Originally Posted by
fuegocito
My friend was making the same observation about the jiggly nature of the RR when it's all stretched out and manhandled. I didn't know this before but the common camera rigidity test seems to be mounting camera on whatever tripod system one intend for the camera to sit on, have the camera set up then tug at the front and rear standard and observe the flex. I guess the theory is that translate to how much it potentially vibrates/shakes in windy situations? But is this an absolute truth? Somehow I have never acquired this habit of testing a LF camera since I failed to see the logic in it. My thinking is that in practice I never go jiggling the camera during exposure, and I have rarely photographed in windy environments. Having said that, I totally see the potential validity of the test since obviously different cameras do react differently to this jiggliness test. In my observation it seems to come down to two criterias, one the stiffness of the camera base and two, the tripod head mount. I am basing this observation on owning and using Sinar P/F system, Zone VI, Wisner, Deardorff, Charmonix and the Richard Ritter, and the four tripod head systems I am comparing against, Ries A250, Gitzo PL5, Manfrotto 410, and AS B1 with QR plate. So with the RR810 mounted on the Ries head, it does not budge at all in regular focal length range(150mm-300mm) and expected amount of jiggliness when it's all stretch out (600mm range), and it get slighly more jiggly with Gitzo PL5, and progressively more with Arca B1 and the worst with Manfrotto 410. Charmonix fairs a lot better in this aspect all the way down to Manfrotto 410 since it has a much larger base surface, hence structure rigidness(?) This is also true with classic design like Deardorff. Given this observation, I now uses a large platform to mount my RR whenever possible but I am really liking Ben's idea of using bungy cord to taunt out the flex.
Robert
Bookmarks