Hi Stuart,
If your tripod/camera setup in the post above is typical of what you're doing, I think that you should take the option of a fluid head seriously. It would make setting up that shot fast and easy, with no strain on you. If you hike long distances, it's perhaps not the best solution, but otherwise it's worth investigating.
Thanks, I guess I would say it is not typical, but not atypical either. I am not really photographing the standard landscape at infinity with the camera perfectly level all the time, although I do that. I try to use the 8x10 as I might use a medium format or 35mm camera, or at least in terms of not shying away from different angles and perspectives. The photo below was taken very close to the ground...as low as I could get the tripod to go while being stable...I would have preferred to be lower, but I am not sure how to do that with a conventional tripod and head.
A fixed deflection giving say 0.01mm of movement at a distance of 0.5" from the point of rotation would also give 0.1mm of movement at a distance of 5" from the point of rotation.Originally Posted by Kiwi7475
If the plate moves a little between the camera and the plate, a narrow plate's movement would be amplified by the extra distance to the edge of the film.
I don't know how hard someone would be willing to tighten the screw(s) holding the plate to the bottom of a wood camera. I mostly use an all-metal camera (Canham) and I'm pretty willing to get the screws torqued tight.
Sounds like the profile of the jaws might not perfectly match the profile of the dovetail on the plate, so there is a little too much deflection under force. Or maybe the moving half of the jaw is moving up and down a tiny bit ... In either case contacting RRS might lead to a satisfactory solution.
The plate linked to on the bhphotovideo website looks nice.
The bottom of the camera is carbon fiber, so it is pretty strong. I am not trained in physics or engineering, so I cannot explain it, but in this context, when you have the full 4 inches square of platform head hitting the full 4 inches of camera bottom, it couples the camera to the head much better than through the much much smaller area that is connected via a quick release plate. I am not good at explaining it, but it makes sense to my foggy artist's brain. If you mount the camera to the BH55 with a quick release plate, the camera will not move if you grab the edges and try to push it, but it will flex back and forth quite a bit. If you try the same thing on the Ries head, the camera will not flex nearly as much. It also shows fewer vibrations when you tap on the tripod legs while touching the camera. Basically, it is a lot better damped. Anyway, it is super late here, perhaps I am not being clear. I basically want that level of rigidity with an easier to use solution.
You might consider a ground tripod, such as this one that RRS makes. There's a photo of it in post #3, second photo. This photo adds a 150mm riser, which provides additional latitude to set the tripod's height.
And if you want to get really low...
I almost never perfectly level a camera. Sometimes i do have to attentive to a horizon line like the ocean, or a line of a building. To point steeply down "headless", I use a very stiff stainless L angle tapped on each side. It's more stable than any tripod head in right angle usage, but considerably lighter and more compact to carry. It does takes a couple more minutes to set up.
Further to post #15, these videos show two ground tripods that compete with RRS's. Due to how this forum works, I've split the videos into two posts. Benro and Induro appear be two different brands of the same company. The Benro, which is made of aluminium rather than carbon fibre, is about half the price of the RRS and Induro.
The camera operator in the Benro video is using a Benro fluid head, but one could use any tripod head with it. The term "Hi-Hat" comes from filmmaking, as does the octagon board that's referred to in the video. The Induro video uses a stills camera. I think that the Benro and Induro tripods are basically the same design, mostly differing in that the Benro is aluminium and the Induro is carbon fibre.
I haven't checked the specs, but the Benro and Induro appear to have a lower maximum working height than the RRS shown in posts #3 and #15. All three tripods can be used with both a flat top and a bowl top.
Benro Hi-Hat:
Induro Baby Grand:
Maybe I have missed something:
Does anyone use this gear with a largwe format view camera and film?
Drew Bedo
www.quietlightphoto.com
http://www.artsyhome.com/author/drew-bedo
There are only three types of mounting flanges; too big, too small and wrong thread!
Try actually reading the thread. You could start with post #3 and the third photo in that post.
Here's the photo, again, plus two additional photos from other angles. This would be an Arca-Swiss large format 4x5 film camera. This setup also works well for my 8x10 configuration of the camera. I use the Nikkor-W f/5.6 240mm lens in the photo with both configurations.
It appears that you also have a problem with me talking about ground tripods. My comments about ground tripods are a direct response to the following from the original poster: "The photo below was taken very close to the ground...as low as I could get the tripod to go while being stable...I would have preferred to be lower, but I am not sure how to do that with a conventional tripod and head."
Did you not read that either?
My posts in this thread are an attempt to be helpful and constructive. You've made it clear in a number of threads that you don't like my ideas. Fine, but I'm tired of the two line cracks. They don't contribute anything to the discussion, and it's getting really annoying.
Last edited by r.e.; 10-Aug-2021 at 19:50.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks