Need a new tripod and head for 5x7

[Larry Gebhardt]

I have a couple of lightweight tripods and ball heads that work well for my 4x5 Chamonix, but I'm getting blurring on some of my shots with the 5x7, especially with the longer lenses. At first I thought it was focus errors, but after looking at two shots taken without changing the focus I'm pretty sure it's that the tripod isn't up to the task.

I have a Canham MQC and my longest lens is a Nikon 450mm f/9. Racked out it's easy to see I need a beefier support. I would also like to get away from a ball head. And I would like a head with an Arca Swiss compatible clamp since all my cameras have these plates. I've been looking at the Manfrotto 405 with a quick release adapter (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Manfrotto-405-adapter-4-Kirk-Benro-Markins-Arca-Swiss-Wimberley-Acratech-rrs-/330745823041?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d01fcbf41) to convert to arca swiss. But that's about $620 just for the head, which is more than I really want to spend. But I will, if it's a combination that will work well for me. Keeping the weight down is also important, since I generally like to hike the camera in a good ways from the car.

I'm looking for opinions on the Manfrotto 405, and also any other viable alternatives. Any suggestions for tripods as well will certainly be appreciated.

[Ari]

Larry, there's a Manfrotto 3039 (now called the 229) for sale on the forum; I use this head for everything from 645 to 810.
But it uses the hex plates, and I don't know if it can be converted to Arca.
I think it's going for $75, a real bargain for one of the best 3-way heads I've ever used.

As for a tripod, there are some good, inexpensive alternatives to Gitzos and their ilk if you want to buy new.
Feisol and Induro are both good quality, light and not too dear; find a model that suits your needs and budget.

I have never owned or used a 405, but others here will be happy to share their experiences with it.

[mdm]

I love my Berlebach (4032 I think) with integrated ball head for 5x7. The ball is rock solid. So convenient with 2 piece legs and a simple knob at each leg for adjustment. I have only used a 300 on 5x7 but have overloaded it with an 11x14 korona and a 450 and it copes reasonably ok (but obviously not ideally) even with that massive force of an uneven load. Their arca thing is nice specially with their arca plate but unless your camera is narow like a monorail or has a slightly raised tripod plate underneath like my nagaoka clearance for the tightening knob can be tight. I even use mine with a tiny panasonic point and shoot and a fuji 6x9, in preference to my other tripod and head. I think tripods is one area where old technology is still the best. I think you could put any head you like on it and use the ball for quick leveling, or get one without the ball. For me the ball is part of the attraction.

[Michael Graves]

I love my Berlebach (4032 I think) with integrated ball head for 5x7.

I have the 3032, but chose to add a separate ball head with quick release. I added the Pro Gold II ball head that Really Big Cameras sells. For me, this is the perfect combination. Spend the extra on the Pro Gold and don't settle for the Photo Clam. I have one of those on another tripod, and while it is nice, comparing the two is like comparing a Mercedes 450SEL to a Ford Fusion. Only the price difference isn't quite so significant.

[neil poulsen]

I have the 3039; it's the best head I've ever owned. Very smooth, it's Manfrotto's most heavy duty head.

My only (minor?) reservation about this and similar heads is the hexagonal locking mechanism that these heads use. It seems a bit klutzy, and there's a possibility that the camera seems securely locked into place, when that might not be the case. I'm very careful in locking the plate securely into place. I've never had a camera fall off. But I have a friend who had a Wisner fall off an early, hexagonal 4047 that didn't include the current locking mechanism. He listened to the fading sound of his camera (and lens) bouncing down the walls of the Grand Canyon.

With that said, all my heads have the same hexagonal mechanism.

Another possibility that deserves consideration is the Manfrotto 3057. No longer available, I believe that it's the second most heavy duty head that Bogen has produced. It's rated up to 22lbs, whereas the 3039 is rated to 26lbs. It also uses the hexagonal mechanism. It's a trifle heavier, and about 3/4" shorter.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Thanks guys. The Manfrotto 3039 looks like a good head. I just wish it didn't have the hexagonal QR system. I had one of the hex plates on a ball head for a bit and didn't care for it. But that was for use with smaller cameras. Ari, thanks for the heads up on the one for sale here - I've sent him a PM to buy it.

I hadn't considered a wooden tripod. I'll start researching the Berlebach and Ries ones now. It's possible all I would need is the Berlebach with the leveling ball. It's an interesting idea.

[DrTang]

You know what's an under rated tripod? a Quick-set Hercules

I picked one up for 75 bucks w/o a head.. and screwed on a Manfrotto head

it's heavy duty, light weight and is pretty compact - I keep it in my trunk

then you can look for a head that will fit your arca swiss clamp

[Bernice Loui]

Check to see if there are any loose parts on your current tripod and tripod head. If there is anything loose, resolve that problem and try again before considering a replacement tripod.

Been using an old Davis & Sanford rectangular two section leg tripod with the geared center section and Sinar pan tilt head for years, low cost, extremely rigid, not too heavy, rugged, durable and leg ends that covert from flat to point. It many not be pretty after being used for over 20+ years, but it simply gets the job done.

This Davis & Sanford with Sinar Pan Tilt head supports a Sinar 5x7 C or P with no problems. Tried a Gitzo Studex 5 with the Sinar Pan Tilt head, it is heavier, bulkier, cost much more and not much better if at all.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh Larry ... wish I could convert you to the headless camp - but you've probably already
got me pegged as at least brainless. You've got a lot of extension with a big 3 shutter and
moderately heavy lens. Going headless is way more stable, and you can still use a quick
release system if it is itself sufficiently rigid. Otherwise, I ditto the recommendation of the
Sinar pan/tilt. This is more an issue than the tripod itself.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Bernice, I have checked the tripod and it's all tight. But it's possible it wasn't when I was taking the images. At time I forget to tighten the ball down all the way. The drag holds it pretty still. But it's happened on enough images I think my tripod is just barely acceptable for the load. Of course it may be just the head that's overloaded. I'll look into the Sinar pan tilt heads. Combined with a leveling base they look good.

Drew, I am actually still considering the going with tripod with the leveling base. I actually have one for my Feisol, but I've only used it with a video head. I may remove the video head and try screwing the camera directly on. Then I can at least try out working that way. It doesn't have the movements the Berlebach ball does, but I image it will give me an idea of how it feels to work that way.

[Lenny Eiger]

I think the only thing with a quick release that would be good enough are the higher end ones. I have a Novoflex that is really tight that I use for med format. However, I don't use it for the 4x5 and 8x10. I use a Gitzo three-way head. I am really happy with it. I tried the ball, but it isn't the same way of working, and it makes more sense (to my mind).

I would agree with the others that pretty much any tripod can be stable, to a point, at least. Even with the MQC, the front and rear standards aren't that solid. The bellows is like a sail in the wind. My guess is that you have wind, and it isn't the tripod at all... unless the head is fully broken and its just tipping over while you take the shot.

I've used this same lens as a long lens on my 8x10 and the images are crisp with my all-Gitzo setup... there isn't any reason you can't at least match this.

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

Disagree with you there. The greater mass of a typical 8x10 absorbs vibrations better.
I can use a 450 all day long in my 4x5 Norma, which is probably quite a bit more rigid than
the Canham, but I can't even use a 360 in a no.3 shutter without some sharpness loss.
With 8x10, that's fully dampened even with a 600 in no.3. Per wind - sometimes there's
simply no substitute for a big wooden tripod, but carbon fiber with a bag of rocks hanging
from it would be my second choice.

[Randy]

Gosh Larry ... wish I could convert you to the headless camp...Can you elaborate? I am assuming you use a tripod with out a tripod head, just mount the camera directly to the top of the tripod...? I have an old Zone VI that I was going to use for my 8X10 but I was getting some flex in the wood at the top where the head was mounted, so I just put the head back on the Bogen tripod. Can you offer any advice on using the Zone VI with out a head before I get rid of it?

[Drew Wiley]

The Zone VI was just a modified survey tripod. Gave mine to a friend with a telescope.
But it has a nice flat top, which is good in this respect. Just plop the camera on it. Later
you can try a quick release if needed. The 3/8 bolt comes up from the bottom, just as on
a Ries (you can add them to other kinds of tripods too). I takes a bit of practice, but you
simply move the legs as needed to aim the camera. Works for everything escept straight
down. Surveyors did this for decades, and they had to be absolutely precise. The flaw with
the Zone VI was that it was suspectible to water damage. I took a piece of finely laminated marine plywood and marine glue and reinforced the top of mine when I had it.
Legs tended to freeze up (literally) in Winter, which the more expensive Ries won't. The
thing is to just practice with headless, first on fairly level ground, until you get the hang
of it. After awhile if becomes instinctive and almost as fast as having a head, with far less
vibration.

[Randy]

Thanks Drew. I suspected that was what you were suggesting but this is the first I had heard of photographers using tripods in this manner. My Zone VI has the larger bolt coming through the top plate but my camera uses the 3/8" bolt (or does my camera use a 1/4" and the tripod has the 3/8"). I wonder if there is a source for the bolt/knob/and clip that holds it to the tripod top plate? I am anxious to give this a try.

[Bernice Loui]

Seriously consider moving away from a ball head when using a view camera. During my early view camera days, it did not take long before learning that any ball head (including the big Arca Swiss) makes leveling and adjusting the camera position extremely difficult due to the ball head allowing movement in more than two axis. Get a stout and rigid pan/tilt head, it will make positioning the camera easier.

*Leveling the tripod when it is set up helps reduce frustration when the camera is moved after it is mounted on the tripod head.

*One of the nice features of the Davis & Sanford (and others that are similar) they use a large diameter center section with a joint that clamps around the round center section. Note how the Majestic geared pan/tilt head (do consider of of these if the weight and size is acceptable) is jointed to the center section of the tripod. I'm not a fan of using 1/4" x 20 threads to connect the tripod head to the tripod. Use the 3/8" x 16 hardware when possible and snug it up with a wrench.

The other thing to consider is platform size. It needs to be large enough to properly support the tripod head.

Adding weight to the center column will help to add stability. If this is done hang the weight as low as possible.

Leveling heads have been used by the Cine and Video folks for a long time.

Keep in mind that the longer the view camera is extended, the more the tripod head and tripod acts as a pivot to sea-saw on (aka fulcrum of a lever). On a mono rail camera, adding a support strut that goes from the camera's extended rail to one of the tripod legs will do wonders to stabilize the camera when using extended rail length (typical with long focal length lenses).


Bernice



Bernice, I have checked the tripod and it's all tight. But it's possible it wasn't when I was taking the images. At time I forget to tighten the ball down all the way. The drag holds it pretty still. But it's happened on enough images I think my tripod is just barely acceptable for the load. Of course it may be just the head that's overloaded. I'll look into the Sinar pan tilt heads. Combined with a leveling base they look good.

[Freezer]

I just got a Manfrotto 405 and put it on a RRS -33 tripod. Wow, I never thought I'd like a tripod and head so much! The precision in the geared head is really nice, and I find myself thinking more about precise composition. The process of using the head is really enjoyable with a great tool like the 405, and I like it much better than a ball head. I highly recommend it.

[Drew Wiley]

If going headless you can use any turnknob of the appropriate thread size, provided you have some kind of clip to capture it. Some hardware stores carry them, or there's a large selection on McMaster.com. 3/8-16 is standard for large cameras.

[Ed Bray]

As I stated on another thread, I have 2x Manfrotto 410 geared heads and a 405 geared head. I also have a Canham MQC5x7 and again have the 450mm f9 Nikkor I have no problem at all using this camera/lens combination on a 410 head, in fact I prefer the 410 heads to the 405 as the 405 has a higher profile and the camera does not seem as steady on it as it does on a 410.

I find the 410 head on a Gitzo GT2531LVL the perfect lightweight combination. I have the 405 on a Manfrotto 058.

[Greg Y]

Larry, I probably sound like the proverbial broken record here, but I can't see balancing a view camera on a small head with a QR plate. I bought a Ries head about 15 years ago with my first view camera, & it is my perfect example of what size plate is a good connection for a view camera. I use the A250 & have mounted 4x10, 4x5, & Deardorff 5x7 & 8x10 cameras on it. The single tilt head is about $200 and the double tilt a little over $300. Cameras mount quickly & easily & more important and stable.

[Robert Langham]

I've got that exact lens and a set of Gitzo carbon fiber legs. Tried the ball heads...couple of them. Finally bought a number 4 pan head for 40.00 off ebay. It holds the Deardorff nice and still even with the 450. I see those on Ebay all the time. Nearly doubled the weight of my tripod though.....

85242 85243

I'm just screwing it on. Seemed to me that part of the problem was the QR plate. Gotta lotta contact now.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Well I got the Manfrotto 3039 yesterday. The head is pretty solid and I do like the three way adjustments. But I tried to mount the Canham on the hex plate and there just isn't enough metal around the mounting hole for the hex plate to grip. So I ended up mounting a kirk quick release clamp to the hex plate and then the camera to that. Now it's less steady than the ball head I have been using. I see Kirk has a QR clamp machined with a hex plate in the base, but it's almost twice what I paid for the head. Still might be worth the expense.

I really wish Manfrotto would make their heads with removable QR clamps so I could just but a Kirk or RRS clamp on there. Or just not use a QR system at all.

In the meantime I'll try the camera on the leveling plate of the tripod. It might be all I really need. Hopefully I'll get to take it out this weekend for a spin. But if it doesn't work this thread has given me a lot of good ideas to investigate. Thanks

[Ari]

Larry, you might need the same thing I'm looking for, a Manfrotto 030L plate.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?97742-WTB-Manfrotto-030-Large-Bed-Plate

I found one in Australia, but shipping is expensive.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Ari, that looks like it would work. Too bad Manfrotto doesn't seem to make them anymore, but they are on the Manfrotto site. http://www.manfrotto.com/100x100-large-bed-plate