Leveling base for Intrepid 8x10 in the field

[blee1996]

I have been using my Intrepid 8x10 and a G-Claron 305/9 on a medium sized ball head and it did not work well. Often when I try to insert film holder, the camera will move due to the insecure ball head. The Manfroto 055 carbon fiber tripod legs are totally fine for now. Since almost all the time I use the camera leveled, I'm thinking about switching to a simpler leveling base. Through my research, I found a couple of new ones

1) Acratech large leveling base with with quick release clamp ($250 from B&H)
2) Leofoto Leofoto LB-75LRC Leveling Head Arca + Picatinny Hybrid Lever-Release ($160 from vendor)
3) Really Right Stuff TA-2U-LB ($305 without quick release)

I didn't quite like the Manfrotto 338, since it uses 3 individual discs to adjust and too slow to set up.
I guess there will be many used models as well.

I do have much stronger 3-way geared head for indoor use, but I'm looking for a lightweight solution to match my carbon fiber tripod legs for field use.

Do you have any experience with leveling base for "lightweight" 8x10 camera in the field? Do you recommend any models? Thanks!

 

[Alan9940]

Not to ask the stupid question, but why don't you just eliminate the head? It would be a bit more of a "dance" to get the camera level with just the tripod legs, but it can be done and would provide the best camera stability.

 

[blee1996]

It is a matter of convenience in the field, I suppose.

On the other hand, if Intrepid finally delivers the bail back I can live with the current setup.

 

[GregY]

IMO a ballhead under an LF camera is a recipe for misery.
My favourite head has been the Ries double tilt head...

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Luland makes/made what appears to be of copy of the Ries. Check ebay.

There’s also the Linhof 3663. The new price is, um, breathtaking. I was fortunate to pick one up used for under $200 some years back and use it with 4x5. I suspect it could support an Intrepid 8x10 with a 305 G-Claron mounted.

Neither of these are “leveling heads” in my mind, they’re 3-axis heads and have more height than a simple bowl thing. But they’re way easier to use IMO.

 

[GregY]

Luland makes/made what appears to be of copy of the Ries. Check ebay.

There’s also the Linhof 3663. The new price is, um, breathtaking. I was fortunate to pick one up used for under $200 some years back and use it with 4x5. I suspect it could support an Intrepid 8x10 with a 305 G-Claron mounted.

Neither of these are “leveling heads” in my mind, they’re 3-axis heads and have more height than a simple bowl thing. But they’re way easier to use IMO.

.....way easier... & have a large base of support for the camera.

 

[Rick A]

I tried a ball head years ago, even with smaller formats I found it worthless. I even tried a leveling bowl with my 8x10, didn't like it. I'll stick to my three-way pan heads.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Last time I looked, the Feisol half-ball leveling device was only $75. This fits only certain models of theirs, including the CT3472 model I have, which easily supports my 8x10. I personally prefer to go completely headless, which is the most stable method, and saves weight too. It's just a matter of practice. I can probably aim and level via only leg adjustments just as fast as most people can using a wobble-bobble ball head. And I've been doing it that way for over 30 years, on all kinds of terrain.

If I had to go with a head for an 8X10 flatbed camera, the Ries one would be a candidate, of course, or a large low-profile Gitzo pan-tilt head.

 

[reddesert]

I don't have an 8x10. IMO a medium size ball head is not pleasant to use with any camera that has a large moment about the head, especially not when you add inserting and removing film holders. I suppose a ball head is ok for an SLR with a big telephoto lens for wildlife photography because you need the ball head for pointing convenience, but other than that I think ball heads and big cameras are a recipe for pain.

I have a cheapo bowl style leveling head that looks like this: "Puluz Dome style leveling head," https://www.puluz.com/p/PU3508/PULU...ipod-Leveling-Head-Base-with-Bubble-Level.htm (out of stock, but perhaps available under some other name), and I don't have any experience with an 8x10, but I think even that cheapo or a good old 3-way pan head would be a big improvement on a medium ball head.

Edit: guessing the Puluz thing is about the same size as the Leofoto thing, which may be significantly less expensive without quick release (?), but note that they both have bubble levels that would be pretty useless under a large field camera.

 

[F4U]

After 49 years of using the same Leitz Tiltall, I bought for less than $100 new (or was itt $50), I can't imagine using a ball head on a tripod. But since I've never used one, I can only imagine the annoyance of trying to get the front-back tilt right without upsetting the left-right tilt in the process, or vice versa If I understand a ball head, it sounds tom me like the devil's invention.

 

[Ian C]

A solid pan-tilt head such as a Manfrotto 3047 is quite stable when used with an 8” x 10” monorail camera. There’s currently one for $45 on eBay. It’s the model with the pull-and-pivot security lock that prevents inadvertently bumping the release and opening the locking cam (which would allow the camera to fall to the ground).

When the security-lock handle is pulled out against its spring and pivoted to the horizontal position, you can hold the camera securely with one hand while opening the cam lever with the other to mount or remove the camera. Much easier to use than the later version.

This uses the hexagon quick-release or the larger rectangular QR plate for flat-bed cameras. The one on eBay includes a hexagon quick release with a 1/4”-20 screw and the 3/8”-16 brass screw is shown fastened to the head.

 

[Alan9940]

A solid pan-tilt head such as a Manfrotto 3047 is quite stable when used with an 8” x 10” monorail camera.

Must be a really lightweight monorail. I used one of these for a couple of years with my 8x10 Deardorff and found it to be marginal, at best. I think it would be fine with an 8x10 Intrepid. For a few years, I used a RRS BH-55 ballhead which was more than adequate to hold either of my 8x10 cameras, but I found a ballhead to be a pain to use with LF. The best head and stick combo I've ever used for 8x10 is my Ries A100 legs with the A200 head, but I'm too old now to carry that sucker. A few years ago, I settled on the Luland copy of the Ries head sitting on top of a Dutch Hill surveyor style carbon fiber leg set. This combo is more than adequate for the Intrepid and can handle the Deardorff fairly well.

 

[abruzzi]

I use a Sinar head for my Sinars, and a Gitzo Rationnelle low profile 3-way head for all my other view cameras. I have several in different sizes based on the size of my tripod. I previously used a Manfrotto 3-way head like the 3047 (I forget specifically the model but its probably the 3047) and my only issue with it was the height. It adds 10-12 inches of height whereas the Gitzo low profile adds 3-4 inches of height. I much prefer the 3-way heads on view cameras because its easy to adjust one axis at a time without affecting the others. Also the inverted image makes ballheads a little wonky. I'm sure I would have got used to adjusting a ball head with a view camera, but it can be a little counterintuitive.

As for a strict leveling base, I have a Manfrotto inverted bowl leveling base (medel 438) on a Zone VI "lightweight" wodden tripod. It gave 15 degrees of movement, so no dutch angles, but it was quicker than leveling the tripod with the legs only. I put a Manfrotto hex plate on top and it worked well, but a while back I switched from manfrotto hex plates to arca swiss type plates (it seemed a little silly to mount a hex plate on the bottom of an Arca Swiss monorail.) Thats also about the same time I switched from Manfrotto legs to Gitzo legs.

 

[MTGseattle]

Call me the ---hole here but why a leveling base? My legs have a bubble level, and the clamp on my ball head has a bubble level. get them both set, then mount the camera. if your gear predates the addition of spirit/bubble levels, get a carpenters torpedo level to keep in your bags and level the legs and/or head with that first. Even a "fancy" aluminum one should be under $40 Or there are a few versions of acrylic small bubble levels available on amazon or ebay which one can then use to check your standards.

After all of that, I think I realized that you are thinking about a leveling base in lieu of your ball-head. Out of the 3, The Leofoto looks to be a good balance of price to function. The Really Right Stuff things I have handled have been great and are made in the US and all of that but are not cheap. maybe dive into warranty and potential customer service issue comparisons?

 

[blee1996]

Yes I should have clarified that I wanted to replace the ball head with the leveling base. I already have sturdy 3-way low profile Linhof head and Majestic geared head with large plates to handle Deardorff v8 indoors. What i am trying to figure out is the best solution for ultralight 8x10 field work where I need to backpack for hours in somewhat difficult terrain. Thus I try to balance weight, sturdiness and convenience.

Thanks you all for the suggestions so far!

 

[Alan9940]

Thus I try to balance weight, sturdiness and convenience.

Yeah, it's an interesting dichotomy (to me, anyway) that it seems the lighter one goes on the camera, the heavier the base needs to be. I use a lightweight carbon fiber tripod with my Intrepid 8x10 because I typically hike with this outfit over distances I couldn't dream of doing with my Deardorff and heavier tripods. I have an "apron" thing that hangs just below the apex of the tripod which I load up with rocks, if I feel more stability is needed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have one of those big old Bogen/Manfrotto 3047 heads with the hex plate adapter. That's a lot of extra weight way up high, increasing the torque vector unless you have an especially solid tripod, like the Ries A series wooden model. I repurposed that head to the copy stand in the lab. In the field, it's no match for going headless anyway, either with the 8x10 or with a big 300mm P67 telephoto lens.

The logical question when going headless, is how do you point the camera straight down, or nearly so? Well, a simple solid steel or stainless steel "L" bracket with tapped holes in it solves the problem for around ten dollars, and with just a tiny fraction of the weight of any suitable head, while still being more stable than a head if properly made. I rarely need one, but have made several sizes of them relative to different cameras.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I don't have problems leveling my cameras with a typical 3-way pan/tilt head. A couple reference marks if the head doesn't have them already identifies zero position. That helps get the tripod close (i.e., leg-length adjustments). Then it's just make the finer adjustments with the tilts. Camera levels and the ground glass tell me when I'm level and plumb.

Best,

Doremus

 

[villagephotog]

I have the Leofoto LB-60 in the base version with just the 60mm plate. Obviously, it's smaller than the one you're looking at, but for what it's worth, I'd call it decent but not great. It holds fairly well, but the butterfly clamp turns out to be a little annoying to use in the field. I've never used mine with a view camera, but I'd be worried about getting my hand in a good position to loosen that clamp with the bulk of a view camera sitting above it. Also, when it's loose, it's loose -- there's no practical way to keep it from flopping in all three of its axes when it's not tightened down completely.

I have no doubt that the Acratech, which is more or less the gold standard of such things, is a better leveling base. I believe its twist-knob clamp will be much less annoying to use under a view camera. For an 8x10 camera, I don't think I'd consider anything else.

But all that said, I'm not sure I would use a leveling base directly under the camera unless it had a panning function that maintains level motion while panning. Neither the Leofoto nor the Acratech has that ability. I use my Leofoto with a 2-way pan-tilt head, so I can pan-while-level with the camera mounted. It would be very annoying if I couldn't do that.

I also have an Arca-Swiss P0 inverted ball head, which does function like a leveling base with a built-in level panning function. I've only been shooting with a view camera (a lightweight 4x5) for a couple of months, but I've used it on the Arca-Swiss. It's been fine, but on the couple of occasions when I've needed to tilt the camera, the all-axis flop of a ball head was not ideal. If used correctly, however, the P0 can be tilted without flopping in any other axis; I just have to be more careful.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Torque vectors and wind deflection force basically double in every direction for an 8X10 camera compared to an analogous 4x5 setup. That's basic physics. But having an especially light camera can be just as much a liability as too light a set of legs when it comes to wind resistance. My own 8X10 is the classic original Phillips model (serial no.9 !), and whenever possible, I prefer my heavier Ries maple tripod beneath it for sheer bully mass. But I'm sure glad I also bought a good rigid CF option too, since I'm now 75, with gravity having a more heavy tug on my own legs than it once did.

 

[Grafmatic]

I have the Leofoto LB-60 in the base version with just the 60mm plate. Obviously, it's smaller than the one you're looking at, but for what it's worth, I'd call it decent but not great. It holds fairly well, but the butterfly clamp turns out to be a little annoying to use in the field. I've never used mine with a view camera, but I'd be worried about getting my hand in a good position to loosen that clamp with the bulk of a view camera sitting above it. Also, when it's loose, it's loose -- there's no practical way to keep it from flopping in all three of its axes when it's not tightened down completely.

I have no doubt that the Acratech, which is more or less the gold standard of such things, is a better leveling base. I believe its twist-knob clamp will be much less annoying to use under a view camera. For an 8x10 camera, I don't think I'd consider anything else.

But all that said, I'm not sure I would use a leveling base directly under the camera unless it had a panning function that maintains level motion while panning. Neither the Leofoto nor the Acratech has that ability. I use my Leofoto with a 2-way pan-tilt head, so I can pan-while-level with the camera mounted. It would be very annoying if I couldn't do that.

I also have an Arca-Swiss P0 inverted ball head, which does function like a leveling base with a built-in level panning function. I've only been shooting with a view camera (a lightweight 4x5) for a couple of months, but I've used it on the Arca-Swiss. It's been fine, but on the couple of occasions when I've needed to tilt the camera, the all-axis flop of a ball head was not ideal. If used correctly, however, the P0 can be tilted without flopping in any other axis; I just have to be more careful.

 

[Grafmatic]

use my Leofoto with a 2-way pan-tilt head, so I can pan-while-level with the camera mounted. It would be very annoying if I couldn't do that.

What two way pan/tilt head are you using? My payload is the Intrepid 4x5. I just bought a Leofoto LM324CL X tripod and a leveling base. The Bogen 3047 I got is a late one and waaaaay heavier than I remember my earlier version at almost four pounds. This would easily support an 8x10, which I don’t need to do. Looking for something lighter. With the leveling base I should only need a two way head.

 

[Grafmatic]

The best head and stick combo I've ever used for 8x10 is my Ries A100 legs with the A200 head, but I'm too old now to carry that sucker.

“If it’s more than 100 yards from the road, it’s not photogenic.” -Brett Weston, in his later years