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

[Lachlan Young]

Great book, focused on getting maximum sharpness from your pictures.

Maybe. I'd suggest that Thornton was a very capable and persuasive journalist, but nowhere near as good at understanding and communicating the science - not least as by his own admission, his developer methodologies start to fail in terms of visual granularity at 5x. In comparison, Richard Henry was much better at the science, but nowhere near as good a writer.

I'd agree that the Profi III is an excellent option for the OP. They're also available with a base designed to lock into the centre column mount on the Heavy Duty Pro tripod.

 

[Light Capture]

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.

Again, I'm not a frequent P67 user.
I don't think this applies to you at all as you've obviously tested all these variables long time ago and already using telephoto bracket.
100% agree that this setup makes it much easier to use the tele setup and balance it as needed. The only way I see is testing personal setup. If it doesn't work there has to be a reason or two why it doesn't.

Not going to elaborate it much more but on my body when lens is pushed/flexed away I can easily insert 5 thou shim between lens flange and lens mount on the body. When I let the lens go, shim gets pinched.
On this particular body, springs work well and I need to push it quite a bit for lens flange to separate from the mount. I had plenty of different MF bodies where lens mounting required varying force on each one when using the same lens.
Whether it's lens mount, lens flange, spring wear, material fatigue or manufacturing tolerances, differences are there and potentially could affect.

Since the issues in this thread appear to happen on lenses shorter than 200mm, this is likely not the main cause.

I also agree on potential support system flex. Quite few tripod heads I tried had some kind of flex and when camera/lens combo is long there is an axis on the head itself that can potentially flex. Some of these heads were horrible.
P67 ED IF is 1650grams and 350mm F/4 I tested on focal plane Hasselblad is 2000grams. Hasselblad focal plane shutter shake after mirror lockup feels significantly better than P67's. But mount springs on Hasselblad are weaker than on P67.

Here's a nice setup with Manfrotto 359 long lens support in first review (completely unnecessary for lenses under 3-400mm with stable tripod): https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-Star-67-800mm-F6.7-Lens.html

 

[Arthurwg]

Still, I think I would like to get away from a ball head for heavy cameras like my RB67 or the 500mm lens on my Hasselblad. I've looked at pan-tilt heads but not sure which would work best. What would be a good suggestion without costing a fortune?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks, Light Capture. I'm aware of the Pentax Forum. My own support system for big teles is much simpler but much more solid than the one shown on the page you linked. That sort of fuss is unnecessary with P67 focal lengths up to 200mm. Keep in mind that Pentax lenses of comparable focal length are quite a bit heavier than Hassie ones. Distinctions in sharpness between older Takumar teles, which were good for their era, and the later M Star EDIF are due both to the improved optics and to better balance afforded by a lens collar mount plus body attachment itself. The sheer mass of these bigger lenses pretty much dampens any residual shutter issues.

When I get defeated, it's usually due to a strong wind gust. I'm mainly a large format shooter, so am accustomed to how the wind can turn a big bellows into a kite; so MF SLR tele work is a much simpler problem by comparison.

I have never heard complaints off slop developing in the mount. But given the sheer expense of the longer teles, I doubt they get abused a lot. The P67 has dual bayonet mounts, the inner for sake of lenses up to 300mm, the outer for the giant ones. So the interlock is quite reliable.

But all this discussion is a bit advanced for the present thread per se. I suspect the original poster's problem is largely due to too light a tripod to begin with.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Lots of "what ifs" in this thread but not many with any real experience with the Pentax. I had one for a few years and the OPs problem is the reason why I got rid of it. Even with the mirror locked up the camera will exhibit shake with long lenses for some shutter speeds. I no longer remember what they were, but it is real. I used to make sure that my shutter speeds were at least a second or less than 1/250 IIRC. At any rate, a heavier tripod won't eliminate it. I used a 5 series Gitzo with a full sized Foba head. It is just an issue with that camera. A friend had the same problem. My advice if you want to use the P67 with longer lenses is to get a really heavy sturdy tripod then either use really long or really short shutter speeds.

 

[Tom Taylor]

I purchased the P67II system new in 2000 along with a Manfrotto 440 Carbon One tripod and Gitzo G1275M off-center head. I used this set-up until about 2009 until a part broke off the tripod and I replaced the tripod and head with a Gitzo G1348 tripod and Arca Swiss z1sp which I use to this day with the P67 and Toyo 810MII. I always use MLU when shooting and with the former system noticed a definite tripod shake when the shutter closed. But the negatives were always sharp and never exhibited any vibration from the mount which I attributed to the recoil from the mirror and focal plane shutting. By the time that recoil hits the exposure has already been made. The Gitzo/Arca mount dampens the recoil quite a bit but it is always there - Newton's action/reaction law which can't be completely eliminated.

 

[Light Capture]

Agreed Drew Wiley. I'm thinking as well that tripod shake should be looked at and improved first. Especially if it also happens on 135, 150 or 165mm.
Wind is a real sharpness killer. I'm avoiding to shoot almost at all when it passes the threshold. Quite often if shutter speeds can be kept up results are better handheld than having it on a light tripod.

The rest are further improvements that improve handling and with the right tripod will further improve stability.

200mm is still pretty light and shouldn't need anything for good results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

On my last trip the wind was so intense above timberline that I had to default to shooting a 6X9 rangefinder handheld at high speed, with about 50% success. I could hardly even stand up in that wind. Lower down the P67 and teles worked fine. But up high on the ridges and passes, again, only about 50% success with P67 teles due to the wind, no matter how solid the support below the camera. That's fine. I got plenty of good shots to work with, and am still printing some of them. It's not like working with 8x10, and having the wind pick up the whole camera and toss it twenty feet, huge Ries tripod n' all. Fortunately, every time that's happened there was a soft landing in foliage. But now I simply don't gamble with a view camera in those conditions. Been there, done that for decades. Now I'm getting old and lazy, and sheet film is getting too expensive to gamble with too. I reserve it for more predictable situations.

The biggest problem with long teles in terms of sharpness is always the intervening atmosphere itself, at least in infinity distance shots. Heat waves, atmospheric haze from pollen, air pollution, wrong time of day, etc. A deep red filter can cut through quite a bit of haze, but certainly not all of it.
The EDIF teles are designed to focus wavelengths past red, so have no hard infinity stop. It's vital to always check actual acute focus using an accessory magnifier with the filter in place. The older Takumar lenses do have a hard stop, but can't rein in red wavelengths as tightly. I find a deep green filter provides the greatest sharpness with the Takumar 300 (a nice travel lens for less stringent applications because today those are dirt cheap to replace if stolen or damaged).

In this area I frequently run into professional wildlife photographers and filmmakers with their modern digital gear, often around $40,000 worth. They can certainly capture momentary wildlife activity way faster than I can. But if a critter is more predictable, and I bag the shot with my Pentax 67 300EDIF instead, I certainly have a far richer picture worthy of being framed on a wall. I also have a high quality Nikon adapter for that if I want even more reach; it's fun, but I rarely use it. I don't have the patience to be a true wildlife photographer, but am an opportunist. I was recently talking to a couple who had made a one-hour PBS wildlife documentary. I asked them if it took them ten years to make. They answered No - Twenty years.

Back down to earth - I replaced my 200 P67 lens with the 165 version quite some time back. It is not only faster with a larger maximum aperture, but better optically corrected. It also fits in a smaller shoulder bag when I want to move around ultralight.

 

[choiliefan]

Years ago I cobbled together a beanbag mounted to a plate with a 1/4-20 thread. I cradled my P6X7 in this and when using the 300mm, cradled the lens with it. Worked very well. I see there are variants for sale nowadays. Perhaps something like this will strike your fancy:

bean bag with tripod mount - Google Search

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, I already posted how I've used a jacket atop a car roof in that manner. It worked fine for infinity shots with the 300EDIF at higher shutter speeds. I last did that on the windy north shore of Maui, where I needed higher shutter speeds for the surf activity. And the CF tripod I brought along in my airline carry-on was too light for that lens anyway, though it was suitable for shorter P67 lenses as well as my 4X5 folder.

 

[_T_]

I use a Manfrotto X-PRO 3 way head for my Cambo SC 4x5 monorail camera which weighs about 10 pounds all assembled, and when I had a Mamiya RB67 I used the same head.

As far as I know it's the cheapest pan tilt head that's capable of supporting such weights, and it doesn't even break a sweat.

There are cheaper options capable of similar performance if you look into ball heads, but I find it difficult to maneuver a 2 foot long 10 pound box on a ball head so I never looked into it and can't give any suggestions as to what will work.

 

[Pieter12]

I use a Manfrotto X-PRO 3 way head for my Cambo SC 4x5 monorail camera which weighs about 10 pounds all assembled, and when I had a Mamiya RB67 I used the same head.

As far as I know it's the cheapest pan tilt head that's capable of supporting such weights, and it doesn't even break a sweat.

There are cheaper options capable of similar performance if you look into ball heads, but I find it difficult to maneuver a 2 foot long 10 pound box on a ball head so I never looked into it and can't give any suggestions as to what will work.

It depends on the ballhead. I have used a Cambo Legend 4x5 on a RRS BH55 with no problem. It depends on the ballhead and what you're used to doing.

 

[GregY]

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

My adventures with a P67 with a big tripod and a lens support led me to drop it altogether and get a large format camera. I could not get a printable image (enlarged) when taking landscape mountain photos with the 300mm at smaller apertures. Clearly the 300 works fine with fast film, wide open, photographing sports or wildlife.....but that wasn't my subject matter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like the Induro carbon fiber tripods. It is important to select a tripod that is "rated" for more than the weight equipment that you plan to use on it. I use a factor of two heavier. When I use a lower rated weight I have had shaking and wind vibration problems.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pieter - 4x5 monorails are fairly easy to balance and stabilize; and their ordinarily lightweight leaf shutter lenses add little vibration. Still, a ball head makes little sense unless in conjunction with high speed flash in a studio, and not outdoors in the wind and elements. Every time I run into one of those ballhead setups which people claim are perfectly acceptable, I just give a little tap to the front and it's instantly apparently why it's not acceptable in my world. And the Pentax 6x7 with a long lens on it can actually impose a greater challenge in terms of vibration risk than many 4x5's. But it does have the advantage of no wind-catching bellows. I shoot both, plus 8x10 too, and even 6X9 RF's. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. But the most common mistake with any of them is a substandard tripod support, or dicey head atop it.

 

[Mark J]

I read an interesting technical paper many years ago relevant to this subject. The researchers were trying to get sharp shots of distant subjects with either a long lens tele or a biggish mirror lens. They pointed out that when you have a focal plane shutter, it generates quite a significant lateral shock when it goes off. It's OK when the shutter is fairly near the camera's centre of gravity, as it is with short lenses. But when you have a tele on the front, the combined C.ofG. of camera & lens is moved forward by many inches ; hence this causes an angular 'moment' of inertia to be generated when the shutter fires. - so the whole camera & lens briefly rotates, smearing the image ( and teles are obviously more sensitive to small motions ).
Their solution ( proved by before/after test pictures ) was to add a sturdy metal plate under the camera ( into which the tripod screw now goes ) which extended a fair amount backwards, with a slot ( for adjustment ) and a heavy weight underneath that could be slid back & forth until the combined C. of G. of everything was under the shutter, & then locked.
They pointed out that quite a light tripod could be used with this configuration and still be successful.

There are obvious practicality issues with the idea, eg. using the viewfinder could be awkward. I filed it away as an idea that might come in handy in special circumstances.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mark, that is interesting if questionable; but I 10,000 % disagree that quite a light tripod is acceptable when it comes to long teles on a camera as large as a P67. I don't even recommend a metal plate spanning some of the lens distance - I use something far more vibration dampening - a machined block of maple hardwood laminated to Garolite phenolic. And that ideally gets mounted directly to the platform top of a big Ries wooden tripod. Cumulative mass is important. And there is no viewfinder issue.

But all that is overkill if you are working with the P67 system and lenses 200mm or less in focal length. You do need a solid tripod and attachment, regardless.

 

[Mark J]

I wouldn't recommend a light tripod in general use, no. There's always the wind to contend with, for one thing.

 

[Rick A]

I like the Induro carbon fiber tripods. It is important to select a tripod that is "rated" for more than the weight equipment that you plan to use on it. I use a factor of two heavier. When I use a lower rated weight I have had shaking and wind vibration problems.

I have both Induro alloy and CF tripods. When choosing a tripod I double the weight of my heaviest outfit and buy whatever has a slightly higher weight rating.

 

[Alan9940]

I'm kind of late to this thread, but I've used what I'd call a medium-duty Induro carbon fiber tripod with a RRS BH-55 ballhead for my P67 with lenses up to 200mm and I've never noticed any image degradation from shutter shake. That said, I doubt even a used BH-55 would fall within the OP's budget so it's kind of a moot point. I would, however, ditch any center column or look for a set of legs whereby the head is mounted directly on top.

 

[Pieter12]

I'm kind of late to this thread, but I've used what I'd call a medium-duty Induro carbon fiber tripod with a RRS BH-55 ballhead for my P67 with lenses up to 200mm and I've never noticed any image degradation from shutter shake. That said, I doubt even a used BH-55 would fall within the OP's budget so it's kind of a moot point. I would, however, ditch any center column or look for a set of legs whereby the head is mounted directly on top.

The OP's tripod does not have a center column, but it looks a little spindly to me.

 

[dave olson]

I have always used Gitzo products. When I was a working professional, and needed to ensure tack sharp images for clients I used a three series tripod, heavy, and two different heads, the Gitzo 1270 or the 1372 M.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. I'm very late to this discussion. My longest lens for 35mm still is a 700/8 Questar. This thing punishes the least vibration/wiggle severely. I got nice sharp shots with it using flash. Would you believe shots at 1:4 that couldn't be told from the same shots (subject, magnification, composition, aperture and flash illumination) with a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor? My Q700 is fine, my support system wasn't. So I started looking for sources of wiggle in my support system. Turns out that the tripod I was using had very little stiffness in torsion. Oops!

Before I replaced it I spent a little time in B&H swinging on all of their floor model tripods. Most lacked torsional stiffness. I now use wood tripods -- an aged Ries and a decent grade of Berlebach -- that are more than stiff enough. I hate using ball heads, use hefty Manfrotto 3 axis heads instead, mounted on Manfrotto levelers so that should I pan to get a somewhat different shot the horizon won't move. I may still have to adjust tilt, but this is less work than adjusting tilt and roll.

I'm astonished that the OP thinks the FLM CP30-L4 II is stiff enough. No B&H floor model with similar leg locks passed my informal test.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I bought my first 6X7 from a local dealer who specialized in Pentax and Celestron, some Nikon and Questar too, who was a well-known tele-photographer. One of my CF tripods is equal in stiffness to my Ries wooden ones, and I'm glad I bought it. But there is no substitute for sheer bully mass, especially in the wind.

 

[manfrominternet]

My FLM CP30-L4 II (no center column, see photo attached below) tripod is light, for sure, at 3.1lbs, however, underneath the head there's an attachment for an S-clip to attach a sandbag, which I should consider. Also, after noticing the top rated ball head at the TheCenterColumn.com is the Feisol CB-70D, it prompted my search for 70mm ball heads, as generally speaking, the larger the ball, the steadier/stiffer the tripod head. After searching around for a bit, I'm wondering if the Leofoto HB-70 70mm Pro ball head would work. Do you guys think that this Leofoto HB-70 ball head would suffice, or would that be like taking a tank to a gun fight? (Photo attached below.)

Also, I almost forgot. I use a "Universal Quick Release Tall L-bracket for the Pentax 67II" from Kirk Enterprise Solutions. When I flip the Pentax 67II with a 200mm lens to portrait orientation using the Kirk Universal L-bracket for P67II on my Benro GD3WH 3-Way Geared Head, that's when I notice the most camera shake. Kirk used to make a dedicated non-universal L-bracket for the Pentax 67II, but these days it's just a unicorn that sometimes pops up on eBay for $800, which is just obscene. Anyway, since there are 3 different pieces/components of the Universal Quick Release Tall L-bracket for the Pentax 67II, it feels like it makes for an unsteady system. I found someone on Etsy who makes a one-piece L-bracket for the Pentax 67, and it being only one piece (instead of Kirk's 3-piece one), I suspect that it might make for a more stable shooting system. (See attached photos of Kirk's Universal L-bracket for the Pentax 67II vs. the one-piece Pentax 67 L-bracket made by someone on Etsy.)

Kirk Universal Quick Release Tall L-bracket for the Pentax 67II--

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Etsy Pentax 67 L-bracket--

​