So, how much does the RZ67, complete with lens, film holder, viewfinder, etc. weigh? If you're approaching the design limit of the head you're going to have trouble. Me thinks you need a heavier tripod.
You need a tripod head for heavy equipment. I bought heavy duty equipment for the Hasselblad and the 4"x5" cameras that I also use for the 35mm cameras.
The problem is that there IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD for claims of 'capacity' for tripods or heads
I assume you are adjusting the tension control when you switch cameras.
Your problem is probably related to the geometry of the ballhead plus quick release plus camera combination. Something about that geometry is causing the camera's weight to provide torque on the ballhead when the camera is centred and leveled.
Can you adjust the position of the quick-release connector on the camera?
Also, capacity specifications for tripod heads can be "optimistic" and/or predicated on a particular shape of camera.
Yes, anything with Siriu in its name - I would question it
The problem is that there IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD for claims of 'capacity' for tripods or heads, all manufacturers make claims as there is little basis for commonality of conditions behind the claims!
If there's any sign of grease on the ball they can slip.
I've found the heads using a smallish ball will slip easier than a large ball also using large controls to fasten everything in place
lock everything down much more securely.
And following on from this, most companies will use the "weight before it breaks" as the rating.
The "weight directly on top to be stable" is less than that, and "weight off centre without drooping" is lower again. You're lucky if you can put 1/4 of the rated weight happily on a ballhead (even a fancy aspherical one).
I've got an (aspherical) Arca-Swiss Monoball P0, rated to 20kg. You think my 9kg 8x10" is happy on it? Hells no.
My 5kg 4x5" is mostly ok, but I have to keep making sure that when I rack out a standard to focus, I have to shift the baseclamp too to keep the centre of gravity directly above the pivot point.
I can put on a 300mm f/4 Zeiss Sonnar or 500/5.6 Pentacon Orestegor with a P6/K88cm/EOS on the end no problems, but again I have to make sure centre of gravity is over the ball (by using a 150mm long clamp on the lens).
If you can't get the centre of gravity directly over the ballhead, buy a longer clamp and/or bracket. If that don't work, time to buy a new ballhead.
(For serious work, I'd suggest what I've got, a Sunwayfoto levelling clamp, that takes my 8x10" at angle angle without complaining a bit).
MattKing I am not adjusting the tension control. I can adjust the placement of the quickrelease plate, and if I adjust it to be exactly dead center on ballance, I have no problems, but if I shift the plate just ½" forward or backward, the camera slides.
The tripod/camera combo are Sirui, and rated min. 3x the weight of the camera. I can mount my Bronica GS1, souped up with flash, flash battery pack, 200mm lens 2x extender, and all of this exceed 8 kg's. I can even make it as it is front and leftside heavy (looking from the back), and the tripod combo have no problem holding it.
The camera I have problem with is a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, and besides the RB67, I don't think that you can get something that is more square.
You need to adjust the tension control as you move from camera to camera.
The RZ67 is probably similar to my RB67. My sense is that my RB67 has a centre of gravity that is quite high in the camera, so if the quick release plate isn't exactly centred, the camera will place a lot of rotational force (torque) on the connection.
As mentioned above, tripod head weight ratings are really unreliable. My Manfrotto 054 magnesium head is "only" rated to 10 kg, but with the small Manfrotto quick release plate and an adjustment to the tension, it works fine with the RB67.
I suspect anything made in China is made to look good but made cheap. People like deals so if it looks like a good deal they buy it. Usually, you get what you pay for. I have purchase used Arca-Swiss equipment that has been great.
It is not the weight. It is the torque.
Best is to get a wooden tripod for life.
Okay MattKing, torque in my line of work as a scaffolder is like this:
You have a rod, mount it in one end to something and in the other end you mount something heavy. the force you need to hold that weight up, is torque.
If you look at the pictures of the GS1, you will see the combined mass of the camera and battery is roughly 7" from center of quick release plate, and the mass is roughly 17 pound which gives a torque of ~29 foot pound, then we can argue that the flash makes a counter torque, which is right, that amounts to roughly 6 foot pound, but summa sumarum you have a torque of ~23 foot pound trying to tear the camera/battery down that way.
If you then look at the picture of the tilting RZ67, the quick release plate is within +- 0.2" from centerline, both front/back and side/side. My guess is that the torque we are talking of here is below 1 foot pound.
As I stated, I only opened the plate release, took off the GS1, mounted the RZ67, tightened the plate release, and didn't touch anything else on the tripod.
Now why does the tripod/ball head combo behave as pictures show ???? I have for the world not the faintest clue, and that is why I ask here.
baachitraka I'm thinking about selling my tripod/ball head combo, and using my Orion EQ6 astronomy german equitorial mount
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?