Arca Swiss C1 Cube

[Walt Calahan]

Looks cool, but I'll stick to my Ries A100 with leg extensions and the Ries A250 double tilt head.

Please, call me old fashion. HA!

The LevelHead is amazing machine work and engineering. I'm sure it works great.

[Jim collum]

a review at

www.getdpi.com/cube.html

jim

[Ralph]

Jarrod wrote:

"The overall height is lower, conceptually facilitating better rigidity." True, but the C1 is only 8 oz. less than my 3275/410 and costs 5 times as much.

"The quick release design allows you to adjust the center of gravity of the camera to match the focal length of the lens in use." I get this same effect (I think) by having a long A-S plate on the bottom of my camera, which I can slide forward and back through the Kirk QR-7 clamp.

"The movement of the geared axes comes together in the center of a sphere-as opposed to operating upon the outside of one. In the realm of the close-up that's a pretty big deal."

OK, you got me there. Is that true of the levelhead too? It looks like the C1 has kind of curved axes, almost like assymetrical tilts, while the levelhead seems to be a straightforward x/y gearing. But maybe it's just a stylistic (as opposed to functional) difference.

Very interesting; I knew nothing about the C1 until I saw Jarrod's post re: FCO airport security, but I'll read the review Jim Collum linked and will look into it. Thanks for the explanation. Wish it wasn't so expensive. . . .

[Ralph]

Oops: I misread "overall height" as "overall weight," which is why I pointed out the 8oz difference there (and heightwise, the C1 is definitely lower than my tall 3275/410). But the C1 was characterized as "much lighter" than the Bogen and I'm not sure 8oz. qualifies as "$1200 lighter."

Question: Jarrod, do you just use the C1 atop a low-profile panning base? Would that work with the levelhead too? (and if so, why does thelevelhead.com site show the levelhead perched atop a tall ballhead, looking a bit precarious?)

[Frank Petronio]

I know I was busting Jarrod's balls about the C-1 but after reading Jack's review and seeing the larger photos, I want one too. It looks pretty darn nice and all the machining and design work that went into it makes it's price not unrealistic. As to whether it is realistic business wise to get one remains firmly negative, but it falls into the "useful male jewelry" category, along with Leica MPs, custom made firearms, and Italian bicycle components....

[John_4185]

[...] "Levelhead" [...]I ruled it out though because it had no means of rotation other than the primary tripod head it sits on. Which means that the camera no longer be level if panned after leveling.

Yes, that's true, and besides it's a bulky design as easily accomplished with the traditional surveryor's type level that Manfroto uses in their 3416 which may not have as much tilt, but it does have the finnesse and the difference is easily made up in the legs.

[Ed Richards]

Weight aside, I use the 3414 under my 3 way head and find that it is a quick and easy way to level up between shots - within the limits of bubble levels. I could see the cube if there were a more precise way to determine level. It makes a lot of sense in macro work but I worry how well it will do with grit out in the field.

[jarrod connerty]

I guess I should be mad for $1500 and expect more, but the bubble levels on the Cube and the one which I place upon the corner of my groundglass disagree, slightly.  We're talking tiny amounts, but I am more apt to trust the double bubble level I place on the corner of the groundglass.  Maybe the zero detents on my Wista RF's rotating Graflok assembly are slightly askew; it is a really old copy and I wouldn't doubt it.  I just use the ruled lines upon the groundglass to align the building's lines and it works fine.

Raplh, the Cube has its own panning base at the bottom of the device, as well as above the x/y geared axes.  I use the bottom to center the controls to my body position and the top to make minor panning adjustments for composition after achieving a level base.

I've weighed the 410 and the Cube on the same scale with one gram resolution-I have access to such things, absurd as it is-and the Cube is 300 grams lighter(10.6 ounces in that silly system).  Expressed as a percentage of the Cube's weight we're talking about 32%, and I'm sure that the QR7 clamp adds to the 410's weight as well.

[Bob Salomon]

"It's possibly the most expensive (photographic) tripod head money could buy"

Not even close to the most expensive. Linhof's Precision Micro Cradle Head, is $4,400.00 and their Profi III 2-Way Pan Head is over $1600.00 list.

[Donald Brewster]

Interesting review. Beautiful piece of machinery. I don't think I'm smart enough to use it.