Pan-Tilt Heads

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,675
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
In pursuit of maximum sharpness with my recently acquired 500mm F8 Hasselblad lens and soon to arrive tripod I've decided to move away from ball heads as too problematic and less stable and move on to a pan-tilt head like the Gitzo GHF3W 3-Wedge-Fluid-Neiger. I won't be photographing birds or other fast-moving wildlife but rather landscapes and architecture, so I won't need a gimbal set-up at this point either. I also understand that attaching the lens directly to the top of the tripod may be the most stable, but that seems too inconvenient. Any thoughts?
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,449
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

Ariston

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Atlanta
Format
Multi Format
I have gotten a couple of Manfrotto (or whatever they are sometimes called in the US) heads super cheap (below $40), attached to tripods at thrift stores. They are rock solid. I don't understand the need for $700 tripods, but maybe that's just because I am not that good. I guess it would make more sense to me if they were for video.
 

voceumana

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
896
Location
USA (Utah)
Format
Multi Format
This is a superb pan-tilt head from Manfrotto: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/553888-REG/Manfrotto_229_229_Super_Pro_Head.html

While I haven't tried this head, it seems to be a copy of a very popular and now discontinued Manfrotto head: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1326796-REG/studio_assets_sa1423_heavy_duty_three_way.html

A fluid head is not needed for still photography--the fluid dampening helps smooth out movements during panning and titling while filming movies and videos.
 

Dan Daniel

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,883
Location
upstate New York
Format
Medium Format
I've had good experiences with this head. The handles push in to make it more compact, there is a 'fluid' drag setting on the tilt controls- you set a 'minimum' level and can unlock without the head flopping loose.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1034870-REG/manfrotto_mhxpro_3w_3_way_pan_tilt_head.html

But this has been with 4x5 and 6x9 technical cameras and other medium format where I can mount pretty well under the center of gravity. Not sure what your 500 will do, and if there is a tripod mount on the lens body for better balance.
 
OP
OP

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,675
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
I have a Manfrotto 410 that I've used for years. But I must say I can't stand the controls. Find them very slow and difficult to operate.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,902
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Using a 500mm Hasselblad lens will put more demands on a tripod than most!
 

chriscrawfordphoto

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
1,887
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Format
Medium Format
The Manfrotto 3047 is a great heavy-duty pan-tilt head; I have one i bought when I was in high school 29 years ago, and I still use it. It works great with a heavy Hasselblad setup. They don't make it anymore but you can get them used for very little money.
 

jeffreyg

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,641
Location
florida
Format
Medium Format
I also have a Manfrotto 3047 that i use with my 350 and sometimes with the 350 + 2x. the lens doesn't have a mounting plate so I had a machine shop make a "gadget" that has a mounting plate and holds the lens. I would use the mounting plate that is on your 3lb lens because it is designed to balance the weight over the tripod.. It should not be inconvenient since it is probably in this case best to remove the camera from the tripod to change lenses anyways.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/
 

Dennis-B

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
484
Location
Southeast Michigan
Format
35mm
Likewise, the 3047 Bogen/Manfrotto. I've found them for as little as $20 in used camera stores. They're mounted on most of my tripods, with the exception of a Bogen/Manfrotto 229, which is a 3047 on steroids. I even removed the offset ball head from my Gitzo G1320, and added a 3047. One of the plates I use is a square one which replaces the hexagonal one. And I found a Hejnar hex plate adapter to Arca Swiss, best of both worlds.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,823
Format
Multi Format
The Studio Assets head mentioned in post #4 above is a knockoff of the Manfrotto 029/Bogen 3047.

I have two of the Manfrotto 229/Bogen 3029 heads mentioned in post #4 above. They replaced two Manfrotto 029/Bogen 3047 heads.

The 029/3047 did very well under a 700/8 Questar with a Nikon hung on it, froze up under my 25 pound Baby Bertha.

The 229/3029s are better, also heavier.

Either would work well for the OP.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,823
Format
Multi Format
Alan Edward Klein said:
Anyone use a leveler with a three-way head?
Click to expand...
Yes. I got a Bogen 3115/Manfrotto 138 to put under a fluid head when I started shooting movies. Later replaced with a Manfrotto 438. I have two tripods, each has a 438 permanently mounted. The 438 is sturdier and generally nicer than the 138.

I got a Manfrotto 338 QTVR leveler as part of a bundle of stuff, have never used it. It might make sense for its intended purpose, but for general use a leveler that works over large angles is preferable.

A leveler makes setting up quicker and easier, guarantees that panning won't move the horizon up or down. You might think that this doesn't matter much for still photography, but it makes recomposing by panning easier.
 

mgb74

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
4,774
Location
MN and MA US
Format
Multi Format
I wonder, with a lens that size/weight and a body that size/weight, if both the body and lens should be supported. Especially if mounted for any length of time.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,823
Format
Multi Format
mgb74 said:
I wonder, with a lens that size/weight and a body that size/weight, if both the body and lens should be supported. Especially if mounted for any length of time.
Click to expand...
The lens weighs only 2.1 kg and has a tripod socket. The camera weighs around 0.6 kg.

Two tripods is massive overkill.
 

mgb74

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
4,774
Location
MN and MA US
Format
Multi Format
Dan Fromm said:
The lens weighs only 2.1 kg and has a tripod socket. The camera weighs around 0.6 kg.

Two tripods is massive overkill.
Click to expand...

My thought was that the weight of the body or the lens would place a lot of stress on the lens mount. So I was thinking something like this.
 

k.hendrik

Subscriber
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
684
Location
The Netherlands
Format
Multi Format
Manfrotto 808RC4 + 028B with on top a Mamiya RZ67 + 250mm + AEprism FE701=3,818kg.
Steady as a rock but I'm not happy with the precision of the two handles; to often I have to adjust again.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,823
Format
Multi Format
mgb74 said:
My thought was that the weight of the body or the lens would place a lot of stress on the lens mount. So I was thinking something like this.
Click to expand...
Understood, but the person who posted it says the bracket connecting the camera's and the lens' tripod mounts is for balance.

My Questar 700 weighs 1.95 kg, also has its own tripod mount. I hang the light camera on the heavy lens, not the heavy lens on the light camera. That's why the 500/8 Tele-Tessar has its own tripod mount, not far in front of the camera.
 

JWMster

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
1,160
Location
Annapolis, MD
Format
Multi Format
Arthurwg said:
I have a Manfrotto 410 that I've used for years. But I must say I can't stand the controls. Find them very slow and difficult to operate.
Click to expand...
I have the 410 as well. Bought from KEH at a good price. Very good for what I'm asking it to do. But tend to agree the controls... just aren't intuitively obvious so they're not quick. With 3 way adjustment, I'm constantly starting with the wrong one. But it is much easier to set up a level camera than a ball head, and it is much less trouble than some of the other options. Weight? Zillions of tons.
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
Alan Edward Klein said:
Anyone use a leveler with a three-way head?
Click to expand...

Acratech also makes a nice leveling base. They’re handy with any kind of head, if you want to be able to pan on a level surface.
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,449
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Dan, Does a leveler make any sense with a three-way head for stills?
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,449
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Dan Fromm said:
I said that already. Yes yes yes. You want one.
Click to expand...
Well,, the reason I ask is I never can get a tripod perfectly level even with a the bullseye. It's always off enough so when I pan, I have to adjust the three-way anyway after I pan. So will the leveler really provide me a pan without any need for leveling after moving? If I still have to adjust even a little, I might as well not bother getting one. Do you or anyone find this problem with the leveler?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…