interesting head. looks like same type of dual focusers as one would find on telescopes.Originally Posted by Ari
interesting head. looks like same type of dual focusers as one would find on telescopes.
notch codes ? I only use one film...
The half-ball concept is the smartest thing I've seen developed in this category in a long time. Makes way more sense than the usual full bowling ball head for view camera applications. Ball heads are about as logical physics-wise as a dashboard bobble-head; same thing, really - a little stem with a big thing atop it. That's a recipe for instability. And every time I see that kind of thing being used, it seems I get the pushback, "Heck, works great for me", as they wait longer than the next ice age for the thing to settle down.
Heck, works great for me. There’s balls and then there’s balls.
In all seriousness they can be effective tools if sized appropriately and used with understanding of their limitations. Same as everything. Lots of people use them successfully despite disparaging comments
In defence of my balls, it really depends on the tightening mechanism. A decent one can still allow fine movement without being completely floppy.
I like to travel in the back country and weight/size is important...but the same head still works on my more urban forays.
This one (K-20X) strikes a good balance of function, reliability, weight, and strength (for reference, I use it for a Toyo 45A...at 6lbs, it's not light):
https://www.siruiusa.com/index/photo...ml?cid=4&id=18
edited to add: personally, I find those small built-in levellers to be inaccurate. I bought a couple of 3" art levels for $5 and they are much better.
@: non-arca support of the manfrotto 410 : that would put me off to, didn't realize that and it makes it instable to mount the adapter
I don't trust any camera level
All mechanical failures, even my studio Horseman
I find level with my bad eyes, still!
Tin Can
Kessler Crane Kwik Release Receiver on a Hejanar adapter atop a 410.... works great with my 4x5. The Kessler Receiver and Hejnar adapter actually an overkill for the 410. Now saving to acquire a Manfrotto 405 for my whole plate and 8x10
People go nuts trying to afford the smallest and lightest seriously usable field camera, and then put that atop a six pound ball head to acquire sufficient overall rigidity ??? That kind of idea might be fine in a studio, especially if high speed flash is used, but otherwise .... Yeah, Kiwi, I'm quite aware that all kinds of things work if built heavily enough. But the whole concept - an elevated top-heavy stem, adding all the more overall torque, in turn requiring an even heavier tripod leg support below to prevent torsion. Who needs a big studio stand in their backpack? Jes sayin' ....
As far as accurate onboard camera levels go, in the case of sheet film photography, the holder seldom sits dead level and plumb in the rear carrier anyway; nor does film seat itself ideally in the holder either. You still have to correct it all when printing, or after scanning, if that is your cup of tea. I used a pendulum style angle finder for architectural photography. But these new half ball devices are being sold as leveling bases, apparently for sake of panning and digital stitching applications. I think of them instead as an amenity capable of replacing a tripod head altogether, rather than supporting one. But I use neither, and my would patent my "invisible head" headless method if I weren't already applying for a utility patent on my helium filled bellows, which makes the biggest view camera the lightest. Perhaps Goodyear will be interested in investing in it.
Made this a few years ago using optical bench quality solid brass goniometer stages. These are rated for 15lb loading while holding their spec of fraction of a degree stability. It is as good or better than the Arca Swiss "cube".. Absolute hassle to use due to the effort required to make adjustments and honestly this degree of ability is not really needed for the vast majority of camera image needs.
~It just sits these days.
The currently fashionable view camera priorities are the lowest weight/most compact field folder on the lowest weight tripod and all related for the perception of portability and carry over of digital and/or roll film ways. How many discussion on LFF and else where that have been about trying to make a lens work on a camera that was never designed for the target lens that wants to be used?
Yes, there is absolutely a place lowest weight/most compact field folder and all lowest weight/bulk lenses, tripod and all related except as with all things sheet film view camera it is always a trade off.
This is why following fashion is not always ideal, the better way is to establish what is needed, what tools are going to serve best given their specific trade offs and ignore current fashion. There is an aspect of folks marketing this view camera stuff to folks newly interested in this view camera stuff. They are the most vulnerable to current fashion, marketing, believing stuff found in the web and more due to lack of real world experience using any view camera.. Yet, real world experience using a view camera is often not so easy.
Bernice
The Linhof 003664/ 003659 heads were around for a very long time before the DSLR video craze saw every tripod apparently sprout an attempt at a video/ cinema head leveller.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks