How much tripod need we schlepp?

[Hening Bettermann]

Her are the screen shots of 2 shots of Bart's Slanted Edge target, both taken with my new a7r and a Contax Planar 1.7/50 at f/8, distance 40*focal length = 2 m, 372 with 1/10 sec, 303 with 1/8 sec.

One was shot with the camera on a Gitzo 1531, weight 1050 grams if memory serves me (sorry I have no weight at hand), a Fanotec Ezy Leveler leveling base (250 gr ), an 800 gr Linhof 3-way head and an original Arca Swiss dovetail clamp. No extension of the centre column. The tripod was burdened with a backpack containing 3 ½-litre bottles of beer. Alcohol-free beer, so the tripod would not sway for that reason :-)

The other test image was shot from a Gitzo GT 0530, weight 700 gr, max extension of the centre column. NO extra load. On top a plastic 2½-way-head (meaning the 3rd way only works in one direction, by means of a hinge) that was butchered from a no-name cheapo aluminum tripod. To attach its integrated head to the Gitzo, the upper part of the alu tripod centre column was cut off, and an aluminum 3/8" socket welded to the base of the cut-off part. Weight of this part of the construction ca 100 grams.

On top a Markins QR clamp, weight about 80 grams, connected by means of the QR plate/clamp of the cheapo tripod. To make the plate fit tightly in the clamp, I had to cover the engaging part of the former with some Tesa® tape (sic!).

The connection between the head and the Gitzo by means of the welded socket is slightly angled, so I have to use the 2½-way hinge to level the camera (when the tripod is level, as in my living room). The angle is shown exaggerated in the photo of the rig. So the camera is supported only through this hinge, not resting on the tripod head base.

Now - can you see a difference between the 2 test shots?
I have taken 3 shots of either configuration, and all 6 look the same.
I tried to measure the central diffuse grey in the target on my screen (96 dpi) with a ruler and arrived at 17 mm for all of them.
This is in my living room. Wind is another matter...

Add-on:
The camera was mounted to the Arca Swiss (type) dovetail clamps by an RRS L-bracket. This was mounted to the camera so that the left one of the small 'stirrups', which are intended to hold the camera neck strap, is squeezed tightly between the bracket and the camera body. 

[jeffreybehr]

Hmm...interesting.  I can offer only some probably useless anecdotes, since I'm a relative novice, having been a fotog for only c. 15 years and some of that not very active.

I have had Canon DSLRs--D30s, D60s, a 1Ds, a 5D, and a 6D--and now, just this month, a Sony a7R.  I've had normal-size (that is, largest tube diameter of c. 1") CF tripods by Gitzo, Velbon, etc.  When I had the 1Ds and a 200/F1.8, I bought and carried a heavier, stiffer Gitzo 1349.  When I got more active in fotography with the 6D, I bought another heavy-duty (1.27"/32mm-leg-diameter) Gitzo, a GT3532LS.  I've used mostly Kirk ballheads over the years, currently a BH-3 (I think; it might be a '2).  No matter now heavy the tripod, I've managed never NOT to take it with, but I've sure left some heavy lenses home or in the car.  That said, I wish my tripod/BH were lighter than the current system's 5 pounds, 9 ounces/2.5Kilos.  Maybe I'll trade it for a lighter CF 'pod.

Is the 5-1/2-pound '3532 'enough'?  For me, it's too much for what I put on it.  But for every person like me carrying a 'too-heavy' tripod, there are probably 2 or 3 fotogs wishing their tripods were stiffer.

I'll be following this.

[Paulo Bizarro]

For studio or indoors, one can probably get away with a lighter support? In my case, I often shoot long exposures of seascapes in SW Portugal, which can be very windy. Or start trails... so I need a solid tripod, currently using a Gitzo Basalt series 2, with a Canon 6D and 21mm lens.

Sometimes I also resort to hanging the backpack from the tripod hook, to add extra stabilization.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Her are the screen shots of 2 shots of Bart's Slanted Edge target, both taken with my new a7r and a Contax Planar 1.7/50 at f/8, distance 40*focal length = 2 m, 372 with 1/10 sec, 303 with 1/8 sec.

Hi Hening,

Congratulations with the new gear.

One was shot with the camera on a Gitzo 1531, weight 1050 grams if memory serves me (sorry I have no weight at hand), a Fanotec Ezy Leveler leveling base (250 gr ), an 800 gr Linhof 3-way head and an original Arca Swiss dovetail clamp. No extension of the centre column. The tripod was burdened with a backpack containing 3 ½-litre bottles of beer. Alcohol-free beer, so the tripod would not sway for that reason :-)

The other test image was shot from a Gitzo GT 0530, weight 700 gr, max extension of the centre column. NO extra load. On top a plastic 2½-way-head (meaning the 3rd way only works in one direction, by means of a hinge) that was butchered from a no-name cheapo aluminum tripod. To attach its integrated head to the Gitzo, the upper part of the alu tripod centre column was cut off, and an aluminum 3/8" socket welded to the base of the cut-off part. Weight of this part of the construction ca 100 grams.

On top a Markins QR clamp, weight about 80 grams, connected by means of the QR plate/clamp of the cheapo tripod. To make the plate fit tightly in the clamp, I had to cover the engaging part of the former with some Tesa® tape (sic!).

The connection between the head and the Gitzo by means of the welded socket is slightly angled, so I have to use the 2½-way hinge to level the camera (when the tripod is level, as in my living room). The angle is shown exaggerated in the photo of the rig. So the camera is supported only through this hinge, not resting on the tripod head base.

This will be interesting, not only because we rarely see comparisons between tripods, but also especially given the potential (depends on shutterspeed and mounting position/support) shutter curtain vibrations that are reported for the A7R, which should give the tripod a bit of a challenge.

Now - can you see a difference between the 2 test shots?
I have taken 3 shots of either configuration, and all 6 look the same.
I tried to measure the central diffuse grey in the target on my screen (96 dpi) with a ruler and arrived at 17 mm for all of them.
This is in my living room. Wind is another matter...

Looking at the diameter of the blur disk, image 372 is slightly sharper (92-93 pixels diameter) than 303 (94-95 pixels diameter). The blur pattern of both also seems slightly decentered, but that may be caused by the demosaicing, which seems a bit crude, with zipper artifacts that make it a bit harder to pick a limit. Image 372 resolves almost all the way to the Nyquist frequency (92 pixels diameter), which is very good, especially because f/8 already generates some diffraction blur that affects (reduces contrast of) the highest spatial frequencies. The slight difference in resolution may well be caused by differences in focusing, it's very hard to nail perfect focus all the time, although contrast detect focusing should help

I'm not sure about the orientation of the images, whether the target was shot on its side rotated 90 degrees, or that the camera was instructed to ignore the camera rotation tag upon Raw conversion when shooting in portrait orientation. However, the central blur disk of image 372 seems pretty symmetrical (very slightly reduced horizontal resolution, i.e. slight blur in the vertical direction), so it would not matter too much. Image 303 is a bit harder to judge, but seems to not suffer from any vibration.

A more analytical judgement of horizontal/vertical resolution/blur can be made with the slanted edges, but the zipper artifacts make it difficult to get clean edge detail.

First verdict is that the lens performs well and that image 372 was a hair better focused, but seems to show a tiny bit of camera shake.

Cheers,
Bart

[Martin Kristiansen]

I follow the advice that was attributed to Ansel Adams. That is carry the biggest tripod that you can. I believe he used mules on occasion to help him. I admit to using a yak when in Tibet.

As I get older my tripods get lighter but I still carry the biggest I can.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I follow the advice that was attributed to Ansel Adams. That is carry the biggest tripod that you can. I believe he used mules on occasion to help him. I admit to using a yak when in Tibet.

As I get older my tripods get lighter but I still carry the biggest I can.

Hi Martin,

All true, but Ansel didn't have tripods with carbon fiber legs available ...
Almost as good as wood for dampening vibration, but a lot lighter.

Common sense also goes a long way, keeping the center of gravity low and centered (by using L-plates on camera) also helps, as does adding weight (camera bag, or local material like sand or rocks in a bag) on a hook on location. Spreading the tripod legs to the correct angle also helps

Cheers,
Bart

[Hening Bettermann]

Hi!

Thanks to all of you for your interest, and to Bart for his detailed analysis.
First off: 372, which you (Bart) find slightly sharper, is the one shot with the LIGHT rig!
The target is physically oriented as shown, nothing changed in the converter. - Note also the add-on to my original post.
I will asap try to submit the samples processed by another converter to avoid the zipper artifacts. But first I will shoot some more tests. Focal length may have an influence, I have just acquired an OM Zuiko 3.5/135.
As the next step, I want to learn to analyze the images the way you do. How do you calculate the Nyquist frequency for a particular image/lens?
I hope to get back soon.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Hi Martin,

All true, but Ansel didn't have tripods with carbon fiber legs available ...
Almost as good as wood for dampening vibration, but a lot lighter.

Common sense also goes a long way, keeping the center of gravity low and centered (by using L-plates on camera) also helps, as does adding weight (camera bag, or local material like sand or rocks in a bag) on a hook on location. Spreading the tripod legs to the correct angle also helps

Cheers,
Bart

I totally agree. Love carbon fiber. Works for bicycles as well.

[Hening Bettermann]

Here are some shots with the OM Zuiko 3.5/135, f/8, 1/15 sec., 160 ISO.
375 and 378 with the heavy tripod, 381 and 384 with the light one. Both were burdened with my (almost) empty daypack = about 2 kg. 375 and 381 are shot in landscape orientation, 378 and 384 in portrait. These are screen shots as displayed in RawTherapee 4.0.11 with presets as displayed in 375, Amaze demosaicing. I am not familiar with RT and have no profile for my Sony yet. RT's own 'Neutral' preset looks more neutral in color, but very foggy.
My measurements of the central blur:
heavy tripod:
375 (Landscape)   27 mm
378 (Portrait)       30 mm vertical, 23 mm horizontal
light tripod:
381 (Landscape)    26 mm
384 (Portrait)       30 mm vertical, 23 horizontal

Well, the Zuiko is no Planar, obviously… The difference in vertical/horizontal values in portrait orientation is connected to shutter shake, I guess? - My lightweight field tripod seems to hold up well…

[Gigi]

Anecdotal evidence - two stories:

Shot with a 150mm lens on a Gitzo 1 series on the Calif coast. All came out a bit soft. Wondered why…. 1 sec exposures - concluded: it was a windy day, tripod movement.

Shot with 90mm in the jungles of Ecuador, on a Gitzo monopod (lent) with three small 6" legs to keep it upright. Kept it short to reduce the wobble, about 3' high, MLU, long time delay and a very soft touch. Exposures 2 to 8 seconds (true!). There was no wind, only heat, dripping, and ants. Came out fine.

Alls to say - context matters. Most tripods work well in optimal conditions. Its the other ones that matter.  

[Sheldon N]

Alls to say - context matters. Most tripods work well in optimal conditions. Its the other ones that matter.  

This....

You don't buy a tripod for indoors on concrete with no wind, you buy the one that will work when you really need it to.

[NancyP]

Technique matters, and can make a so-so tripod better. Whatever the tripod used, partially extending its legs such that more of each section stays within the next bigger section does stiffen the tripod, as does just using it with one or two sections deployed. No center column, or column all the way down. Hook on underside of spider plate (if no center column) or center column, add weight.

[Isaac]

…partially extending its legs such that more of each section stays within the next bigger section does stiffen the tripod…

Thanks for the reminder.

[Peter McLennan]

As a film cameraman, I'm used to big heavy tripods.  I use the Gitzo GT something or other, the "Giant" model.  The one that goes to ten feet high, has five sections, the largest of which is over two inches in diameter.  That way, I can NEVER blame the tripod for unsharp images.

[NancyP]

leg section "over 2 inches in diameter"  -  uh, wow. This makes my 37mm diameter four-section leg tripod sound dainty. Of course my LF friends all enthuse over the Ries wooden tripod and its heads - 7 to 14 pounds for the legs, 2 to 6 pounds for the heads. They are things of beauty, and American-made. Heavy duty combo, 20 pounds, is rated for 66 pounds, which ought to be good enough for most industry video cameras (and film movie cameras), and is overkill for the 20" x 24" ultra-large format cameras that some LF alternative process (non-film) fanatics use.

[Peter McLennan]

leg section "over 2 inches in diameter"  -  uh, wow. This makes my 37mm diameter four-section leg tripod sound dainty.

Uh oh.  Male circumference exaggeration complex.  I just went and measured it and the legs are an inch and a half in diameter. 
It's a guy thing, I guess.  They just SEEM that big.  In my defense, there are six sections, though.  Not five.

It's a Gitzo GT5560SGT.