If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
"ransley" wrote in message ... On Apr 3, 4:20 am, RichA wrote: Doesn't matter if it's a $100 Manfrotto or a $1000 Gitzo, they are all compromised. It is sad. The article below cites one typical example, the head "sag" problem. Where despite tightening everything, flexure occurs. But there are lots of other problems with support units. Tripods are often chosen that are too light to really do the job. The tripod design is inherently strong, but there are limits. If you are using a 300-500mm lens on a crop camera, it is almost impossible, with any tripod, to avoid vibration. You basically live with the image being less sharp than it could have been. Modern Photography did experiments in the 1970's that showed image blur (and they were just using film and 35mm cameras with resolutions not much better than a 6 megapixel digital) with long lenses was universal when using photo tripods. The major issues center around leg flexure, head flexure and the mounts available that hold long camera lenses. We can't see it, or even sense it, but these things bend under stress. Legs tend to bend at the smallest diameter extension which with most tripods is closer to the ground. This also sets up vibrations, some too high in frequency to be seen or felt, but enough to blur and image. The fact the leg-head connection point induces strain into a tripod assembly (often poorly compensated for in the design) also causes vibration. If you're curious about your tripod and vibration, you can set-up a couple of mirrors and a laser and actually see it in action. Heads bend mostly at the stalk that attaches the head base to the part that attaches to the camera's base-plate. Head design in many cases is just plain poor. Thin stalks attaching balls to the base-plate connection point. crappy-open lattice and L-shaped pieces that make- up most 3-axis heads. Poor designs that inherently flex. And the sad part? A properly designed head wouldn't weight more at all. Another thing that causes flexure and instability is the use of any plastic in load-bearing or stressed areas. NEVER use a tripod that uses plastic like this. Torsional flexure comes from the fact legs are not unified at any point but the connection to the head. Oddly enough, even a thin, light Y-shaped chain under tension, about 1/2 way down and unifying the legs adds stability. Cheap tripods have parts that have poor fit, and they should be avoided. Another design error, too many parts to couple the camera to the tripod and too many moving head parts. Every one of them adds one more chance for instability. Lastly, the worst thing about tripods pertains to long camera lenses. Their mounting brackets or blocks INVITE instability. I'm surprised there isn't an even more robust market for aftermaket lens supports, though there are some. The common rule for supporting a tube properly is to use two tube rings, spaced no less than 1/3 of the total length of the tube. The best tripods I've seen are those used with good astronomical telescopes. Their legs tend to use few extensions. The tubes are large diameter and often unified about 1/2 way down their lengths with locking triangles or other methods. When you "lock out" a triangle (complete it) it's stability increases 5-10 fold. Surveyor's tripods are also very good. They have 2-section legs of wide dimension and are very stable because the devices used on them require it. There are German camera tripods from Berlebach and Ries that are designed from surveyor's tripods.http://riestripod.com/tripics.htm#tri1 Pure tragedy? Check out the spindly Novoflex legs on the $1700 head attached to the D3x at the bottom of this article. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...agic-box.shtml I have a very heavy Bogen, no real flex except in wind and a carbon fiber that vibrates for near 4 seconds through the carbon fiber visably when touching anything. Use a zoom feature to focus and monitor vibrations, a laser is an interesting idea for testing. Good tripods are heavy ones you dont want to carry around. Now if only Canon would get off their ass and put in image stabilisation, Sony is ahead of the game. I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
"Bruce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, "SS" wrote: I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. Have you tried a monopod? A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight. Good shout, thats worth a try. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, "SS" wrote: I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. Have you tried a monopod? A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight. What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod. -- Chris Malcolm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote: On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, wrote: I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. Have you tried a monopod? A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight. What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod. Impractical for most use. -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital wrote: On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, wrote: I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. Have you tried a monopod? A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight. What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod. Impractical for most use. Really?? I have rarely used a head when I shoot with my monopod. I bolt the lens to it, and have good balance. -- john mcwilliams |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
On 10-04-04 10:51 , John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital wrote: On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, wrote: I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. Have you tried a monopod? A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight. What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod. Impractical for most use. Really?? I have rarely used a head when I shoot with my monopod. I bolt the lens to it, and have good balance. It would depend on subject matter and manner of shooting. If it works for you then I retract what I said. For me I need the ability to tilt whether the subject is really close and low, or a little further and quite high up. I have used a ball head (a bit clumsy) and a "monopod head" (much better). Having said that, my monopod hardly gets used. I might even sell it next week at the camera flea market. (I have a half table and will be getting rid of odds and ends). -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
On 10-04-04 10:51 , John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital wrote: On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, wrote: I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. Have you tried a monopod? A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight. What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod. Impractical for most use. Really?? I have rarely used a head when I shoot with my monopod. I bolt the lens to it, and have good balance. .... and as an aside to my other post, you can mount the QR plate sideways and then use the tilt for a portrait orientation ... quite difficult if you're bolted straight to it (except for longer lenses with a collar of course). -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-04 10:51 , John McWilliams wrote: Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital wrote: What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod. Impractical for most use. Really?? I have rarely used a head when I shoot with my monopod. I bolt the lens to it, and have good balance. It would depend on subject matter and manner of shooting. If it works for you then I retract what I said. For me I need the ability to tilt whether the subject is really close and low, or a little further and quite high up. I have used a ball head (a bit clumsy) and a "monopod head" (much better). Yes, usage dictates the practicality. I've shot a lot of sports, mainly lacrosse and football of both types, tennis, basket and base ball, and with a 70-200 2.8 L glass with a 1.4 extender on a 1.6x Canon DSLR.- Anything particularly low or high, I'd go handheld or perhaps tripod. -- john mcwilliams |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital wrote: On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, wrote: I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. Have you tried a monopod? A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight. What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod. Impractical for most use. Not for me. It's how I nearly always carry my camera -- bolted to the top of a monopod. When I want a more extreme angle than can be accomodated with its foot on the ground it's often possible to lean it against something. And if not, it's still more stable handheld on the 'pod than simply hand held. For those rare times when I really need it I always have a ball head in my pocket. -- Chris Malcolm |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital wrote: On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, wrote: I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an extremely heavy and costly device I fear. Have you tried a monopod? A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight. What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod. Impractical for most use. Not for me. It's how I nearly always carry my camera -- bolted to the top of a monopod. When I want a more extreme angle than can be accomodated with its foot on the ground it's often possible to lean it against something. And if not, it's still more stable handheld on the 'pod than simply hand held. For those rare times when I really need it I always have a ball head in my pocket. -- Chris Malcolm I figure it's just a matter of time till camera manufacturers configure image stabilization systems to clear up whatever minor vibrations are inherent in a tripod / monopod support. Look for tripod IS database configuration systems similar to lens anomaly compensation systems currently in use. Vibration compensation data for the various tripods would tell the IS system what to monitor, and how much to compensate, and presto, perfectly still images. That's the kind of crutch that will really sell ... Take Care, Dudley |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anyone in UK looking to buy a Canon SX1 IS? - heads up | Nick | Digital Photography | 0 | March 14th 09 04:38 PM |
Question for the canon heads here | Noons | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | May 29th 07 12:56 AM |
Question about Tripods/Heads | ShibbyShane | 35mm Photo Equipment | 27 | March 13th 06 04:02 AM |
Ink Jet heads | Steve | Digital Photography | 0 | January 2nd 05 05:29 PM |
FA: Olympus C-2100 Digital Camera, 10x Zoom, Two Tripods, Five Smart Media Cards........ | Frank | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 7th 03 06:42 PM |