Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
Yes, I realize that I've loudly preached and screeched about this so many times on this forum that I deserve to be called the Headless Hoarse Man. But the science behind it is exactly why simplified low-profile heads are themselves preferred by many, like the low-profile Ries head, or the Sinar option. I just get tired of hearing people complain about "variations between lenses" and how they got a bad one, when they really had no idea of how to properly stabilize a camera in the first place. There are a couple other forums where I hear this all the time about the Pentax 6X7 300 lenses. I use both styles of em, and they're heavy, obviously hang forward, and need even stronger stabilization than my 8x10. So I use both the lens collar and the thread on the camera body itself, unite them to a single block of maple, and bolt that directly to my big Ries platform. End of story. Total cost about three dollars, and no ball head on earth is more secure. So Peter, please add one more option to your list: spend a whole lot of money, lug around a bunch of redundant extra weight, and maybe never learn there's a way simpler, more reliable way to do it. And yes, there's a valid reason for me recommending Ries wooden tripods too, though I do use other types when necessary. But as long as I'm getting hoarse once again, or at least preaching common horse sense, I just can't get out of my mind a sight a number of years ago of some rich guy standing in the in the middle of a meadow in Yosemite all afternoon with about ten grand of brand new gear, assuming that if all that stuff were expensive enough he was going to bag a classic Ansel shot - brand new Sinar P, expensive brand new Sinaron apo lens, expensive tripod, and an expensive ballhead, with that damned 8x10 jiggling at every tiny change in the breeze, and him standing in the snow waiting and waiting for that camera to stop wobbling. He probably gave up at dark, and sold off all that gear half price the next weekend.
Bookmarks