoom at 150 since it was already on the camera, and note second I even left my nodal panning plate in place since that's how I always shoot -- and this probably reduces total rigidity somewhat:


    Here is the full frame shot of a dust can:


    Here is a crop of the lettering around the focus point:


    Here is a crop of the top of the can, parts of which are also in the focus plane:


    Summary: Is my shot perfect? Nope, clearly there is some movement and as I have always stated, that 1/8th to 1/20th range is the most problematic for the Mamiya and best avoided if possible. But as clearly -- or at least I think so -- the Cube AND RRS bracket are doing a stellar job of providing rigidity in the vertical orientation and appear to perform pretty significantly better than your combination did at 1/12th.

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

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

  50. #50
    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

    No matter what you say Jack these shots are really really good!
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

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
  •