- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,949
- Format
- 8x10 Format
I really enjoy your comparitive analogy of Hassy vs Pentax.Weight-bearing is not the whole issue! The dampening properties (or lack thereof) of the tripod system are also important, because torque and vibration issues are additive. That's why I like both the mass and absorbing qualities of big wooden tripods for this kind of application. Thin metal tripods are the worst, especially if used with a type of metal head with a pinch point which further amplifies any vibration present, ball heads being the worst in an engineering sense. All this is just common sense. I do sometimes use a big carbon fiber tripod for this P67/300 combintation, but have it equipped with a center hook for hanging a bag of rocks if I need to give it supplementary weight in the wind or on spongy ground. I carefully tested all kinds of options. Even when I used a 4lb cast Bogen pan/tilt head atop myh big wooden Ries tripod and seemed to get good crisp shots, upon comparison with enlargements from my current way of doing it, with the camera bolted right to the tripod platform and no intervening head, the improvement in image precision is quite evident. Because anything you add above that platform is somehow going to act as its own torque vector in combination with the overhanging lens weight itself. This is basic. But some of you think you can make gold out of lead, or invent a time machine that defies the laws of physics. All kinds of things work, but some things work better than others. ... I might add, in response to J., that working with a long lens on a Hassie vs P67 might be analogous in certain respects, but when it comes to getting bounced around by potential vibrations, a Hassie is like riding a calf in a rodeo, while a Pentax 6x7 is like riding a bull !
Maybe shaped as a semi circle.
Thanks for the honest answer. I have never gotten a sharp photo with the 300mm on a tripod. Unbelievably, when I have handheld it, I've got some sharp photos. I avoid the lens now but am thinking of going with the later one with the tripod mount or giving it one last chance with the Manfrotto lens support. I don't think Pentax has ever made too many mistakes but not having a tripod mount on the older 300mm was one of them! You may have just saved me $1000!Let me put this in perspective. The shortest regular Tele lens for the P67 is 150mm; the 165 is only slightly heavier, and the 200 only 20% heavier. All of these take a 67mm filter and work well with common tripods like a Gitzo Reporter or Tiltall with good midweight pan-tilt heads. But once you go to the next focal length of 300, you're talking about double the lens wt and 82mm filters, a whole new ballgame! I wasn't kidding when I stated it takes a more solid support than many 8x10's, because all that wt and torque is forward off-center, and you've got a potential vibration amplification problem due to the big SLR mirror slap. Mirror lock-up really helps; but for some subjects like wildlife you might want to keep your eye on the action. That Manfrotto 405 head is a useless TOY for this kind of application. I'm not trying to be rude, but save you wasting money or being disappointed.
Any 5 lb tripod is featherweight with respect to the current topic, and generally not in the league of what is realistically needed in this particular instance concerning 300mm P67 lenses. The bigger problem is the nature of attachment at the top. Have you ever even worked with a Pentax 6X7 with a 300mm lens on it, Proud Male? Doesn't sound like it. That Slik might be fine for shorter P67 lens usage. Have you ever thought of making a mounting attachment directly to your power chair?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?