Arca Cube Take 2

[Tim Gray]

I've had one of these little gems for about a month now, but won't have subjected it to any serious use until later this month when I spend a week at Pacific Rim National Park on Vancouver Island, but thought I'd share a couple of observations.

My previous head was a Markins with an Acratech leveling head. If the problem you're trying to solve is getting the head level, the Acratech is a viable alternative, the only minor quibble is that it's almost impossible to lock the base sufficiently so that it doesn't slip when carrying your tripod horizontally (but this isn't a big issue).  The Arca is about 100 grams heavier than the combined Markins Acratech.

I've gotten used to the 2 stage mechanism of the release the clamp, but the second release mechanism isn't as ergonomically attractive as is the rest of the cube, I have to make sure I have a bit of a finger nail available to get traction on the serrated pin.  Ironically, it's a little easier with light gloves.

If you're attracted to gadgets such as this, the chances are very high that you'll be happy with it.

[MichaelGolob]

I've gotten used to the 2 stage mechanism of the release the clamp, but the second release mechanism isn't as ergonomically attractive as is the rest of the cube, I have to make sure I have a bit of a finger nail available to get traction on the serrated pin.  Ironically, it's a little easier with light gloves.

Seems you aren't the only one with the issue about the Arca Swiss Cube clamp.  A solution to the issue can be found here:

http://diglloyd.com/articles/Recommended/t...aSwissCube.html

I took him up on his suggestion.  Seems like it will work for me.

[Ben Rubinstein]

There are ballheads which do not feature the locking droop which first drove the author of the article to the cube. The manfrotto 468MG head is one from my own experience. Locks with half a turn and no droop whatsoever. I'm now using an RRS BH-40 which although superior in every other way for my needs, annoyingly does feature the dreaded droop.

[stever]

The RRS BH-40 is the only RRS product i've encountered which is not satisfactory.  The Markins is better (although definitely not droop-free), but the bubble hidden when the camera is mounted is pretty stupid.

Using a rail on top of the ballhead so the camera and lens are balanced helps.

I find myself more often using a RRS monopod head on top of their panning clamp or the 4th Generation Mongoose lightweigt gimble (with the accessory level that should be standard) - always with a RRS L-bracket and usually a 6 inch rail.  i'd rather adjust a tripod leg than screw around with a droopy ballhead.

My yet end up with a Multiflex as a don't like the idea of buying any more ball heads.  Or maybe just a leveling base - how about a nice compact combination leveling base and panning clamp?

[pshambroom]

This head seems like serious overkill if all that is needed is controlled geared adjustments. The photos in the article with a DSLR made me laugh, until I released they weren't meant to be jokes. The Bogen 410 geared head works fine for me for medium format film, 4X5 field cameras, and most any DSLR:
http://www.bogenimaging.us/code/bius/410

[feppe]

From the sound of the article it looks like I'd be paying around $2k to get a tripod head without droopage. That's at least twice as much as a very good ballhead. I can't imagine the day when I'm willing to pay twice as much for a tripod head which weighs much more, has more moving parts, and is bulkier, just for the entirely inconsequential convenience of not having droopage.

[eleanorbrown]

I have both the RRS 55 and the RRS 40, tho I use the 40 most of the time.  I shoot landscape with an H2/P65+ and lenses up to H210mm.  I have never had an issue with not getting very sharp images with this ball head.  Naturally if it is windy the RRS 55 is more reliable.  I have never had any need for anything heavier or more elaborate. I've had the big Arca Swiss head lock up on me in very cold weather...never had any issues with any RRS ball heads under any circumstances in any kind of weather.  They work beautifully and are build like tanks.   Eleanor

[pindman]

Loved the Arca C1 in Zion with the Phase One 645 and a Cambo WRS.  Mine is only a few months old.  It's very quick to level, and I find it faster than a ball head.

Different plates require different adjustments inthe width of the clamp.  It WILL apart in the field, as mine did.  It would have been very easy to design this so the screw wouldn't come out.  I just put the RRS clamp on mine today.  It's inexcusable that something this expensive would require modification in order to be functional!

Paul

[daws]

Looks like a rock-solid piece of gear -- but I'm trying to figure out what this $1700 Arca Cube can do for my Canon 5DII that my rock-solid $200 Bogen 410 geared head atop my rock-solid $150 Acratech leveling base can't.  

[Wayne Fox]

Looks like a rock-solid piece of gear -- but I'm trying to figure out what this $1700 Arca Cube can do for my Canon 5DII that my rock-solid $200 Bogen 410 geared head atop my rock-solid $150 Acratech leveling base can't.  

good point.  This is one of those things that you have to try to appreciate, and tough to fork out that much money to try.  And even after trying, it's certainly not for everyone .. there are many other options such as yours that work very well.

After buying one I will admit I agree with the well written review ... it is truly pleasure to work with.  And I have no problem with the the lever/clamp design, once I figured it out.  I believe I like it better than the one on my RRS BH-55, although they are both very good.

[Wayne Fox]

But have you (or anyone else reading here) compared it to the Manfrotto/Bogen geared 410? I would like to know at what point this piece of gear is worth its premium price over the modestly priced 410. To me the Arca Cube seems much more prone to dust and sand getting into it than the Manfrotto 410. This would make the 410 much more usable in the field. It is quicker to adjust too, due to the fact that the gears can be lifted for rough adjustment. I have this 410 myself and have used it successfully for many years with all kinds of heavy camera's. No droop either and still functioning without any play in the gears.

Well, I can't answer you question specifically ... just a imho statement.

Bottom line, I think the cube will be better.  I grabbed a 410 geared head here at the shop, and it doesn't feel as solid as the cube..  It's features are great, and it's a fine head, but bottom line it's center of gravity is very high and off centered from the tripod.  You can grab the head and and torque it and see some give.  Bottom line, in a blustery day it's not going to be as solid as the cube.

The adjustments aren't as fine and smooth.  Probably good enough, but definitely not the same precision.  I believe the feature that lifts the gears is actually a negative ... it just doesn't take that long to adjust with the knobs and constant lifting of gears and releasing them so they have to "slide" into position certainly will add some wear.  Admittedly maybe not enough to ever affect the performance.

The cube is far more flexible to me, adding some capabilities the 410 won't have.  The pivoting quick release mount assembly which is compatible with Arca Swiss mounts is a much better option, especially for those who have discovered the amazing L brackets by RRS.  Doing panos with just the head is easy to do since you can literally get the camera perfectly flat on all axis and then rotate it the clamp assembly.  Add on a rail to position the nodal point/entrance pupil over the head, and you are good to go. certainly you could add a rotating clamp to the top of the 410 and accomplish similar results, but then you are increasing your center of gravity even more.

As far as the cube, I would say the dust/dirt problem is one of those things that looks like it will be a big issue, and really isn't.  Obviously if you drop the head in sand and then just start cranking away perhaps, but it easy to keep things cleaned out ... just a puff with the rocket blower does the job.

So now I've said all that, I will openly admit the price difference is extreme (we have the 410 at $229.95) and the head is a nice choice for a geared head and will deliver great results if used wisely.  I don't think it will perform as well as a really good ball head, let alone the cube, but then that will depend on the camera and conditions, and the practices of the photographer.

[Kirk Gittings]

Looks like a rock-solid piece of gear -- but I'm trying to figure out what this $1700 Arca Cube can do for my Canon 5DII that my rock-solid $200 Bogen 410 geared head atop my rock-solid $150 Acratech leveling base can't.  

For along time I just used the 410 on my 4x5  and tried numerous ball heads for my DSLR work. I never however took the plunge for an Arca Cube (there is always one more lens to buy for nearly that price or a nice trip). Eventually all the ballheads were forgotten, sold or traded and now I have the 410 on all my tripods.......for the price.....well it simply works.....even under adverse conditions (sub-zero, wet etc.) and takes a hell of a beating too. Every couple of years under heavy use you have to take the gear covers off and adjust the slack out of them-but no real problem there. The 410 is a workhorse and the favorite of many professional architectural photographers like myself and Chris Barrett who also posts here.

[JeffKohn]

I think suggesting that the Cube is the answer to ballhead creep/drooping is a little bit silly. I don't know about the smaller ballheads, but a good full-sized ballhead like the RRS BH-55  or Markins M20 doesn't have a problem with drooping. The problem with ballheads is lack of precision.

A geared head is far superior when it comes to making small adjustments for very precise framing; especially when you want to be able to adjust one axis while leaving the others alone. If you've ever been annoyed while trying to change camera tilt without affecting your level horizon when using a ballhead, you'll love using a geared head.

Of course there are several geared heads on the market, so the question is what does the Cube get you over a Manfrotto 405 or 410 that costs 1/3-1/4 the price.

I haven't used the Manfrotto 410 "Junior", but I have used the Manfrotto 405 a bit in addition to using the Cube, so I feel I can make a comparison. I don't think the geared movements on the 410 are any less precise than the Cube.  Also, some may like that the 405/410 have geared panning.

Where the Cube comes out on top:

- It's smaller and lighter than even the 410 (and weighs about half what the 405 weighs). The cube is about the same height and weight as a RRS BH-55, although it's a bit thicker owing to the square shape.
- The Cube keeps the camera centered over the tripod and has a low center of gravity for maximum stability.
- I think the Cube can support more weight. Realistically the 410 can support enough weight for most situations, though.
- The Cube has two panning movements, on bottom and top. This can be convenient, especially when shooting panos.
- The Cube uses Arca-style QR system, which is far superior to Manfrotto's. There are ways to adapt the Manfrotto heads for Arca-style clamp, but it's kludgy.

Are those things worth the price premium? For some yes, for others no. I do think the Cube is over-priced (the asking price for the shitty leather case should tell you something about the company's markups); but I also think it's better than any other head I've used, so I guess they can charge what they want.  Like most high-end gear, you hit a point of diminishing returns.

After reading this latest review, it was interesting to see some in-depth information on the Photoclam knockoff. I think I would probably go with it, if I were buying now (and in fact I'm seriously considering buying one to go on my other tripod).

[BernardLanguillier]

I use my 410 on a leveling base, so when rotated horizontally it will always stay perfectly horizontal, without adding extra height to the top for a rotation disk. If your main activity is making panorama's I would suggest to take a leveling base with just a rotation disk and a rail BTW. That's a lot more convenient and affordable than using an expensive geared head as a leveler, without any nodal point correction.

I find this baby to be an even better option.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Josh-H]

I Find the full size RRS ballhead exceptional for my 1DSMK3 with anything up to a 70-200mm F2.8L IS (without any droop) - at a significant cost saving to the ridiculously priced Arca Cube. If I want to mount the 300mm F2.8 IS I use the Wembly side kick connected to the RRS Ballhead; which is a way better option for this type of lens as it gives a virtually weightless user experience. And both of these still cost less than the Arca Cube (and weigh less).

Its worth noting that heads like the full size RRS have a torque adjustment - so you actually set the tension on the head. This makes small micro adjustments very easy - in fact virtually as easy as a geared head without the limitations of a geared device.

[JeffKohn]

And both of these still cost less than the Arca Cube (and weigh less).

The BH-55 weighs .13 lbs less than the Cube, which is pretty much negligible. Add a leveling base or PCL to the BH-55 to make up for not having two panning movements, and the Cube will be lighter.

Its worth noting that heads like the full size RRS have a torque adjustment - so you actually set the tension on the head. This makes small micro adjustments very easy - in fact virtually as easy as a geared head without the limitations of a geared device.

I don't see how anybody could say this unless they've never used a geared head.

[Wayne Fox]

I don't see how anybody could say this unless they've never used a geared head.

Exactly. There is no ball  head made that allows the precision of a cube and you don't appreciate it until you've used it a while.  Not everyone needs the precision, and certainly sometimes speed is the more important factor.  The BH-55 is a much better option for doing people picture.  For wildlife or other action type photography, the wimberly is certainly the best option, but it isn't solid enough for high end landscape work.

I have a wimberly, the BH-55, now the Cube, and have access to and have tested the 405 and the 410.

The 410 is a nice geared head, but it's too big, it's off-centered, and it's center of gravity is so high I would prefer the BH-55.  No, I haven't measured anything, but it certainly doesn't feel any where close to as solid with the camera mounted as either the BH-55 or the cube.

Don't discount how good this head is just because it's so expensive. The way it is made is much different than mass produced heads which is part of the reason for the cost.  

 Is it worth the extra cost?  Not to all, but I'm glad I bought one.  It will last decades, so the overall amortized cost isn't that extreme.

[Fine_Art]

Its a nice looking piece of equipment. The price is absurd though.
Here is a geared head from a telescope equipment supplier.
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=43...mp;kw=&st=0