Crazy problem with my tripod/head combo

[sidewind]

Hiya all.
I have a problem with my tripod/ballhead combo, it is NOT strong enough
The gear in question it the Sirui N2004/K-30X combo, that is rated 15/30 kg payload.
When I use it with my 135 cameras, and my Bronica's, I can do almost what I want, and it is rock steady, I can actually lift the tripod and wiggle it, while holding it by the camerahouse.
But when I use it with my Mamiya RZ67 ProII the head starts to slide, as in the head can only hold the camera if I find the exact center off mass and keeps the camera horisontal.
It is not that I can say "this lens is so long that the head can't hold it", it happens no matter if I have the 65mm or the 250mm lens attached.

The "fun" part is if I maximize my Bronica GS1 I reach 8 kg, and even if I mount it very side or lens heavy, it is rock solid.

Then I dismout the GS1, keeping the tightness on the ball, and mounts the RZ67, and the ball starts to slide, and that is what I don't understand. Again the only thing I do is open the arca swiss coupling, nothig else, disengage the GS1, mount the RZ67 ad tighten the arca swiss coupling, and it starts to slide to one or the other side.

 

[bsdunek]

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.

 

[sidewind]

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.

Just had it on the kitchen weight, 4.5 kg's, which is well below the weightlimit of the head, which is 30 kg's. What is puzzling me, is that when I change from a GS1 to the RZ67, just swapping camera, it starts to droop, even when the weight is reduce to ½ the weight.

 

[M Carter]

I've used the Bogen 3055 ball head for two decades. I've even put my Cambo 4x5 on it (that was a little crazy, but it always handled my RB67 and big lenses just fine, which I think is heavier than the RZ). No longer manufactured but available used. Never found a ball head to replace it for strength and simplicity, and I use it weekly still for commercial digital gigs and film shooting.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

Yes, anything with Siriu in its name - I would question it

 

[wiltw]

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!

 

[John Koehrer]

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.

 

[Dr Croubie]

The problem is that there IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD for claims of 'capacity' for tripods or heads

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).

 

[sidewind]

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.

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.

 

[sidewind]

Yes, anything with Siriu in its name - I would question it

Yes you are right, it is a SIRUI combo not Siriu, my bad spelling

 

[sidewind]

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!

wiltw, you might be right, but my problem is that a camera ½ the weight of another camera I have, makes the ballhead slide, and I have no clue why.

 

[sidewind]

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.

John Koehrer, no grease on ball, and head is the next largest in the series, but thank you for ideas

 

[sidewind]

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).

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[fotch]

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.

 

[sidewind]

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.

MattKing I really don't see the need to adjust the tension control, which means that I have to loosen it even more, when I go from GS1 to RZ67, that weighs only half. I'll attach some pictures to show what I mean, and they have been taken with ~ 30 sec. interval.

This is my Bronica GS1 with 2x extender, 200mm lens, flash and battery. As you can see, it is very off axis weight vice, and it stay how I put it.

Here you have the problem, RZ67 with 90mm lens and quick release plate centred in the balance point.

I only took off the GS1 and mounted the RZ67, did not change anything on the tripod.

 

[MattKing]

It is not the weight. It is the torque.

 

[baachitraka]

Best is to get a wooden tripod for life.

 

[sidewind]

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.

fotch, that statement is bollocks. Chinese people are actually very skilled workers, where the problem lies is in quality control. I have rented a Razzleblad once for a photo shoot, opened the box, took off the frontcover on the body, and out came a few springs and screws. I know that Hasselblad is not US made, but should be quality all together anyways.

As for your statement you get what you pay for, that is also not always the truth, I got 2 RZ bodies, 2 wlf, 4 backs, 2 polaroid backs, 2 winders, 4 lenses and a AE Prism finder for $750

 

[sidewind]

It is not the weight. It is the torque.

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.

 

[sidewind]

Best is to get a wooden tripod for life.

baachitraka I'm thinking about selling my tripod/ball head combo, and using my Orion EQ6 astronomy german equitorial mount

 

[MattKing]

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.

I expect that the centerline of the camera and the tripod socket are both significantly displaced from where the centre of gravity is.

 

[baachitraka]

baachitraka I'm thinking about selling my tripod/ball head combo, and using my Orion EQ6 astronomy german equitorial mount

Berlebach or Dead Link Removed without any extra fittings and with a good tripod head will do the job.