Just Clouds

[Ken Lee]

A very good question - Were you there ?

I had a heck of a time pointing the camera at a high angle, since my Manfrotto 3275 410 goes only so far, after which it starts to bang up against the tripod itself. So I had to resort to lots of vertical rise, as much as the camera would allow. Lens coverage isn't an issue, but everything else was. The angle was around 60 degrees, I'd guess.

The head is strong enough to hold the camera, but the rig probably exceeds the recommended weight by a large factor. I'm probably stupid to use it.

In this thread, Vaughn recommended a Ries Tripod and head. I wonder if they are more suitable for this sort of subject ? I'd shoot a lot more cloud photos if I could.

Is there something more appropriate ?

Thanks for asking !!

[r.e.]

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

Is there something more appropriate?

The question occurred to me while I was trying to visualize doing this with my own Manfrotto 410 holding up the 5x7 camera and a 360mm Nikkor

Some people who use very large, heavy binoculars for astronomy use what is called a parallelogram mount. The are some videos on YouTube that show how they work, such as these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2uluHEe_GI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLFvhrVTQAE

Some of these mounts are very expensive, but the ones shown in the videos may be fairly reasonable. You wouldn't need all these functions, and you could probably build something, or have it built, for not too much money.

You might check out the binocular forum on Cloudy Nights: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea...ard/binoculars

[Vaughn]

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

In this thread, Vaughn recommended a Ries Tripod and head. I wonder if they are more suitable for this sort of subject ? I'd shoot a lot more cloud photos if I could.

Is there something more appropriate ?

I know that the full size Ries head could handle a straight-up shot with an 8x10. I just measured my pod and head. With one leg towards the photographer so that the pod would not fall backwards from the weight (opposite from normal set-up were we put a leg towards the subject), and with the head in position to point the camera straight up, it is about 8 inches from the screw that holds on the camera down to where the camera would hit the leg. This is with the legs spread out enough to be very stable. So a camera with a 16" square base could be shot straight up...one would just have to rack the front standard up, not the back standard down.

It works well because when tipping the head to a straight up shot, the plane of the head surface (where the camera sits) is actually outside the circle of where the head attaches to the legs -- did I make sense? One could increase the distance from the screw to the pod leg even more by setting the legs closer together -- still would be stable.

Smaller cameras would be even easier. Viewing/focusing looking up might be tricky, but can be done.

The heck with it -- here is a photo! This is the double tilt head -- a single tilt head would be even more stable, I believe. This is the fullsize head on their full size pod (A series) The J Series is built the same way, but smaller -- but I would think it would be fine for 5x7.

Vaughn

[r.e.]

Originally Posted by Vaughn

Viewing/focusing looking up might be tricky, but can be done.

That's the advantage of solutions drawn from astronomy mounts and/or lighting setups.