Need a new Tripod Head Badly

[Louis Pacilla]

With the camera your using and even if you go up to a light weight 8x10 the best deal on the used market may be the Manfrotto 3047 head. I can suggest others that are "better built and pricier heads" . I own and use a few heads already mentioned here . However in your case it may be over kill as the Busch Pressman 4x5 will mate up wonderfully with the 3047. The best part is it will only set you back maybe $10-$20 . spend the $100-$200 on film or another cool old lens. If you would like a bigger platform for your camera you can buy a Manfrotto 4"x4" quick release plate that fit the 3047 head and many more Manfrotto models as well. That may add an extra $20 but I would bet you could pick up both for around $50.

That's my 2 cents.

[Jeff Romeo]

Getting the 410. Thanks all! JR

[Deepak Kumar]

J R,

I am planning for same, share our experience about its load capacity. My gear with metal field camera, Nikon 90 mm f 4.5 Lens and linhof back comes to 5 kg net.

Would this head (Manfrotto 410 Jr gear head) be sufficient for such field camera ?

[Ari]

My gear with metal field camera, Nikon 90 mm f 4.5 Lens and linhof back comes to 5 kg net.

Would this head (Manfrotto 410 Jr gear head) be sufficient for such field camera ?

It's at the limit of what Manfrotto states is its load capacity, but they usually rate these things conservatively.

[Deepak Kumar]

Thanks Ari,

I am aware that Manfrotto claims its load capacity at 5 Kg but I have seen lots of
photographers on this forum recommend this for even light weight Monorail,
and even 8x10 wooden field camera.

This must imply that it can hold substantially more weight than rated for.
It is just that I wanted to hear this from someone how actually use it with
heavier camera set up.

For backpacking I am planning to have 410 Jr Head with 055XB tripod. Just
making myself sure before spending $$$.

[ki6mf]

Agree with Marko. If the rubber pad fix mentioned above, which is a laudable and noble solution for an irritating problem which also does not cost lots of coin due the the word Photography not being stamped on the rubber - but I digress-, there are a number of 3 way heads on the market and I prefer the 3 way head over the ball head. I found the ball head to time consuming when leveling the camera body level in two axises (left right and forward back tilting).

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Thanks Ari,

I am aware that Manfrotto claims its load capacity at 5 Kg but I have seen lots of
photographers on this forum recommend this for even light weight Monorail,
and even 8x10 wooden field camera.

This must imply that it can hold substantially more weight than rated for.
It is just that I wanted to hear this from someone how actually use it with
heavier camera set up.

For backpacking I am planning to have 410 Jr Head with 055XB tripod. Just
making myself sure before spending $$$.

I suspect the reason Manfrotto rates the load capacity of the 410 so low is due to backlash in the gears that control the movements. Of course, the self-arresting geared movements on all three axis are the main appeal to this product. A 5kg load rating would be laughable for all but the tiniest ballhead, but the 410 is not a ballhead, and again that's its biggest positive attribute.

Both the design and manufacturing methods of the Manfrotto 410 are totally different than a quality ballhead. A quality ballhead will be made from components that are CNC milled from solid billets of material. The ball, housing, panning base, etc. are CNC milled from solid billets if aluminum, and the ball cup is CNC milled from a premium grade acetyl resin. The computer controlled milling of these parts provides very tight manufacturing tolerance. And the materials used provide a desirable combination of high strength and light weight. That's why ballheads are available that are very smooth and sturdy that weigh less than a pound. It's also why high quality ballheads cost more than the geared Manfrotto 410.

Manfrotto heads, including the 410 and their own ballheads, are not CNC milled. The bodies and ball housings of their products are made from cast parts. Cast parts are cheaper to produce than milled parts, but they lack the precise tolerances of milled parts. Cast parts are made by pouring molten metal alloy into a mold. The resulting material will contain small imperfections caused by tiny gas bubbles that leave behind voids of various sizes. The fewer the number of voids and the smaller their size, the stronger the cast part will be, but they will always be present. Billet materials don't have these voids. So, for a cast part to equal the strength of a milled part, it must be much bigger, heavier and bulkier. The result is usually a compromise with the product made from cast parts being both heavier and less strong than a comparable product made from parts milled from solid billets. The use of cast parts by Manfrotto gives their products a rather "industrial" look and feel compared to other more expensive, more refined brands of ballheads and geared heads.

Of course, the use of cast parts is what keeps the price of the Manfrotto 410 reasonable and it's only a small part of the reason the 410 has such a low load rating. The major reason the load rating is so low is the backlash in the self-arresting gear trains that control the movements. The gears in the 410 are likely neither cast nor CNC milled, they are most likely produced by a process called hobbing. This is, by far, the most common process used to produce metal gears, as it's relatively inexpensive and produces gears that are strong and have generally acceptable manufacturing tolerances. The amount of backlash in a gear train depends on how tightly the gears fit together and the design of the gear train. In reversible gear trains, there will always be some play (backlash). The amount of play can be reduced with tighter manufacturing tolerances, or more complex design. But, both of these add cost.

Since the Manfrotto 410 uses reversible self-arresting gear trains to control the movements, there is no way to "lock" the head in place, like there is with a ballhead. So, it's easy to observe the effect of the backlash. Try putting a long lens on your camera, it doesn't have to be an exceptionally heavy lens or camera; I observed this effect regularly when using a 500mm Nikkor T-ED and a Canham DLC. Now stand beside the camera and observe what happens as you rack the bellows out. You will notice considerable droop, or sagging as you increase the extension. This will likely necessitate reframing your final composition after focusing the lens. But, on the 410, this is no big deal, you just give the knob that controls the vertical axis a small tweak. For shooting large format, I didn't find this a big deal. However, I think it would be completely unacceptable if I was shooting small format with super telephoto lenses. The 410 would be completely unusable when trying to shoot sports or wildlife with a 600mm lens on a body with a 1.6x crop factor. There would be too much sag and play in the vertical axis, plus you'd have three knobs to fiddle with instead of one. This is why small format shooters, especially those using long lenses, prefer a high quality ballhead (or a gimbal head for really long, heavy lenses) over a geared head - especially an inexpensive one like the Manfrotto 410.

But all is not lost, in addition to framing accuracy, the other important issue for any support system is dampening of vibrations. In my experience, while the framing accuracy of the 410 is lacking (due to the sagging/drooping), it provides pretty good dampening of vibrations. The gears that control the movements are fluid dampened by the grease that lubricates them, and it's a fairly heavy head with fairly large contact areas between both the camera and tripod. I haven't done an controlled vibration testing, but based on actual use, I'd say the 410 dampens vibrations as well as a mid range ballhead (mid range in both size and cost). One of the large, high end ballheads will dampen vibrations better, but it will cost considerably more than the 410. And, many large format users do not like using ballheads.

Ergonomically, I found the 410 a pleasure to use for light to medium weight 4x5 field cameras. In spite of the sagging/drooping at long extensions, it worked fine with my Canham DLC and my various ARCA-SWISS 4x5 and 4x10 configurations. It was a poor match for the Linhof Techikardan 45S. The Techikardan 45S is about 50% heavier than the Canham DLC, but the real problem is the unbalanced load caused severe sagging/drooping. The tripod sockets on the Technikardan are at the rear of the camera. So, with anything longer than about a 210mm lens focused at infinity, you end up with a very unbalanced, front heavy load. This puts a lot of stress on the tripod head and IMHO the 410 just wasn't up to the task. The ARCA-SWISS cameras I used with the 410 were between the DLC and the Technikardan 45S in terms of weight, but presented a better balanced load that puts considerably less strain on the head.

In general, since I do a lot of hiking and backpacking, I prefer the lighter weight and more compact size of a high quality small to medium size ballhead over the 410, but that's a personal preference. For "road kills" or short day hikes, where weight doesn't really matter, the 410 was a joy to use.

I never used an 8x10 with the Manfrotto 410, but I think it would be fine with a lightweight 8x10 field camera, especially one that presents a balanced load (one that has both front and rear focusing). The Manfrotto 410 had absolutely no problem handling my 4x10 Lotus/ARCA-SWISS hybrid. That camera weighed about 6.5 lb. and I regularly used it with a 450mm Fujinon C. I suspect the 410 would handle any 8x10 field camera that weighted less than 9 lb., presented a balanced load, with lightweight lenses. I'd definitely avoid using the 4x10 with any camera over 10 lb., or anything over 7 lb. that presents an unbalanced load, and any long, heavy lenses (heavy wide angles would be OK, within reason).

Kerry