Cube test versus Manfrotto geared 410

[tashley]

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

 

[Georg Baumann]

They look all the same to me.

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

Scratch that.... there they are. grin

 

[tashley]

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!

 

[Georg Baumann]

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

 

[tashley]

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:
View attachment 18577

Manfrotto:
View attachment 18578

 

[tashley]

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

Cube:
View attachment 18579

Manfrotto:
View 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

 

[Georg Baumann]

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!

 

[tashley]

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

 

[thomas]

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... ?!

 

[Georg Baumann]

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!

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.

 

[Bob]

Peculiar,
I had opposite results.
-bob

 

[tashley]

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.

 

[tashley]

if the naming is correct (according to the file names it is) the shots with the Manfrotto are sharper... ?!

Correct!

 

[tashley]

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!

 

[Bob]

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

 

[tashley]

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!

 

[Georg Baumann]

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

 

[Bob]

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

 

[Jack]

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...

 

[tashley]

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