Needed: Tripod Wisdom

[MIke Sherck]

I use a Zone VI 4x5 camera, a B&J 5x7 antique and a 12-lb B&J 8x10 Grover monorail, my heaviest camera. I've been using these cameras on an aluminum Bogen 3028 tripod with their 3-way head. I know, I know: the tripod is really adequate for a medium format camera (which is what I originally bought it for, many many eons ago,) but it's been "all right" for the larger stuff so long as it isn't windy and I'm careful about balance and so on.

Limiting one's photography to "nice weather" is rather frustrating though, and I want to go further into the danger zone. Thus, I'm hoping that you'll give me your thoughts and advice on the following tripods:

- Ries J100 tripod with some 3-way head.
- Berlebach 3042 tripod with a 3-way head,
- Zone VI tripod with a 3-way head.
- Recommendations on a 3-way head

Please keep in mind that while not elderly I'm not getting any younger and my days of traipsing up sand dunes with 30 lbs of camera gear are over.

Thanks!

Mike

[Alan Gales]

If you go with the Ries J100 get yourself a J250 double tilt head. They are a perfect match!

If you go with the J250 head it will come with your choice of tripod screw. Order the other size as well. You can swap them out in just a few seconds and use the tripod with any of your cameras.

[Kirk Fry]

Do like Mr. Ritter and forget the head, just screw the camera into the tripod, the legs adjust. Or for really big stuff just think MAJESTIC. My Majestic tripod and head is just 19 lb. Made in Chicago by real Americans. Lots of times you can buy them for cheap from ex-photographers with broken backs. No need to mess with those funny furren toy tripods. If you are using a really big camera you probably are not back packing anyway. Or you have people for lugging stuff.

[Mark Sampson]

Well, someone gave me a Majestic about 30 years ago when I didn't own a tripod. I used it in the field for a year or two, when I started using 4x5 and 8x10. Obviously it worked but I'd never choose one for field use today. (I used one on the job for a long time too- but that was inside the company, not so much hiking.) I'd like a wooden tripod now, I use a big old Bogen that's almost used up.

[Ed Richards]

If you care about weight, get a Gitzo cf without a column. Put an Arcatech leveling head on it, and put the camera on that. If you want to tilt the camera - say, to shoot a cathedral ceiling - add an Arcatech long lens head. It will hold your biggest camera just fine, weight about 6 pounds. (The long lens head is designed for a big digital camera with a 600 f4. That is a lot tougher to keep steady than an 8x10.)

[Ken Lee]

A 4x5 Sinar P weighs more than the Grover, and with a 5x7 back it weighs even more.

Even so, I use and recommend an affordable combination (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#Tripod) which gives geared 3-way head adjustment. No carbon, no wood.

Bogen 3021 BN Pro tripod, Manfrotto 3275 410 tripod head, and a Manfrotto 438 leveling head.

A leveling head pays for itself the first time you use it. I'm surprised that people try to level their cameras by adjusting the legs. With a geared head, you do it all under the dark cloth.

With a leveling head (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#LevelingHead), once you level it, you can pan around and the camera stays level. No wonder surveyor tripods have them.

[Greg Y]

+1 For the venerable & indestructible Ries with the A250 head. :)

[civich]

[/QUOTE]With a leveling head (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#LevelingHead), once you level it, you can pan around and the camera stays level. No wonder surveyor tripods have them.[/QUOTE]

Ken, not quite true - surveying instruments have a leveling base built into the instrument. Initial leveling is always done by adjusting the tripod legs. The instrument leveling base is for fine tuning only. Admittedly this has very little to do with camera tripods but as one who used surveying instruments many times in rough conditions can attest - you get very proficient at adjusting that tripod. Composing your shot while under the dark cloth is a different matter - fiddling with the legs is awkward at best. But if weight saving is your goal going headless is doable. -Chris

PS: 'Course, if you are a real surveyor it's all strictly GPS.

[C_Remington]

Ken, I have the Manfrotto 410 too. It has a bubble level. Doesn't leveling your camera using the tripod head movements accomplish the same thing as using the 438 leveling head? I guess if it did you wouldn't need the 438 so, what am I missing??

And it seems like the other Manfrotto leveling base is more stable and easier to adjust too. Ever consider that one?



A 4x5 Sinar P weighs more than the Grover, and with a 5x7 back it weighs even more.

Even so, I use and recommend an affordable combination (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#Tripod) which gives geared 3-way head adjustment. No carbon, no wood.

Bogen 3021 BN Pro tripod, Manfrotto 3275 410 tripod head, and a Manfrotto 438 leveling head.

A leveling head pays for itself the first time you use it. I'm surprised that people try to level their cameras by adjusting the legs. With a geared head, you do it all under the dark cloth.

With a leveling head (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#LevelingHead), once you level it, you can pan around and the camera stays level. No wonder surveyor tripods have them.

[David R Munson]

Do like Mr. Ritter and forget the head, just screw the camera into the tripod, the legs adjust.

This only works if you only ever take photos with the camera leveled out. Many of us like to point the camera up or down from time to time. ;)

OP: of the options you listed, I'd go for the Ries. Of all the tripods I've owned and used (my work gives me access to lots of gear), the Ries is still the nicest overall setup for a view camera I've ever come across. Clearly not the lightest or most compact option, but the nicest to use. The J250 is also superb and, as Alan noted, a perfect match for the J100.

[Ken Lee]

The hardest approach is to screw the camera into the tripod directly. You have to adjust the legs, check the level, and repeat until it's close enough to being level. You can't work under the dark cloth. The advantage of this approach is that once you level the tripod itself, then you can freely pan and the camera will stay level.

One is to use a ball head, but you can't just level one dimension at a time. You lose them all as soon as you loosen the ball.

Another approach is a head with 3 separate controls. The problem with those is that they move as you tighten them, so you may have to re-adjust several times until it's "close enough".

A 3-way head with geared movements is easier to use: you just adjust each level independently, as smoothly as you would focus a lens.

However, even with a geared 3-way head, the camera won't be level as soon as you pan horizontally, unless the tripod is perfectly level already. That's where the leveling head comes in. Once you've leveled the leveling head, the camera stays level as you pan left or right. You are free to compose your image and don't have to keep re-leveling. The legs can be way off, but it doesn't matter. The camera stays level.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/manfrotto438B.jpg

In the photo you can see the leveling head in action. The tripod itself is not level - as the red line shows - but the tripod head is level, because we have adjusted the leveling head beneath it (yellow arrow).

I may be wrong, but my recollection is that the other Manfrotto leveling head is bigger, heavier and more expensive.

[David R Munson]

Even with a geared 3-way head, the camera won't be level as soon as you pan horizontally, unless the tripod is perfectly level already. That's where the leveling head comes in. Once you've leveled the leveling head, the camera stays level as you pan left or right. You are free to compose your image and don't have to keep re-leveling. The legs can be way off, but it doesn't matter.

Another option is to have a second pan stage on top of the tripod head, so that once you use the head to level out, you can still pan without losing your level. There aren't a lot of heads out there with this feature yet, but I expect we'll see more of them going forward. I've been using an Induro PHQ1 head for 4x5 and it's a really nice solution overall. Wouldn't come close to handling an 8x10, but the principle is sound at least.

[C_Remington]

Ahh. Right. Panning. That's a good reason. But for architecture, doesn't one usually want the film plane parallel to the plane of the building you're shooting?

[N Dhananjay]

Ries. The combination of sturdiness and the individual leg locks makes for a very nice interface with view cameras. Cheers, DJ

[Peter Lewin]

Let me throw in a suggestion against one of the choices you listed - the ZoneVI tripod. I have one, which I bought while at one of Fred Picker's workshops. They are heavy and bulky. They do have virtues, including the fact that they are pretty much indestructible, and might be a good choice for setting up on sand dunes or in water, providing those locations are close to your car. While I still have the ZoneVI (guess I am something of a pack rat), it was first replaced with an aluminum Gitzo, and now by a carbon fiber Gitzo, on the principle that the best tripod is one you are willing to carry with you.

[Ed Richards]

You need to decide if you want the pleasure of messing with gear - wood tripods - or the fastest, lightest, most rigid support - cf. Nothing against the pleasure of a fine wood tripod, but I like being able setup and level the tripod in seconds. The easier to set up, the more likely I will keep moving it until I find the best shot.

[Vaughn]

You need to decide if you want the pleasure of messing with gear - wood tripods - or the fastest, lightest, most rigid support - cf. Nothing against the pleasure of a fine wood tripod, but I like being able setup and level the tripod in seconds. The easier to set up, the more likely I will keep moving it until I find the best shot.

You must use one of them thar mini formats like 4x5 to be talkin about seconds...;)

I never handled a Ries J100, but I do like my A100 with the A250 head for the 8x10 and 11x14.

[Jim Andrada]

Don't overlook video tripods. They typically have a half-ball leveling gizmo that fits in a "cup" at the top of the tripod. 3-way or other head would mount on top of the leveling ball. They're light and stable. And some like Libec are reasonably priced (you can spend many thousands for some of the really high-end gear though.)

I have a Libec and often use it with my 8 x 10 Linhof. I got the Libec to use with my JVC video camera, but find that I really like it for still work as well.

Having said all that, my real favorite is a Ries with the double tilt head.:o

[Nigel Smith]

I have a Berlebach with the swivelling column that lets you level the camera. It's a little tricky in that you have to balance the weight of your camera while you loosen the tension and adjust. Once you get the hang of it it's easy and quick to level. I use a Manfrotto 410 head for fine tuning the composition.

I've never set up my camera with the intention to pan the camera, I point it at the scene I want in the 1st place. Why would you be doing that?

[Vaughn]

There is a certain amount of exploration that can happen once one has the camera set up. There are things to find on the GG that one may not notice before the camera was put on the tripod. It is good to know exactly what one wants before looking on the GG, but it is also good to leave oneself open to other possibilities.

And I have found some of those other possibilities by swing the camera around 180 degrees!

One other thing...I just mentioned this on another thread, but in my own work, the edges (and corners) are as important, if not more, than what is in the center portion of the negative. Sometimes panning a few degrees and/or up and down can make an incredible difference. Actually, I do not worry too much about leveling the tripod. I do mostly landscapes, and often without horizon lines. So if I pan little, I don't mind checking the level of the camera, and I may decide not to have the camera perfectly level...that depends on the image.

Vaughn

[mdm]

This is what I would get. A berlebach 4032 with pan, I have a 4032 without the pan thing, but would go for it if I was doing it again. Centre posts are horrible, they destroy the nice clean lines and stability of a good tripod. It will hold my Korona 11x14 at a push, and the leverage on the ball is pretty massive, it does not move. http://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&id=297&sprache=english Use a 3 way head if you want, but its fine for most purposes without. Mostly I use it for a 5x7 2D and a 5x7 Nagaoka, a perfect match for me.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I inherited a Zone tripod that was a modified surveyor tripod. I built a thick aluminum replacement for the head. It is beautiful and heavy and absolutely steadfast. I used it with my forty pound plus handmade camera.

You can find the same in modern surveyor tripods and easily modify the head. The modern 'pod will be much lighter and just as functionary.

[Peter Spangenberg]

One more opinion that i hope is of some use to you. I shoot 5x7 and 8x10 Deardorffs with weights similar to your cameras. I use an old Gitzo traveller for both (heavy but solid), a tiltall occasionally for travel with the 5x7 (compact and sturdy enough), a wood Miller for 8x10 work (extremely sturdy, but heavy and large), and a J100 with J250 head for both. I have settled into the Gitzo for both when I plan to be in water, and the Ries for both for non water work. The Ries has never given me a fuzzy 8x10 negative, but it seems like it's about at it's capacity when the bellows is extended and there's wind. Wouldn't be without the j250 head. I had a Berleback with a ball head, and I didn't care for it for view camera work. Also, the Berlebach was heavier than the Ries.

[Bob Mann]

I am another very happy Ries user. There are differences between all of the ones you mention in adjustments and handles, but I think they would all work for you in the field. For me the location of the leg locks on the Ries means I can set and lock the leg angles from a standing position and I like that there are no preset leg angle stops.

[evan clarke]

I use a Zone VI 4x5 camera, a B&J 5x7 antique and a 12-lb B&J 8x10 Grover monorail, my heaviest camera. I've been using these cameras on an aluminum Bogen 3028 tripod with their 3-way head. I know, I know: the tripod is really adequate for a medium format camera (which is what I originally bought it for, many many eons ago,) but it's been "all right" for the larger stuff so long as it isn't windy and I'm careful about balance and so on.

Limiting one's photography to "nice weather" is rather frustrating though, and I want to go further into the danger zone. Thus, I'm hoping that you'll give me your thoughts and advice on the following tripods:

- Ries J100 tripod with some 3-way head.
- Berlebach 3042 tripod with a 3-way head,
- Zone VI tripod with a 3-way head.
- Recommendations on a 3-way head

Please keep in mind that while not elderly I'm not getting any younger and my days of traipsing up sand dunes with 30 lbs of camera gear are over.

Thanks!

Mike

MIKE.. Buy a Gitzo carbon..

[AJ Edmondson]

I have used a Berlebach (no center column) for about twenty years with everything from a Hasselblad on the small end to a Calumet C1 on the upper end and it is one of the few pieces of equipment that I have been completely satisfied with. The two-section legs adjust quickly and easily and - while it is a bit long when collapsed due to the two-section (instead of the three-section) construction I wouldn't swap it out for anything else I have used (Gitzo, Quick-set, Manfrotto and a few others! I relate to the comment on "getting longer in the tooth"... at 70 I am not ready to quit but the trips get shorter, the pack gets lighter and the breaks a little more frequent.
Joel

[MIke Sherck]

I'm curious about carbon fiber tripods. From reading over the years I am under the impression that the weight of a tripod contributes to stability, to the point where some photographers hang a bag of rocks from their tripods to increase their weight. Given that, wouldn't a lightweight tripod such as one made from carbon fiber be at a disadvantage compared to a heavier tripod, or does everyone with a carbon fiber tripod carry a bag with them to fill with rocks at need?

Mike

[Peter Gomena]

I own a Zone VI "lightweight" tripod I bought in 1980. I've used it with a Korona 8x10, my current whole plate camera, and my 4x5 field camera. It has served me well. It's solid as a rock under the 4x5 and the WP camera. It was adequate to hold the Korona. It is heavy, solid, and has steel feet that are easy to drive into the ground with a hiking boot. Would I trade it for a carbon fiber Gitzo capable of holding my biggest camera? Yes, in a minute. I'm not getting any younger and I'd like to lighten the load. Not being made of money, the big carbon fiber Gitzo or equivalent is not going to happen soon.

[biedron]

I'm curious about carbon fiber tripods. From reading over the years I am under the impression that the weight of a tripod contributes to stability, to the point where some photographers hang a bag of rocks from their tripods to increase their weight. Given that, wouldn't a lightweight tripod such as one made from carbon fiber be at a disadvantage compared to a heavier tripod, or does everyone with a carbon fiber tripod carry a bag with them to fill with rocks at need?

Mike

If need be I hang my backpack with the rest of the gear I'm not using at the moment from the tripod. No need for a special bag for rocks. But unless it is really windy the tripod alone is quite sufficient.

Bob

[Len Middleton]

I'm curious about carbon fiber tripods. From reading over the years I am under the impression that the weight of a tripod contributes to stability, to the point where some photographers hang a bag of rocks from their tripods to increase their weight. Given that, wouldn't a lightweight tripod such as one made from carbon fiber be at a disadvantage compared to a heavier tripod, or does everyone with a carbon fiber tripod carry a bag with them to fill with rocks at need?

Mike

Unlike a heavy tripod, you do not have to backpack the rocks, just use what you find on location...

[john biskupski]

The Ries J100 is a nice light tripod for 4x5, but I would recommend the J100-2 (the heavier duty version) if you want to mount anything bigger, especially outdoors in the wind. The Berlebach Report tripod like the 4032 (w/o centre column and with levelling head) is in my experience in between the J100 and J100-2 in terms of load capacity and stability. The Berlebachs, like the Ries, are fine tripods, well made and easy to adjust. However, for 8x10, even the J100-2 is only just enough, outdoors I would want the A100 or a big carbon fibre ideally.

[Jonathan Barlow]

I use an old 3-series Gitzo with a Manfrotto 410 geared head for my Deardorff V8 & Canham 8x10. I plan to get a carbon fiber Gitzo some time in the next year just to drop about 3 pounds. Carbon's also supposed to do a better job of absorbing vibrations than aluminum.

[Alan Gales]

The Ries J100 is a nice light tripod for 4x5, but I would recommend the J100-2 (the heavier duty version) if you want to mount anything bigger, especially outdoors in the wind. The Berlebach Report tripod like the 4032 (w/o centre column and with levelling head) is in my experience in between the J100 and J100-2 in terms of load capacity and stability. The Berlebachs, like the Ries, are fine tripods, well made and easy to adjust. However, for 8x10, even the J100-2 is only just enough, outdoors I would want the A100 or a big carbon fibre ideally.

I have been doing fine with my Wehman 8x10 on the J100 when I need to walk any distance with it. Of course if my back could take it I'd haul my A100 everywhere.

[paulr]

I've had the Zone VI "lightweight" tripod since the '90s. It's very good. Not as nice as a Ries (looks a bit more like a shop class project) but I have no complaints at all about the performance. Rock solid, and works well with a big view camera, medium format, and with a 35mm dslr.

I also have a smaller bogen/manfrotto 3021. I use this when I need something more portable or versatile (like for setting up close to the ground). Surprisingly, it isn't much lighter. The big difference between these tripods is in how long it takes them to damp vibrations. I attached a laser pointer to my cameras and bounced the beam off a mirror across the room. It goes crazy when you touch the camera or trip a shutter. On the aluminum bogen, the dot jumps more, and takes up to three full seconds to settle down. On the zone vi, the dot stops moving almost instantly. So I know now that when using the aluminum tripod, work more slowly and to wait a few seconds before tripping the shutter.

I haven't tested any carbon tripods. I'll bet the good ones damp vibration every bit as well the zone vi. And they weigh almost nothing. You just have to decide if saving the weight is worth the expense. One day I may get one; it's not a priority now.

[Leszek Vogt]

Over year ago I got a Feisol (forgot the number) tripod that will support 26lbs. I needed something tall. Yes, it's a carbon fiber and I find it quite sturdy. It's light/er on the wallet and light in weight....4.8lbs, so I can take it with me on hikes. As to cost, appx 40% of what someone will pay for comparable Gitzo. I like the stability of the 3-legged sticks, since there is no middle column (by choice)....and you can hang some sort of contraption w/sand, stones, or whatever you can get nearby....for further stability. I've had it in the sand and in salt water - no issues. The rubber feet absorb vibrations. The only issue became when I had to use 410 Manfrotto head....and the head could not tilt as I wished. To accomodate the head, I had a riser built out of aluminum for 20 odd bucks...and it works well with my 4x5 and FF...I painted black, so it appears as if it belongs there.

Les

[evan clarke]

I'm curious about carbon fiber tripods. From reading over the years I am under the impression that the weight of a tripod contributes to stability, to the point where some photographers hang a bag of rocks from their tripods to increase their weight. Given that, wouldn't a lightweight tripod such as one made from carbon fiber be at a disadvantage compared to a heavier tripod, or does everyone with a carbon fiber tripod carry a bag with them to fill with rocks at need?

Mike

Mike, you have seen my 11x14 on my Gitzo..rock solid and much more rigid than the exact tripod in aluminum, which I have. Spendy, but you'll never wear it out, never need another and it' super light..E

[paulr]

Over year ago I got a Feisol (forgot the number) tripod that will support 26lbs....

These look promising.

[premortho]

By choice, I use an Ansco Commercial tripod. This is the one with a triangular wooden center column, and a tilting platform on top. It seems to absorb vibration real well, is tough as nails, and probably weighs 10 lbs. I prefer the tilting platform as I've never liked ball heads, they want to go too many ways when you go to adjust it. I level the tiltable platform with a level before I mount the camera.