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

[DREW WILEY]

All of that looks way too under-built for serious 6X7 tele work. When I want a serious L-bracket I simply get a four dollar Simpson structural steel L, like used for wall bracing, at the lumberyard, and spend a few minutes on the drill press. And then that gets mounted DIRECTLY to the platform top of a serious tripod. And by now, most people should realize that I consider ball heads the root of all evil when is comes to stability. All of that sticking way up above the tripod top itself unnecessarily increases the torque leverage on the legs themselves quite a bit. A wobble-bobble-head approach.

 

[Lachlan Young]

My FLM CP30-L4 II (no center column, see photo attached below) tripod is light, for sure, at 3.1lbs

If it was 3-section, you might well be OK, but 4-section arguably makes the last leg-section way too thin for the purpose - if you really must have a 4-section tripod, you really want something like the 35 or 38 series from FLM, or the equivalent 4 or 5 series Gitzo - the LM404 or LN404 from Leofoto seem pretty similar too. Fewer leg sections, and/ or larger diameter tubing are what you want.

After searching around for a bit, I'm wondering if the Leofoto HB-70 70mm Pro ball head would work.

Anything roughly equivalent to the Arca B1 or better would be a good starting place. In other words, 55mm upwards for ball diameter - I know some people like to make a lot of noise about ball heads, but that's usually because of not using the good (i.e. quite expensive, large & heavy) ones, where the mounting plate is sufficiently close to the ball. L-style QR plates are a trade-off between rigidity and convenience.

 

[Steven Lee]

Lots of rookie advice in this thread. Apparently nobody understands, let alone practices, serious shooting. For any kind of serious tele work investing into a 4x5' block of reinforced concrete is absolutely imperative. I always bring one with me on a dedicated (and very serious) helicopter.

Always.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For use in the studio, on an Inka studio stand, with lenses shorter than 200mm, would a Slik ball head (I don't have it to hand at the moment to pass along the model #, but it is probably 2 1/2" across on the base - maybe closer to 3" - and stands a good 6" tall from base to platform) be good enough? I'll be shooting with strobes most likely. I've got other heads I can use as well - currently I have a Majestic 1500 which is absolutely overkill (I use it for the 8x10 and 14x17), and I also have a Gitzo 12xx low profile pan-tilt head (probably also overkill, but not as massive or ponderous as the Majestic).

 

[Lachlan Young]

Inka studio stand

The ball head Inka made was pretty similar in size to the Arca Monoball. Extremely solid & prone to similar freezing up.

If the head you have is something like the Slik PBH-52 (looks a lot like an RRS head), it's probably plenty capable.

 

[GLS]

Lots of rookie advice in this thread. Apparently nobody understands, let alone practices, serious shooting. For any kind of serious tele work investing into a 4x5' block of reinforced concrete is absolutely imperative. I always bring one with me on a dedicated (and very serious) helicopter.

Always.

You're on the right track, but concrete isn't really the right material to properly damp those residual vibrations. Solid granite is what the pros use.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The ball head Inka made was pretty similar in size to the Arca Monoball. Extremely solid & prone to similar freezing up.

If the head you have is something like the Slik PBH-52 (looks a lot like an RRS head), it's probably plenty capable.

I unearthed the ball head in question. I put an Arca-Swiss style quick release plate on it and dropped the 67 on top - it would take an earthquake to move it when it's locked down. I'm going to go out after work today and shoot some with it - going to try out the 120 soft focus lens and see how it fares.

 

[Shaps]

I like many of my fellow photographers with many years expierience I would spend a couple of hundred dollars on a good tripod head. a couple of years ago I needed a micro adjustable no slip afrer tighening head one for macro work and bit the bullet and bought an Arca Swiss geared head. Very expensive, but not as much as a camera body or good lens. Amazing quality, it has no locks as it doesn’t need any. And it has quick release on the gears for quick basic setup. It will hold a very heavy camera/lens. I should have bought one many years ago.

 

[Hassasin]

You're on the right track, but concrete isn't really the right material to properly damp those residual vibrations. Solid granite is what the pros use.

I would venture to argue that sand or gravel is the most preferable for vibration reducing effect of any weighted solution.

 

[loccdor]

As I've never found a tripod that could truly stabilize a medium format SLR at my budget, I actually go the route of using a 9 stop ND filter to increase the exposure long enough that the vibration is dampened throughout the majority of it. This is for speeds slower than 1/60. Getting them longer than 2 seconds seems to take them out of the danger zone.

 

[Shaps]

https://thecentercolumn.com/ Is a good source for tripod information

 

[Pieter12]

As I've never found a tripod that could truly stabilize a medium format SLR at my budget, I actually go the route of using a 9 stop ND filter to increase the exposure long enough that the vibration is dampened throughout the majority of it. This is for speeds slower than 1/60. Getting them longer than 2 seconds seems to take them out of the danger zone.

Mirror lock-up? Self-timer? Cable release? It seems your solution might be a bit over the top.

 

[MFstooges]

I will just get rid of that head and replace with ball head, the reason is the ball head gives lower center of gravity in relation with the tripod. And the bracket on post #10 if you use long lenses like 200 mm.
I also don't like carbon fiber tripod because in my opinion the material doesn't dampen vibration. No scientific explanation on this other than when I tried to tap the head of CF tripods at store they vibrate more than my Manfrotto 055. It could be because the aluminum tripod is heavier or the same explanation why CF bicycle frame rides harsher than aluminum or steel frame.

 

[Chuck1]

I really wanted a 67, then I had one I in my hands and tripped the shutter, I didn't really expect the kick it had, that made me not buy it.

 

[Pieter12]

I will just get rid of that head and replace with ball head, the reason is the ball head gives lower center of gravity in relation with the tripod. And the bracket on post #10 if you use long lenses like 200 mm.
I also don't like carbon fiber tripod because in my opinion the material doesn't dampen vibration. No scientific explanation on this other than when I tried to tap the head of CF tripods at store they vibrate more than my Manfrotto 055. It could be because the aluminum tripod is heavier or the same explanation why CF bicycle frame rides harsher than aluminum or steel frame.

The example he cites has a ball head. And carbon fiber bike frames are harsher than aluminum or steel because they are stiffer and transmit bumps straight to the rider without absorbing them. Steel flexes more than either, giving a more comfortable ride.

 

[reddesert]

The example he cites has a ball head. And carbon fiber bike frames are harsher than aluminum or steel because they are stiffer and transmit bumps straight to the rider without absorbing them. Steel flexes more than either, giving a more comfortable ride.

The frame part of a bicycle frame - the double diamond triangulated part - doesn't flex up-down to a degree that a rider could perceive, regardless of material. It is incredibly strong and stiff in the plane of the frame, because it is triangulated, like a bridge truss. (Less so sideways, but you don't sit on a bike sideways.) Flex occurs in the un-braced areas - the fork legs, the fork steerer, the seatpost, the handlebars. Of course, more vibration dampening is done by the soft parts such as the tire+tube, the seat, even the handlebar tape. This is a topic of much internet discussion/flaming, but a serious engineering analysis will show that even a steel bike diamond frame is so rigid that it doesn't damp out vibration compared to the other parts of the system.

What does this have to do with tripods (I'm trying to keep it relevant)? Well, for tripods we have the option of making the camera support much more massive than the camera (vs bicycles where a bike more massive than the rider is unappealing). We also have to consider braced vs unbraced parts of the structure, and any soft parts that could helpfully reduce vibration without compromising rigidity.

Clearly, extending the center column is a no-no, however with a big shaky camera, even the sturdiness of the center column clamp may have an effect. The height of the head above the tripod platform should be kept small, but the rigidity/inertia of the head is very important. I think many people use a ball or pan head that's undersized. Large solid ball heads exist but are typically expensive. Back on the first page of this thread, I suggested replacing the OP's smallish ball head with a pan head like a Bogen/Manfrotto 3047, which is heavy, unfashionable, but very sturdy.

For damping high frequency vibration, both the mass of the system, and any soft parts - such as the rubber/cork/plastic pads between camera and head, and head and tripod - should be relevant. Actually measuring vibration dampening is something that the author at thecentercolumn.net has ventured into: https://thecentercolumn.com/2018/04/06/top-plate-stability/ and https://thecentercolumn.com/2018/06/05/carbon-fiber-vs-aluminum-tripods/ for example. However, the simple but heavy answer is often "use a bigger support."

 

[DREW WILEY]

The first thing you want to do is toss any extendable center column into a lake, along with any ball head attached to it. A bigger ball head just creates more torque up there, depending on how long its stem is. It's more logical to use as low a profile of a head as possible, not something with an extended neck.

With a long heavy tele like my P67 300 EDIF, I use zero head, but two attachment points on a machined wood/phenolic bar for sake of both the body mount thread and the lens collar thread at the same time. Then this uniting bar is bolted directly to the top platform of a serious tripod, with no intervening head. That works better than the most expensive tripod head you can find.

And yes, the size of that platform is important. You want something at least 3 or 4 inches in diameter. And better made CF tripods actually have splayed out leg hinge attachments right below the tripod top, to further increase the effective diameter and tame torsion. Take a look at the pictures of some of the top end models. It makes a difference.

Trying to absorb vibrations with soft padding is futile in this case. The whole name of the game is to prevent the vibrations in the first place.

The proof is in the pudding. I get exceptionally crisp shots with my P67 system. Of course, I also make use of the mirror lockup features for any exposures slower than 1/60th.

Another law of the universe is that you get what you pay for. A cheap tripod is exactly that.

 

[Hassasin]

Some entries here make it sound as P67 were bar far the worst camera system in the history of Disneyland.

I don't use it, even though I am getting it as we speak, along with the 300 EDIF of all lenses. But have a friend who's been shooting P67 for a few decades. He never gave me an impression I would need a bullet proof jacket made of latest not publicly available materials in order to use it successfully.

But surely, support needs to match its host grain for grain or it will not do what is expected of it.

 

[craigclu]

Instinct wouldn't send me in this direction but after testing many (many!!), leg and head combinations with an attached laser pointer and checking on-film results in my P67 era (still have it, I guess), I found the Gitzo off-set 1575 series to seem compatible with the camera's vibration frequencies. It doesn't seem logical but it somehow worked. A heavy Berlebach and Bogen 3046 leg set (The one Lester would be sitting on in his ads of the day) were the best leg sets tested for me. I had surprises, good and bad with the laser testing with some substantial gear not performing as well as expected.

 

[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.

IMAGE # 8 (Horsetail Falls) was taken with a 400m SMC Takumar 6x7 lens (2570 g) using the camera and tripod set-up as mentioned above. The tripod, necessarily off-axis, was shoved down in deep snow and the shutter speed was, IIRC, 1/15 second with MLU. The trees on the top are sharp.

 

[DREW WILEY]

With my own method, I don't get any shake or vibration at all with a long tele (300 EDIF). I took a black and white shot of Ribbon Falls lined with ice patterns last April. A very crisp print indeed.

I was using MLU too of course. That's more a legal liability, however. I didn't want anyone down in Merced 70 miles away suing me for their brick chimney collapsing due to a 5.0 Richter scale event.

At higher shutter speeds, I've actually shot that lens without a tripod, but rested upon a coat or hat atop a fence railing or car roof, or something like that.

 

[GregY]

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.

That was my experience with the Pentax 6x7 as well. A big tripod & even a lens cradle didn't help & led me to give up and just go to LF.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Who knows how many tens of thousands, or millions, of successful long lens shots have been successfully done with the P67 system. It excels at that application. I always get crisp shots. In fact, it was the preferred camera of many serious astronomical photographers for several decades. It's all just a matter of appropriate support. Otherwise, shutter shake is a non-issue. It's the mirror slap which is potentially the culprit at lower speeds; and even that is considerably dampened with the right kind of tripod material.

The solution isn't just a big tripod and lens cradle. I look at some of those in a store bought fashion and shake my head. They're made of vibration-prone materials. My own lens cradle is made of maple hardwood laminated to thick phenolic board, then soaked in marine epoxy. It's as solid as a rock and cost me about ten dollars to make. And just for fun I mixed some rust into the epoxy so the gadget would match my old weather-beaten Ries maple tripod.

The lens support is bolted directly to the platform top of either my Ries wooden tripod or my big Feisol CF one. It's a way more stable setup than even my heavy cast old Bogen pan-tilt head and hex plate ever was, without all that extra weight.

LF is different in many ways. You can achieve long focal lengths using a lightweight leaf shutter lens and a bellows. But bellows are more susceptible to the wind. I'll tangle with that challenge for the umpteenth time tomorrow on the coast. It's very windy here this time of the year. But there might be a brief hiatus tomorrow.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

getting very stiff camera support is one philosophy of fighting camera shake. Another is to get dampening support. This can be tested by comparing a very stiff tripod standing on concrete vs supporting the same tripod by standing each foot on a bean bag and comparing the results. In theory, the bean bag will dampen any camera shake and thereby eliminate it, whereas a stiff and rigidly supported tripod will be allowed to transfer any vibration. This also explains the success of wooden tripods, which act as dampeners.

 

[Pieter12]

getting very stiff camera support is one philosophy of fighting camera shake. Another is to get dampening support. This can be tested by comparing a very stiff tripod standing on concrete vs supporting the same tripod by standing each foot on a bean bag and comparing the results. In theory, the bean bag will dampen any camera shake and thereby eliminate it, whereas a stiff and rigidly supported tripod will be allowed to transfer any vibration. This also explains the success of wooden tripods, which act as dampeners.

Sorry, I guess I don't have the background to understand this. If the camera shakes, the camera shakes. Whether that may be dampened by the tripod or surface it stands on, the shake still originates in the camera. It might not be accentuated, but to my mind, it wouldn't be eliminated.