Looking for a Stiff/Sturdy Tripod Head for my Pentax 67II to Avoid Dreaded Shutter Shake

Hello all,

I was hoping to get some - any- recommendations for an extremely stiff/sturdy tripod ball head. The shutter shake on a Pentax 67II, even with mirror lockup, is so bumpy that, if I use any telephoto lenses (or really anything above the 105mm lens) and any shutter speed slower than 1/125, I get soft images. I've tested this with all the Pentax 67 telephoto lenses I have and the common denominator appears to be the shutter shake. I currently have a Benro GD3WH 3-Way geared head - not exactly the best tripod head; I'm looking to replace it with something sturdier.

That said, I wanted to ask you guys for your recommendations on the stiffest/sturdiest ballheads that I can get as the Benro geared head is not working out well for me, sadly. I've already checked out "The Center Column," a website dedicated to rating tripods and tripod heads, but it looks like it hasn't been updated in a long while. :/

My budget for a new tripod head is $300 or less, so I know that I'm limited unless I buy a used one off, say, eBay or Craigslist.

If it helps, I currently have an FLM CP30-L4 II tripod.

Personally, I don't see the need for a geared head. I use a Benro HD 3a three way pan head for my large format cameras up to and including 8x10. Ball heads are convenient in many circumstances, but I've tried a couple and don't care for them.

Do you need a full tripod head? A leveling half-ball, like the old Manfrotto #138 Ball Leveler Tripod Head, might be better, as it is rock-solid and lower-down to the tripod. The #138 is about $50 on eBay.

Edit: There are some who would say do not use a head at all — attach the camera directly to the tripod and level it by adjusting the extension of the legs. That is what The Center Column suggests is best.

Are you sure it's the head causing the problem? Most of the time, it is the center column being under rated and wobbly. If you can get by, purchase a tripod who's legs can extend to shooting height to avoid elevating the center column at all.

Attaching anything heavy to the bottom of the center column of the tripod goes a long way to making the tripod solid. You can find "S" hooks designed for this very purpose and heck, you can hang the camera bag to provide stability rather than hump-in special weights.

Leaf shutter lens? Not sure what these cost today??. Simplest solution would be a couple sturdy pouches full of lead shot. Even leaf shutters can't fix a wobble. LA there should be tons of monstrous tripods around.

I checked out the FLM CP30-L4 II. It seems like a good sturdy tripod and it does't have a center column, a good thing for you. However, it does seem a little small (not short, it's quite tall). A beefier tripod might be needed. Having said that, with your budget constraints I might look at Leofoto's offerings. They rip off just about every high-end design and sell for a lot less--it seems they are constantly having a sale. The quality is good, just not as good as the originals they copy.

I don’t shoot P67 but I have never read such a dramatic post on its shutter shake.

As for tripod check out THIS

In this post: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...h-which-one-should-i-sell.200750/post-2706145 I suggested that the Benro geared head wasn't solid enough to hold an MF SLR and telephoto lens steady, and that a large unfashionable pan head like a Bogen 3047 or the Manfrotto equivalent would do better. For example, KEH has a 3047 for $45 (plus you would need a hexagonal QR plate). Solid, useful, typically mid to heavy weight camera supports are not too hard to find, but a lot easier in pan heads than ball heads or gears.

I have an ancient 2-way Linhof pan head that is low profile and very stable, but I don't have an idea of what its model name is or where to get another one.

Kino said:

Are you sure it's the head causing the problem? Most of the time, it is the center column being under rated and wobbly. If you can get by, purchase a tripod who's legs can extend to shooting height to avoid elevating the center column at all.

Attaching anything heavy to the bottom of the center column of the tripod goes a long way to making the tripod solid. You can find "S" hooks designed for this very purpose and heck, you can hang the camera bag to provide stability rather than hump-in special weights.

Click to expand...

My FLM tripod doesn't have a center column. I picked it specifically because of the issue you mentioned!

manfrominternet said:

My FLM tripod doesn't have a center column. I picked it specifically because of the issue you mentioned!


View attachment 358544 View attachment 358545

Click to expand...

Telephoto lens bracket should improve the shutter shake to great extent.
Something like Manfrotto 293 Telephoto Lens Support.

There are also some generic versions on Amazon or you could put something together with long Arca Sweiss plate.

Haven't tried it myself with Pentax 67 but did some tests with focal plane Hasselblads and 350mm.
With this combo and with or without mirror lockup there were significant improvements in shutter shake.
In my limited tests this had more impact than the tripod/head combos I was using (one relatively light and second quite heavy setup).

With heavy cameras and lenses, there has to be a small amount of flex in mount when lenses are mounted. Springs pull lens towards camera and if there's shutter and mirror shake it will create vibration here in addition to vibration of the whole system. Making a joint between camera and lens rigid will eliminate this component of shutter shake.

manfrominternet said:

My FLM tripod doesn't have a center column. I picked it specifically because of the issue you mentioned!

Click to expand...

That's a nice tripod for 35mm and some lightweight TLRs, but its not sturdy enough for your camera system.

You wouldn't be remiss buying a Ries J100 wooden tripod with a J200 head.

The Telephoto lens bracket Light Capture mentions is a good idea as well.

Good luck.

Of course, using the MLU feature on the camera should eliminate 99% of what is believed to be shutter shake but in reality is mirror slap.

Rick A said:

Of course, using the MLU feature on the camera should eliminate 99% of what is believed to be shutter shake but in reality is mirror slap.

Click to expand...

Doesn't "mirror lock-up" imply mirror related vibrations? Kind of first time I'm hearing this alleged interpretation. And in majority of cases it is mirror slap that causes problems when residual vibrations post mirro up point blur image during exposure.

Shutter related blur is rather uncommon, although it's possible OP's P67 has some inherent problem in the way curtains "take off and land".

There is no "shutter" issue. And using the lock-up feature controls the mirror slap at speeds lower than 1/60th. So that reduces your real issue to
support alone. And you should be able to handle any P67 tele 200mm and below using a decent conventional tripod system. The FLM set of legs you posted look somewhat thin and spindly to me. I prefer something more beefy. But you could try extending only the 3 top sections of your legs, omitting the thinest bottom section.

I do use the original Gitzo 3-section "Reporter" carbon-fiber tripod for long-haul backpacking purposes with either the P67 or 4X5, but minus the center column and any kind of head. If I need to orient the P67 vertically, I use a solid little stainless steel L-bracket - about a $5 investment, plus a little drill press and thread-tapping time. For day use, I prefer a Ries J wooden tripod, with or without a decent head.

Forget ball heads; I call them wobble-bobble heads. Anything seriously built in that category is going to cost a lot of money, and torque leverage overwhelm your chosen set of legs anyway. The "half-ball" concept makes a lot more sense. Forget toyish Benro geared heads too; but you figured that out already. There's no need for a "telephoto bracket" in this case; and I do shoot long lenses quite a bit. What counts is a solid set of legs.

Getting one of those old heavy cast Bogen heads, as someone suggested, would be like putting the head of a rhinoceros on the body of a gazelle.
Don't go there. It would make things excessively top-heavy, and amplify the leg vibration issue.

For P67 tele work 200mm and below, I do fine with a medium weight Gitzo pan/tilt head. They made a LOW PROFILE bigger pan/tilt head which would be even better. But if you ever contemplate using 300mm or longer P67 lenses, you need to rethink all your gear if you expect sharp images, and preferably go headless using a seriously stable tripod.

But there is a completely different issue which has not been addressed yet. Are your images truly in focus? I strongly recommend a supplementary flip-up magnifier which can be attached to the eyepiece of your pentaprism.

I don't know how MLU works on the Pentax, but on all my SLRs, MLU just raises the mirror, you have to trip the shutter independently. So you wait 5 or 10 seconds before tripping the shutter. There should not be any vibrations eminating from the mirror mechanism.

Light Capture said:

With heavy cameras and lenses, there has to be a small amount of flex in mount when lenses are mounted. Springs pull lens towards camera

Click to expand...

Example? I have never seen this.

Nor have I ever seen such a "flex" issue on integral MF systems. But all my lenses are made of glass and metal, not recycled rubber bathtub ducks. It can occur in view cameras with long bellows extensions, if the lens is too heavy and front standard not rigid enough.

And yes, once the mirror lockup is tripped, one should not instantly press the cable release, but wait a moment. And I certainly hope a cable release is involved when takes the exposure on a tripod.

I did look up the FLM tripod in question. The specs say it's rated at 44 lbs capacity. Guess so, if you factor in an 800% BS coefficient. Those kinds of alleged weight ratings mean that if you put 45 lbs atop it, it collapses. But far less might make it wobbly or shaky. Again, think real world torque vectors, which increase with longer heavier lenses.

Pieter12 said:

Example? I have never seen this.

Click to expand...

If you look inside of the mount on your P67 you'll see 3 springs pulling lens towards body. It's only a fraction of a millimeter but the potential for the flex is there.
Lenses have a tripod mount when manufacturer deems that these 3 springs are not enough to keep lens securely pressed towards body.
The whole system relies on flange surface sitting tightly against the mount on the body and springs press on bayonet part inwards.

Breech lock and screw mount cameras are usually not affected by this. Connection is solid.

With system like this, and it's employed on most cameras, this is increasingly a problem with longer lenses. Over 300mm difference is clearly visible.
There's a reason why are these brackets manufactured. The nature of use of lenses over 300mm is that they are not commonly shot at slow speeds for intended uses.
Even quite few newer telephotos have questionable and vibration prone tripod mounts. They were designed for lightness and people putting them mostly on monopods for light support.

Second part is shutter shake. It doesn't matter what camera is used there is some shutter shake involved.
For example I could easily detect shutter and mirror shake on Canon bodies. On some models it was visible even on 1/180s. On the other side I also shot with Nikon and they were actively working on reducing this vibration. They were even omitting mirror lockup on some cameras.

There was a test in some old photo magazine where they attached Leica M to concrete block and still could detect some traces of shutter shake at 1/1000s.
If someone has a copy of that article, please let me know. I haven't seen it online in some time.

Of course, all this depends on the criteria that needs to be fulfilled for your work. It's not the same if negatives are examined under 4x or 12x loupe or under 30-200x microscope magnification.

Third part of this is the tripod issue. This could also be the cause but I can't add much to this since I didn't use P67 enough to judge the effects of shutter shake.
And I agree weight rating on tripods aren't good predictor of vibration damping performance.

My test for this would be to eliminate the tripod and the head, mount camera on something solid and do some test shots.
The best way is if camera and the target are tied together in some way. Camera could be tied to a solid heave table or a piece of furniture and pointed at a plant on the same table.
Doing few shots like this and then doing few with tripod with and without head should clear the dilemma.

Getting a head that worked for someone else might not do a trick with all variables involved. Sometimes even better tripods end up vibration prone in certain combinations.

Gitzo Series 4/ Series 5 (or equivalent from others) are really where you need to be looking at for the P67 - not a Series 2 equivalent.

Heads - something like an Arca B1 (or equivalent) or a Gitzo 1570 (or a Linhof or Foba 3-way) - or if you only need levelling, the classic Linhof leveller is very solid. Expect to be paying at the top end of 3-figures or more for a good geared head.

Potential for flex due to springs? Nonsense. Are you confusing that with what shims do? P67 lenses have a precisely machined bayonet attachment. It's quite solid. But I've only been shooting that system half a century; so what would I know?

You get a supplementary lens mount collar when you arrive at 300 EDIF focal length. I like to unitize both the lens collar attachment and the camera body thread itself together onto machined bar, which I laminated out of phenolic and epoxy-impregnated maple hardwood; and then in turn, mount that bar DIRECTLY to the platform top of my big Ries wooden tripod, or else a particularly solid CF equivalent. But that has nothing to do with any alleged "springiness" in between the lens itself and the camera body, but is simply to stablize the cumulative torque vector of that big long lens in relation to any potential support system flex. I've very thoroughly tested every aspect of this issue, and get very consistent results unless I've just done a sloppy job focussing itself (which sometimes does inevitably occur during the rush of bad weather or low-light shooting).

Shutter vibration? My older brother once sold Rollei and Linhof gear. He'd demonstrate the Rollei SL66 shutter by setting the camera on a table, and then a dime on end atop the camera, and tripping the cable release - the dime din't even tip over. If you tried that with a Pentax 6X7, the dime would land somewhere in the next county, and the Richter shock wave would topple brick chimneys in a six block radius. But that's due to the mirror slap, not the shutter itself. The mirror lockup features solves that. From about 1/60 and faster speeds, the shutter does its thing before the mirror hits anyway; so it's non issue.

And one more thing to set straight : I often shoot a 300EDIF at lower speeds. I have successfully hand shot it at high speeds, resting on a jacket atop a fence post or car roof sniper-rifle style. But a monopod? - absurd. These aren't like DLSR or even 6X6 teles. They bigger and heavier, and deserve solid support. And of course, the 300EDIF and 400EDIF were popular with astro photographers, who had their own serious definition of support.

I cut my teeth printing very precise big Cibachrome prints, so I think I know the meaning of sharpness. And although I prefer printing large format shots, I certainly do know how to make the most out of MF too, and especially the P67 system. And for that reason, which includes decades of experience, I simply can't subscribe to the claims posted by Light Capture. Making comparisons with Leica issues, or the well-known problem of the Nikon F-series with uber-long ultra-teles simply doesn't factor. Here we're dealing with an especially solid 6X7 SLR system with plenty of mass; but that in turn mandates a tripod support system with sufficient mass and rigidity.

The late Barry Thornton published this test in his book, Edge of Darkness. It was done with a 35mm SLR and normal lens. Just imagine with a monster like the Pentax67 and a long lens.

Try real stars on a research level. If the P67 had a sloppy "spring" issue between the lens and body, do you think comet and asteroid hunters would have adopted that system? The demand for precision was so high that they even customized these 6x7 bodies with vacuum backs laying 220 film dead flat, with no intervening paper flatness issues. Now most have switched over to MF digital cameras instead, but that wouldn't alleviate any lens mount issues. Thankfully, that kind of problem never did exist. But the kinds of astronomical mounts they use can easily run up to $40,000 dollars or more, not to mention dedicated mini-observatories. Not a cheap hobby. Evidently, the astro photo forums consistently have a much higher opinion of the P67 system than some people of this forum have. It was also a well-regarded aerial photo camera.

If you want sturdy, look at one of the smaller Majestic heads, like a model 1600. Will it make your tripod more awkward to haul around? yes. But it will handle anything you put on top of it smaller than 4x5.

I use a Linhof Profile III ball head with my heavier cameras and longest lenses. It's kinda heavy itself but works really well. Very expensive new but you may find a used bargain.

Pieter12 said:

The late Barry Thornton published this test in his book, Edge of Darkness. It was done with a 35mm SLR and normal lens. Just imagine with a monster like the Pentax67 and a long lens.
View attachment 358692

Click to expand...

Great book, focused on getting maximum sharpness from your pictures. This includes enlarger negative carriers and lenses. Get a copy if you can.