Advantages of Tripod Leveling Head Over Head With Bubble?

[JimAscher]

For panorama photography, it appears that many members employ both pano heads (or others) which themselves contain bubble levels, along with separate platform leveling heads.  Why?

[Ellis Vener]

For panorama photography, it appears that many members employ both pano heads (or others) which themselves contain bubble levels, along with separate platform leveling heads.  Why?

Do you mean using a tripod head on top of a leveling platform or do you mean a  panoramic rig (like the ones Really Right Stuff (see http://bit.ly/nWmMLC ) and Nodal Ninja (see http://bit.ly/nDrXc0) make? Any really good tripod head underneath one of the panoramic rigs (I use the one in the RRS link above) essentially is a leveling platform but am a recent convert to using a heavy duty leveling base if I know my main purpose on an outing is to make panoramas. If you are unsure of the ability of your tripod head to to make and hold the top platform level I think there is a very good argument for using a leveling platform on top of your tripod head. Keep in mind that the purpose of all of these gadgets is there simply to make your life easier.

[JimAscher]

Do you mean using a tripod head on top of a leveling platform or do you mean a  panoramic rig (like the ones Really Right Stuff (see http://bit.ly/nWmMLC ) and Nodal Ninja (see http://bit.ly/nDrXc0) make? Any really good tripod head underneath one of the panoramic rigs (I use the one in the RRS link above) essentially is a leveling platform but am a recent convert to using a heavy duty leveling base if I know my main purpose on an outing is to make panoramas. If you are unsure of the ability of your tripod head to to make and hold the top platform level I think there is a very good argument for using a leveling platform on top of your tripod head. Keep in mind that the purpose of all of these gadgets is there simply to make your life easier.

I guess the issue is a "bit" more complex than I thought when formatting my query.  Sorry.  What I meant to question was the possible advantage to having first a leveling head on top of the tripod, then having the tripod "head' mounted on top of that. And the "head" itself, mounted atop the leveling head, would have bubble level(s).  Thanks for responding.

[elliot_n]

For panorama photography, it appears that many members employ both pano heads (or others) which themselves contain bubble levels, along with separate platform leveling heads.  Why?

It's more convenient to use a levelling base than to adjust the tripod legs.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I guess the issue is a "bit" more complex than I thought when formatting my query.  Sorry.  What I meant to question was the possible advantage to having first a leveling head on top of the tripod, then having the tripod "head' mounted on top of that. And the "head" itself, mounted atop the leveling head, would have bubble level(s).  Thanks for responding.

Hi Jim,

The only thing that really matters (for efficiency) is that the camera rotates on a plane through it's (the camera's) base. It doesn't even have to be level, because that can be more accurately set in the stitching application. But if one does want to shoot a leveled panorama, then leveling will create a stitched result with minimal cropping losses when there are e.g. verticals that need to be perfectly plumb. In that case, the top of the tripod head where the camera base is mounted should be level, and the rotation should be done there. If the camera base cannot be rotated in a level plane, then the leveling base beneath it should be level if that is were the rotation takes place, and the camera base as close to level as well (that will be easier if the tripod head also has a built in level).

So again, the camera base plane should be identical or parallel to the rotation plane, because it usually allows to crop the final stitch with the least losses.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What I meant to question was the possible advantage to having first a leveling head on top of the tripod, then having the tripod "head' mounted on top of that. And the "head" itself, mounted atop the leveling head, would have bubble level(s)...

We had a discussion on a similar subject here. To address your question above, there are a couple of points I made in the above referenced discussion:

"... There would be no advantage of using a separate head leveler under the following assumptions:

- if you are shooting from an already level ground, say a street
- if your tripod legs are all extended to a perfectly equal length
- if your tripod legs are all extended with the same angle (relative to the central column)
- you do not mind losing pixels at the top and bottom of the pano (in order to crop out the "tiling")

If either of the first three above is not perfect, you will need some form of leveling device (or you can continue to fiddle manually with leg extension and angle). Can you get away with none of the above? Sure you can. The price you will pay, however, would be pano "tiling"..."

[JimAscher]

We had a discussion on a similar subject here. To address your question above, there are a couple of points I made in the above referenced discussion:

"... There would be no advantage of using a separate head leveler under the following assumptions:

- if you are shooting from an already level ground, say a street
- if your tripod legs are all extended to a perfectly equal length
- if your tripod legs are all extended with the same angle (relative to the central column)
- you do not mind losing pixels at the top and bottom of the pano (in order to crop out the "tiling")

If either of the first three above is not perfect, you will need some form of leveling device (or you can continue to fiddle manually with leg extension and angle). Can you get away with none of the above? Sure you can. The price you will pay, however, would be pano "tiling"..."

Slobodan:  Even though I searched the forum for a relevant thread on the subject before posting my query, I somehow failed to notice the very useful and informative earlier thread you pointed me to.  In fact, there's such an abundance of information there that I'm a bit at a loss now to sort it all out and make any decisions regarding my own needs. I will have to go over and ponder it some more.  Many thanks for your advice.

[torger]

For panorama photography, it appears that many members employ both pano heads (or others) which themselves contain bubble levels, along with separate platform leveling heads.  Why?

I use this configuration. The reason is to be able to turn the panorama head horizontally as level as possible, so that the horizon in the resulting stitched panorama is level. If the horizon is not level, one will have to rotate and crop the panorama in post-processing and thus lose resolution and angle of view.

Of course, you could just adjust the length of the tripod legs to get a level platform (the bubble level indeed exists on the pano head, and this is the bubble I look at even when using the leveling head), but it is much more difficult and take longer time, and it is hard to get the same precision as one can with a leveling head. Do I carry the leveling head at hikes when weight is a factor? Yes, I still do because I think the added speed in setup time and precision is worth it.

If you make panoramas with a wide angle lens and crop them a lot top and bottom anyway, then a leveling head will not provide so much value, since a little bit of rotation won't matter you'll have margin for that in the stitched image. If you however like me use normal or tele lenses to make high res mosaics and want to retain the full height of the image (minimize cropping) a leveling head is certainly worth it.