PDA

View Full Version : Need a new Tripod Head Badly



Jeff Romeo
23-Aug-2011, 20:39
Hey Mates,

So I just got a Busch Pressman 4x5. When I load the film
the damn camera rotates -- the actual tripod plate spins about 5 degrees in the camera
even though everything is locked down as tight as I can get it.

The head I am using is here. I have never felt this head was that great. The small plate moves even on my 35 mm gear. And when shooting portraits that damn thing slips from the position I want it in. Really time to upgrade although funds are limited.

Here is the offending head:

http://tinyurl.com/3p3suax

So what do I need that will work on both cameras? Do I need a bigger head?
I don't mind a ball head if it will be secure and not move. Should I look at the heads
with the pan and tilt handles? What are some options of both varieties?

Thanks very much. This forum is a voice in the wilderness sometimes.

Jeff

jeffromeo.com/blog

lenser
23-Aug-2011, 23:06
Try this first, Jeff.

All of my various tripods and heads have had the usual dimpled rubber plate pads replaced with soft leather, usually deer hide. The rubber or composite types have always had way more "give" than I like, so I just take them off and use the leather which has much better grip and still thoroughly protects the camera base.

Also, for my large format cameras, I usually use pliers or a screwdriver (depending on the head plate attachment type) to really anchor the plate to the camera and then leave it attached while in storage. Extra plates are cheap enough to keep two or three on hand.

Ari
24-Aug-2011, 05:19
Or you could just get a brand new Linhof ball head :)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/30823-REG/Linhof_003680_Profi_III_with_Quickfix_Cap.html

Tim's suggestion is a good one; you could also visit a store and try another plate, one which locks down better.
Buy a couple and leave them on the camera.

Sean Galbraith
24-Aug-2011, 05:48
I'm a big fan of my Manfrotto Jr. Geared head. Not as fast as a ball head, but much (much) more precise.

Which tripod legs do you have?

vinny
24-Aug-2011, 06:07
I have an arca swiss b1 for sale. Search the classifieds.

John Powers
24-Aug-2011, 06:26
Try this first, Jeff.

All of my various tripods and heads have had the usual dimpled rubber plate pads replaced with soft leather, usually deer hide. The rubber or composite types have always had way more "give" than I like, so I just take them off and use the leather which has much better grip and still thoroughly protects the camera base.
....

An alternative to this if you don’t have a willing deer donor is, a thin rubber pad, sold in hardware and houseware stores, used to open jar lids or large bottle lids. The example I have in my hand from my wife’s kitchen is 5.5”x 1/16” (14mm x 2mm), but they vary in size. Some are soft rubber through out. Some are rubber coated fabric. I have one on each camera/tripod connection and a few spares in my tool kit. They wear out easily but are quickly replaced.

It is late summer here and all our deer are out eating apples from the branches or as the apples ripen and drop from the trees, the original low hanging fruit.

John

Noah A
24-Aug-2011, 06:26
I also like the Manfrotto geared heads. I have the Jr. model that Sean mentioned, which is also called the 410. Don't let the name fool you, it's a substantial head and can easily handle most 4x5 field cameras or small monorails.

Geared heads are great for 4x5 since often you want to level the camera with some degree of accuracy.

I started with a ballhead but I'll never use another ballhead with a view camera if I can help it. A good one will be very solid, but I found it very difficult to level the camera in one axis without affecting the other. The geared head may seem slower depending on what you're doing, but I can level the camera faster with the geared head than I ever could with the ballhead.

If you're shooting portraits in a looser way and don't care about leveling the camera, then that may be the one exception where a ballhead would work. In that case I'd try to find something that is compatible with arca-style QR plates. That way you can get a plate that fits your camera well. A ballhead will also be smaller than most other options.

Any substantial three-way head should also work fine. There are probably lots of inexpensive options, especially on older heads.

When I'm not using the 410 I use a linhof three-way leveling head (#3663). It's crazy expensive when new but sometimes deals pop up here or on ebay for used models. I got mine used and it looks pretty beat-up but it still has a silky-smooth movement and locks down tight. It's extremely solid. I use it for shooting long exposures and/or in windy conditions and it holds the camera as solidly as any ballhead, and it's not much bigger than a ballhead.

Noah A
24-Aug-2011, 06:37
I should have added:

If you're happy with your current head other than the QR problem, I'd do as other have said and remove the rubber pad. You could replace the pad with very thin leather, a layer of gaffers tape or nothing for that matter.

I'm not familiar with the pressman--does it have leatherette where the tripod mount is? If so, and if it's not a mint collector's camera, just use the metal qr plate with no pad. It'll mark up the leatherette but it'll hold tight...

If the tripod mount area is bare metal, you may be able to drill a small hole in the camera and QR plate and pin the plate so it doesn't rotate.

Marko
24-Aug-2011, 07:17
You seem to be unhappy with the head in general. I would suggest you try a standard three-way head instead of a ball-head?

I am personally very happy with this one (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5293-REG/Manfrotto_3047_3047_Deluxe_3_Way_Pan_Tilt.html) for both my 4x5 and 4x10. It is not being made any more, but you can get a used one in great condition for $50 or less, even at KEH. Plates are still available too and are affordable enough to get a few.

Just a thought.

Marko

Richard Wasserman
24-Aug-2011, 07:53
The Manfrotto 804RC2 is a compact, light-weight, and relatively inexpensive head that works well with lighter 4x5s. I used it with a Wista DX. http://tinyurl.com/yb88h9x

Keith Pitman
24-Aug-2011, 08:06
It sounds like the screw on the plate may be bottoming out in the tripod socket. If so, shorten the screw or use a thicker pad on the tripod plate.

John Koehrer
24-Aug-2011, 10:19
I'd try to find something that is compatible with arca-style QR plates. That way you can get a plate that fits your camera well. A ballhead will also be smaller than most other options.

Any substantial three-way head should also work fine. There are probably lots of inexpensive options, especially on older heads.



+1 The Arca plates seem to have become almost a standard plate from different manufacturers. No so with the Manfrottos.

lenser
24-Aug-2011, 11:11
Jeff, I also should have added my vote for the Manfrotto 410 head which is my primary tripod head. It is heavy duty enough for a light weight 8x10 and perfect for a 4x5 field camera. The plate surface is much larger than your current one, so it grips better, but I still replaced the pad with the deer skinn as soon as I bought it. Check with local leather shops for a source. Any good soft leather (fairly thick) will work, but the deer hide has been perfect for me.

BradS
24-Aug-2011, 11:32
I've been using a Manfrotto 488 ball head with 4x5 for a few years without any issues. Mine has the hexagon shaped QR plates but, I am sure it is the same idea.

Before that I used the Bogen/Manfrotto 3047 three-way head. It was for a long time considered the de-facto standard three way head for 4x5 and 5x7 field cameras. I've even used it with 8x10 in a pinch. It is rock solid but bulky and heavy....and it has a new number which, I do not know off hand.

Scott Davis
24-Aug-2011, 11:42
I'd aim for something that has a larger contact patch between the camera and head. While not CHEAP, you can find a nice used Gitzo pan/tilt 3 way head for not a lot of money, and they'll have a 3x4 or so inch contact patch. It's not a quick-release head, but it will handle just about anything you can put on it until you get above 5x7 sized cameras, and it will have a large gripping surface to keep your camera securely positioned.

Jon Shiu
24-Aug-2011, 12:35
Some quick release plates have an anti-rotation screw that comes ups up from the bottom. You might check yours for this, or it might have fallen out.

Jon

Jeff Keller
24-Aug-2011, 14:29
The rubber pad on the plate seems to me to be a major weakness. A simple fix for an slr or slr tripod mount lenses is an architecture quick release plate:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554160-REG/Manfrotto_200PLARCH_14_200PLARCH_14_Architectural_Anti_Twist_Quick.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554160-REG/Manfrotto_200PLARCH_14_200PLARCH_14_Architectural_Anti_Twist_Quick.html)

The lip is on a thin metal plate which can be slid over a short range. Works well to stop rotation but IMO the rubber also causes vibration issues. Arca Swiss quick releases with metal to metal contact have worked much better for me but essentially require a new tripod head. (you could remove the rubber pad, glue and screw an AS style clamp to an existing plate so that you could keep the head but probably not worth the cost)
Jeff Keller

brian mcweeney
24-Aug-2011, 20:12
Manfrotto 410 head is under $200 right now with free shipping at B&H.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=manfrotto+410&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

Two23
24-Aug-2011, 20:24
I hate Bogen/manfrotto heads. I mean really, HATE them. What you need is a head that takes Arca Swiss style QR plates. I bought an AcraTech Ultimate ballhead about seven years ago. It is perfect and has done everything I ask. It has never failed, even at 105F degrees, even at 42 below zero degrees.


Kent in SD

Greg Y
24-Aug-2011, 21:48
Love the Ries double-tile heads!:)

Louis Pacilla
25-Aug-2011, 11:29
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
25-Aug-2011, 14:38
Getting the 410. Thanks all! JR

Deepak Kumar
3-Sep-2011, 00:36
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
3-Sep-2011, 04:38
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
3-Sep-2011, 23:52
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
4-Sep-2011, 05:50
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
4-Sep-2011, 10:45
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlash_%28engineering%29) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23134). 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