Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?  (Read 6942 times)

lowep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • http://sites.google.com/site/peterlowefoto/
Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« on: January 27, 2010, 02:08:42 pm »

I hear that as you go up in MPs the risk of camera shake also goes up.  Is it true or not?

I have used a classic Manfrotto silver jubilee tripod like this one to shoot MF film and DSLR. Now I am trying to figure out if it is adequate in terms of weight and size for shooting with a cable release at for me slow shutter speeds like 1/15th, 1/8th 1/4th of a second with a 45mm or 80mm Zeiss lenses on a Contx 645 body with a 33MP eMotion75 back.

I hope so.

The reason I am so paranoid about this is that I want to eliminate camera shake as a variable before I try to tackle other questions such as how to evaluate the image from a RAW file on my LCD before sharpening and all the other stuff is done. How is it possible to distinguish the difference between a crappy shaky or out of focus image on a tiny LCD and a sharp well-focussed image that looks like crap on the LCD but just needs post processing to look like a million dollars?

Before going through the process of trying to borrow a variety of tripod(s) to compare results from a test shoot I would be happy for any ballpark guesses or even better expert advice or experiences regarding what is the minimum weight and size tripod required for a MFDB system like this one?

Just for shooting indoor portraits - not in a blizzard.

If this question is a common one please point me to any link that deals with this issue.

Thanks
Logged

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2010, 04:39:00 pm »

You could test the tripod by comparing MLU shots with mirror shake shots... also try using the timer (or radio remote) instead on the cable release.
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2010, 06:34:22 pm »

Quote from: lowep
I hear that as you go up in MPs the risk of camera shake also goes up.  Is it true or not?

In itself the sensor of the back has a pretty low pixel density per surface area compared to most DSLRs. So all other things being equal, it should be less demanding as far as tapping into the resolution potential goes. Now all other things are not always equal since:

- MF systems using shutter planes generate more vibrations since the shutter system is larger and typically lower tech that those of DSLRs (read less optimized materials). Using lens shutters is one easy way to mitigate this if your system has such lenses,
- They tend to be heavier which is going to affect one way or another the vibration behavior of the tripod+head+body system (heavier is often better). Only testing or advanced simulation will enable you to figure that one out,
- The tolerances that I had between my Mamiya ZD and lenses were not very tight, which appeared to worsen vibration issues...

Quote from: lowep
I have used a classic Manfrotto silver jubilee tripod like this one to shoot MF film and DSLR. Now I am trying to figure out if it is adequate in terms of weight and size for shooting with a cable release at for me slow shutter speeds like 1/15th, 1/8th 1/4th of a second with a 45mm or 80mm Zeiss lenses on a Contx 645 body with a 33MP eMotion75 back.

The reason I am so paranoid about this is that I want to eliminate camera shake as a variable before I try to tackle other questions such as how to evaluate the image from a RAW file on my LCD before sharpening and all the other stuff is done. How is it possible to distinguish the difference between a crappy shaky or out of focus image on a tiny LCD and a sharp well-focussed image that looks like crap on the LCD but just needs post processing to look like a million dollars?

It is not. DSLR are significantly ahead on this acount thks to live view for 100% accurate focusing and instant pixel leve image check combined with high resolution screens. I used to experience a lot fewer critically focused images with MF than with 35mm bodies.

My question though would be: why shoot portrait at these difficult shutter speeds? I would think that correct lighting should enable you to use much faster shutter speed, shouldn't it?

Quote from: lowep
Just for shooting indoor portraits - not in a blizzard.

Your tripod should IMHO be fine for shooting portrait.

Cheers,
Bernard

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2010, 06:53:21 pm »

I have successfully used my Phase camera on a Gitzo 1 series CF pod (the 1541), but kept it relatively low to the ground.  However, my regular pod is a 3 series (3541 XLS) specifically chosen to avoid any massive tripod issues.  Also, you should note that in most cases carbon fiber pods isolate vibrations better than aluminum pods, and some folks claim heavy wooden tripods damp the best.  So it's a tradeoff on cost, weight, rigidity and vibration damping capability.  Next, keep in mind it's all about rigidity in your entire tripod system, which includes the legs, head and mounting plates, not just the leg-set!  

Here is a link where we discussed the entire component system, tripod, head and camera plates at some length with some ad-hock testing thrown in. Note that this is a lengthy thread where the OP was suggesting his new Cube didn't work well, when in the end it was his tripod and mounting plates, but he was being very stubborn about believing that so avoided trying a different arrangement. Thus you need to get through a few pages before he actually accepts that he needs to try a better pod and plates, does and finally has superior results: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8373
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 07:04:40 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2010, 07:58:23 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
some folks claim heavy wooden tripods damp the best.
even light wood tripods.
I use 2 wood tripods ("portable", not one of those 6Kg plus studio instruments) and recently also bought a carbon. The carbon, fully extended (but without the center column extended) is, of course, solid enough. But you have to wait much longer until the entire unit is steady.
On the wood tripods I can do everything with the 2'' timer. Really. Wood absorbs vibration much faster.
Basically wood tripods also have less extensions (carbon 3 or 4 extensions when wood need just 1 or 2 extensions for the same height); this adds significantly to the stability (especially, but not only, if you shoot from bridges or any ground that is not really free from shake).
But the smaller number of extensions also add to worse portability, of course (at least if we talk about a tripod that can go up to 2 meters height or higher).
If carrying the tripod is not an issue I almost always use the big single extension wood tripod (going over 2m height).
If carrying is an issue but I don't expect to go higher than 1,8 meters height I take my mid size double extension wood tripod.
If carrying is an issue and I want to be sure that I am able to go way over 1,8 meters height I take the carbon.
So the carbon is actually on the third place ... but the costs are three times higher than the comparable wood tripod.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 08:01:07 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

lowep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • http://sites.google.com/site/peterlowefoto/
Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2010, 05:05:02 am »

If tripod weight is an issue and vibration is also an issue - isn't the advantage of the lower vibration of a carbon fibre tripod compared to an aluminium one wiped out by the disadvantage of it having less weight?

Thanks very much for the useful tips and advice.  

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2010, 08:38:26 am »

Quote from: lowep
If tripod weight is an issue and vibration is also an issue - isn't the advantage of the lower vibration of a carbon fibre tripod compared to an aluminium one wiped out by the disadvantage of it having less weight?

Some basic concepts:

- weight is resistance to movement, so heavier is basically better indeed,
- vibrations are the periodic movement resulting from a force applied to the system from internal (shutter,...) or external influences (wind, push in release). Each system has some vibration frequences that they are more likely to react poorely too (called resonnance). In general, the more rigid the system, the faster these frequences are.

The best thing about carbon over aluminium is that these special frequencies are very high, much higher than any typical photographic excitation. The result is that vibrations are damped out much better/faster with carbon tripods than with aluminum ones that are more flexible.

Still, even with a carbon tripod increasing the resistance to movement is basically a good idea. If the tripod is light, you can always make the system heavier by adding weight to it thanks to a hook,...

Cheers,
Bernard

lowep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • http://sites.google.com/site/peterlowefoto/
Re: Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2010, 03:41:36 pm »

Just found this useful OEM calculator on the Manfrotto website designed to help calculate which tripod is suitable for which camera system.

No idea how the calculator works  ??? but at least it is useful for eliminating some models from consideration.
Logged

Jim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
    • http://
Re: Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2010, 03:07:34 am »

Still, even with a carbon tripod increasing the resistance to movement is basically a good idea. If the tripod is light, you can always make the system heavier by adding weight to it thanks to a hook,..

Sorry to go a bit off topic here. I have always thought that putting a weight on the tripod is risky since the dangling weight is prone to wind and would add to introducing more movement. therefore I have always avoided ie. never tried, using additional weight. Besides usually the only weight I have is the empty camera shoulder bag. I tried pushing down the tripod with my arm, but I think that introduced shake from my arm also.
Logged

cbthomas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2010, 04:32:06 am »

An old rule of thumb that I always heard passed around was your support system needed to be twice the weight of the camera and lens, and that the head should be less than 50% of the support system's weight.  Using that standard, if your camera weight 6lbs, you need a tripod and head to weight at least 12lbs and be able to support the total weight of 18lbs.  With Carbon fiber legs and careful attention to the platform and wind conditions, I'm sure you can relax that a bit and get closer to 1:1 on weight, adding some by hanging if needed.

Sorry to go a bit off topic here. I have always thought that putting a weight on the tripod is risky since the dangling weight is prone to wind and would add to introducing more movement. therefore I have always avoided ie. never tried, using additional weight. Besides usually the only weight I have is the empty camera shoulder bag. I tried pushing down the tripod with my arm, but I think that introduced shake from my arm also.

I've always hung my camera backpack by securing the shoulder straps and top handle to each tripod leg independently with velcro straps.  I've also used a carabiner to link the two shoulder straps and hang it on outside of the legs, around the center column of the tripod.  This usually gives me 10-15lbs extra weight on my tripod and with it secured either way it doesn't sway at all.  You can also take a note from bird/wildlife photogs and target-rifle shooters and use a sandbag on the top of the lens or body to take act as an inertial damper and remove any play in the hardware that might create movement.  I would make sure that 1) your tripod can support all the extra weight of a MF system and a bag hanging from it, and 2) that you be careful not to apply too much weight to the lens and put undue stress on the mount.  I usually use a 4.5lb sandbag strapped over the top of my Pentax 645 body, with just a little resting on the top of lens close to the body.  All that really helps quite a bit since I'm usually shooting long exposures (1-4s) with that camera.
Logged

claudefiddler

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: Minimum tripod size/weight for MFDB?
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2010, 11:04:15 am »

Posted a similar reply at getdpi. I used a Gitzo Recorder for almost three decades with a Linhof 4. I drilled a hole in the bottom of the center post, tied a piece of cord through this hole and would attach my Gregory Denali backpack to the cord. Then I'd pile ten to twenty pounds of ballast onto the pack. The set-up was bombproof and used in very (Brooks Range, Alaska, thousands of miles in the High Sierra, forty mountain ranges in the Great Basin....) remote and difficult situations. Of note is that I've had three monographs of my photos published and made a ton of 32"x40" prints from chromes using this set-up. Camera movement was never a problem.

I've recently replaced the Gitzo with a Really Right Stuff Versa 23 tripod.  Really Right Stuff got everything right with this tripod. This will be my go-to tripod for MFD. It'll also be my ONLY tripod.

I went on tons of climbs with my good friend Galen Rowell. He also eschewed heavy or cumbersome tripods or tripods at all! Galen frequently used anything at his disposal to steady his Nikon. I disagreed with him that this was an adequate approach for exacting work, but then Galen could get to where he wanted or needed to be.  We both agreed that too much gear was not on our menus. Being in the mountains was the main thing.

Claude Fiddler
wildernesslight.com

p.s. My tripod weighed 3 pounds. The Linhof with lens, 6 pounds.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 11:12:00 am by claudefiddler »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up