Pan-Tilt Heads

[Arthurwg]

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]

I use a Gitzo three way head and Gitzo tripod, but both are very old. They work well. But the head you're thinking about seems to have some faults. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1499819-REG/gitzo_ghf3w_3_way_fluid_head.html/reviews As an aside, it seems to have fluid controls which might be better suited for video.

 

[Ariston]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Arthurwg]

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]

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.

Using a 500mm Hasselblad lens will put more demands on a tripod than most!

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

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.

 

[Nige]

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.

I love my 410.

 

[jeffreyg]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Anyone use a leveler with a three-way head?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Anyone use a leveler with a three-way head?

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]

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]

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.

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]

The lens weighs only 2.1 kg and has a tripod socket. The camera weighs around 0.6 kg.

Two tripods is massive overkill.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Anyone use a leveler with a three-way head?

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]

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.

Dan, Does a leveler make any sense with a three-way head for stills?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, Does a leveler make any sense with a three-way head for stills?

I said that already. Yes yes yes. You want one.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I said that already. Yes yes yes. You want one.

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's a really cheap leveler.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/144469-REG/Matthews_399744_Camera_Wedge.html