Rigidity of a system: 4x5, tripod and head, my experience

[shadowleaves]

This is probably my first serious "long" post here but I think I've got some experience to share...it's about the rigidity of a relatively light 4x5 camera, Chamonix 045N-1 and the proper supporting system (tripod, head) to be used with it.

I got my Chamonix 045N-1 last year, which as many of you guys already knew, is a great lightweight 4x5 system with ample shifting/tilting abilities. In the beginning I used it on a Benro C-168m8 tripod which is on the same level as a Gitzo 1541T, with a Chinese-made fine ballhead "Kangrinpoche" NB2-A which is not known here, but basically it's a well-made smaller Arca B1 clone with very impressive locking ability and smooth operation. Before I got my Fujinon-C 300/8.5 lens, the entire system seemed very stable even in windy condition; I could see no shaking of image in the ground glass. However later when I got the Fujinon-C 300/8.5 and 450/12.5 lense, the problem of instability immediately emerged. I had to avoid using the center column and be very careful about using the cable release for 300/8.5C to get a sharp image with 300/8.5. With 450C, which was installed to the camera via the Chamonix bed extension adapter, it was almost a mission impossible - simply no way to stabilize the image in the GG even without wind.

I then began to question if the problem was due to the rigidity of 045N-1 itself, the extension adapter, the Benro C-168m8 tripod, or, the "Arca B1 clone" ballhead. Knowing recently that one of my friends has a Gitzo 1258 tripod and Arca Z1 ballhead, I tried his gear with my Chamonix 045N-1, 300/8.5 and 450/12.5 lense. The stability of image on the GG got improved a little, but really not that much. And switching between the Z1 ballhead, the Chinese-made Arca clone, and the Korean-made Multiflex (Arca C1 clone) geared head showed absolutely no difference. It indicated however, that the problem might be due to the tripod, but I was not convinced at the moment, and still thinking about the rigidity of 045N-1 itself - after all it's a twin-rail 4x5 folding camera rather than the super rigid mono-rail ones.

Finally, I got my Feisol 3472 from Kerry today and tried the combo of Photoclam Multiflex and Feisol 3472 with my 045N-1. Wow! it's absolutely a day-and-night difference. Even with 450/12.5 I see mostly no shaky images on the ground glass anymore! I have to shake the cable release very hard or knock at the lens itself to get a shaking image, and the shaking disappears soon after I stop knocking. Yes the Feisol 3472 is much heavier than C-168m8 (1.7kg vs 1kg), and it's apparently not as well-made as the Benro C-168m8 8x series, and the coating on the 3472 tubes looks really plastic and cheap, reminding me nothing close to carbon-fibre material; but after all, the difference in the image I saw on the GG is big enough for me to leave my C-168m8 behind when using 4x5 cameras in the future (it still works well with my 612 camera). And this also proves that 450/12.5 is totally usable on the Chamonix 045N-1, so long as you have a really stable supporting system!

[Vaughn]

Yeah...sometimes it is just the geometric make-up of the system that allows vibrations to happen. Glad you found a solution!

Vaughn

[Joanna Carter]

Well, I would have said that trying to support a 4x5 on the equivalent of a Gitzo 1 series tripod was bound to end in tears; I wouldn't use anything less than the 2 series and, as you have chosen the equivalent of the 3 series, it's no wonder you notice the difference. :o

[shadowleaves]

Well, I would have said that trying to support a 4x5 on the equivalent of a Gitzo 1 series tripod was bound to end in tears; I wouldn't use anything less than the 2 series and, as you have chosen the equivalent of the 3 series, it's no wonder you notice the difference. :o

Not really. With lense equal shorter than my APO-Sironar-N 210/5.6 I've never noticed any problems with using C-168m8, which is basically a Gitzo 1 series tripod. I didn't see any difference on the GG image between using C-168m8 and Feisol 3472 on the 210mm or shorter lense as well. The rigidity of the tripod becomes a problem only when I use 300mm or longer lense.

[shadowleaves]

Yeah...sometimes it is just the geometric make-up of the system that allows vibrations to happen. Glad you found a solution!

Vaughn

Thanks Vaughn...I'm really happy now that I can shoot all those distant snow mountains with my favorite Velvia 50 film without worrying the vibration!

[Drew Wiley]

I started a food fight on this same subject a few months back. The gist of it is that I
don't use a tripod head whatsoever with a view camera, just the legs. The head is the
weakest link in the whole system as far as rigidity and vibration is concerned. With
practice, adjusting composition with legs only is no big deal. I threw away the extension column to the Gitzo (or stored it away- might be useful someday for 35mm).

[shadowleaves]

I started a food fight on this same subject a few months back. The gist of it is that I
don't use a tripod head whatsoever with a view camera, just the legs. The head is the
weakest link in the whole system as far as rigidity and vibration is concerned. With
practice, adjusting composition with legs only is no big deal. I threw away the extension column to the Gitzo (or stored it away- might be useful someday for 35mm).

Drew, I agree with you on that the center column is a weak point. IMHO it is the weakest part in the entire system. Even with my fragile 1-series tripod, I can feel that the stability of the image on GG is improved when the center column is entirely retracted. Even raising it just a little bit will add lot of vibration. And one of the biggest advantages of Feisol 3472 is that it has no center column at all (if you don't buy the optional one of coz).

As for the head, at least according to my experience it is not the bottleneck of reducing vibration as long as the head is good enough (i.e., the Arca B1/Z1/C1 or their "clones"). I just can't imagine how cumbersome it will be to use a tripod without a head and adjust the tilting/panning/horizontal directions only by adjusting the legs - maybe you're already quite familiar with that....

[Aahx]

Interesting that your choice of a 3472 (with center collum removed) and Multiflex is exactly what I use now as well with my 45N-1. It just a great combination. Before that I had an Acratech GV2 instead of the Multiflex.. and that works pretty well if wieght is a concern, but that Multiflex is such a joy to use I now don't mind putting up with that additonal wieght strapped to my backpack. It's cool to see someone else came to the same conculsion but for different reasons.

[Archphoto]

I have a Gitzo Studex Performance, with the center column.
When I bought my Sinar P2 8x10 I bolted the center column plate to the plate of the legs in order to get more rigidity into the setup.
It has been working like that for 20 years now without any issues.

Peter

[venchka]

Buy quality once. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I will forever praise the Gitzo 3 Series tripod I bought a couple years ago before I bought a 4x5 camera.

I reckon if I'm ever lucky enough to own a lens in the 300mm to 450mm range, I'll have a use the Zone VI Junior tripod that doesn't get out much.

[Nathan Potter]

As Joanna says I'm also surprised that you haven't noticed problems with the Gitzo 1 previously. But tripod and camera vibrations are very complex. Camera bellows extensions are shorter with shorter FL lenses and as a result the vibration period within the camera assembly is shorter so the displacement between lens and film plane is smaller so perhaps you are operating outside the key mechanical resonance range.

On the other hand a 450 mm bellows extension can be an entirely different situation, especially if you are working with tripod and camera dimensions that cause resonances resulting in large lens to film plane displacements. Both the camera and the tripod need to be considered as a single complex vibrating resonant system.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[venchka]

In the situation Nate describes, there is no substitute for mass and keeping the camera as close to the top of the tripod as possible. The Ries tripods and heads are a prime example of these principles in action.

If you must carry a light tripod, leg tube diameter makes a huge difference in rigidity. Bigger is better. The stiffness of a tube increase with the cube of the diameter. Cannondale used this principle in their light aluminum bicycle frames.

[shadowleaves]

Interesting that your choice of a 3472 (with center collum removed) and Multiflex is exactly what I use now as well with my 45N-1. It just a great combination. Before that I had an Acratech GV2 instead of the Multiflex.. and that works pretty well if wieght is a concern, but that Multiflex is such a joy to use I now don't mind putting up with that additonal wieght strapped to my backpack. It's cool to see someone else came to the same conculsion but for different reasons.

Yeah using that Multiflex is purely a joy! It's not about the rigidity but about the ability to adjust different axis one at a time. No more painful adjusting horizontal level by holding 4x5 camera with one hand and trying to lock up the ballhead...

[shadowleaves]

As Joanna says I'm also surprised that you haven't noticed problems with the Gitzo 1 previously. But tripod and camera vibrations are very complex. Camera bellows extensions are shorter with shorter FL lenses and as a result the vibration period within the camera assembly is shorter so the displacement between lens and film plane is smaller so perhaps you are operating outside the key mechanical resonance range.

On the other hand a 450 mm bellows extension can be an entirely different situation, especially if you are working with tripod and camera dimensions that cause resonances resulting in large lens to film plane displacements. Both the camera and the tripod need to be considered as a single complex vibrating resonant system.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Exactly. It's entirely a different case when the focal length is beyond 300mm; but I'm not quite sure if that's because of the long bellow or just the long effective focal length. In another word, it might be interesting to see if a telephoto structure lens (such as Fujinon-T 400) will be less prone to vibration in the supporting system, than a non-tele lens (like Fuji 300C or Nikon 300M) would be.

[William McEwen]

I might be drifting off course here... Once I was photographing a super famous photographer with my Wisner 8x10 TF + Zone VI Standard Tripod, and he reprimanded me for using a tripod without a center column. He said it's impossible to take good pictures without being able to crank up and down. (I disagree, although his work IS exquisite.)

[Robert Opheim]

I also have been using a #3 series gitzo tripod for years (30 plus) with 4x5 - a weak head and the center column - have been the weak points in wind for me. Initially I purchased a #1 head and was shooting in the North Cascades in the wind and I found motion from the head and column moving in the negitives later. I try to not use the center column at all and have gone to a #3 and even a #5 low profile head - since I need the large flat area for my technikardan camera.