Dampening vibration with long lenses.

Greetings! I finally joined the big glass club and had a few questions on dampening vibrations with long

lenses. I'm familiar with "long lens techniques" and thanks to the information many of you share, I've read

quite a few articles on the subject, which I will be applying to my shooting. Best technique aside and

looking for anything that can benefit me in this area, I wondered if there are commercially available

products that can help.

 

One product that came to mind was a neoprene lens cover, like Lenscoat. My 1st instinct leads me to

believe this product would not only conceal my lens a bit more, but might actually retard some vibrations.

Are there any opinions that support this notion, or is my reasoning flawed?

 

Another product I though about comes from my archery background, where vibration is also an issue.

There are products made by Simms Vibration Labratories that are designed to reduce vibrations, which

manifests itself as sound in the bow world. These products are stuck via adhesive to areas where vibration

can be expected. If I were to use such a product, it would be applied along a gimbal arm in a manner that

wouldn't inhibit movement. Has anyone tried anything like this, or are there other products that have

proven themselves?

 

I'm using a D200, 500mm f4.5 APO, Bogen 3036 with a 3047 head. The tripod is a temporary item (relic

from my 4x5 days) I'll be ordering a Gitzo CF with either a gimbal, or a ball head. I'm leaning toward a

gimbal, but haven't ruled out a ball head, like an Arca Z1 at this point. I'll be ordering the pod in the next

couple days. Any insight about vibrations and product to combat it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

bb

What's the subject matter?

<I> My 1st instinct leads me to believe this product would not only conceal my lens a bit

more, but might actually retard some vibrations. Are there any opinions that support this

notion, or is my reasoning flawed?</i><P>

 

I have a 500 mm lens with a neoprene lens cover. My opinion is that the neoprene has

almost no effect in vibration damping (unless one is bracing the lens against a rock or

windowframe and the neoprene is acting as padding). <P>

 

I'm a big fan of gimbal heads for long lenses, but keep in mind that they are pretty much

worthless if you want to mount an uncollared lens, especially a short focal length. If you

have a good tripod and head, and use good technique at reasonable shutter speeds, you

should be OK -- although I have to admit that stabilization is quite helpful, even on a

tripod (my lens is a Canon 500/4 IS).

To dampen vibration you need a lot of coupled mass. This could be in the form of a small sandbag draped over the lens housing or just your hand or arm placed on top of it. (Hanging a weight from the tripod's centerpost does very little except to make it a slightly less likely to blow over in a strong wind.)

A heavy tripod and head solidly coupled to your lens will make it more difficult to move. Wind, or a bump from your hand, or the movement of the shutter and mirror, will impart less movement to an object with a lot of mass than to one without much mass. In the heavy object, the vibration will get started to a lesser degree. Also, other things being equal, a more massive object will have a lower resonating frequency than a less massive one. Any vibration will therefore be slower, so that there will be less movement during the time that the shutter is open. That's why you want massive tripods!

 

If you were to bury the lens in sand, the sand has enough mass to reduce vibration. A safe way to bury your lens in the sand is to put a sand bag on top of the lens, as Alex suggested. The bigger the bag the better.

 

Neoprene, or any other material that can dampen the movement between a moving object and one that isn't moving, will have essentially no effect if applied to the outside of the lens. If, as Mark said, you were to brace the neoprene-clad lens against a non-moving rock, the damping between the rock and lens would reduce vibration.

 

I suspect that adding some soft material to an archery bow does nothing except reduce the transmission of the bow's vibration to the air, which is what is producing sound. I suspect there is a psychological effect from reducing the sound, but nothing more.

Simply covering the lens with neoprene would add mass but do nothing to dampen vibrations because it adds no coupling to the steadiest feature available - the earth. That is precisely the theory behing the Moose Peterson "long lens" technique. Viscous drive heads, used for video and some still photography, makes it easy to pan smoothly, but do little if anything to dampen wind and camera vibrations.

 

The technology most likely to help is VR/IS, which is deployed in many Canon and Nikon long lenses. That does nothing for older lenses, of course, however there are some alternatives, starting with a stiff(er) tripod and fewer joints in between the camera and the earth.

 

I recently purchased a Gitzo GT-3540 tripod, which uses new technology for better joint and section stiffness (and lighter weight). Despite the extra joint (4 vs 3), I find this tripod stiff enough to use with a large video camera, which has a lens equivalent to over 800mm (frequently used completely extended and outdoors). Previously, nothing less than a Gitzo series 5 aluminum tripod would work as well at over twice the weight. The head coupling is tight, using a 75mm ball and what amounts to a G-1321 leveling head in lieu of a column.

 

There is an interesting technology tested in skis which employs active vibration damping through sensors and piezoelectric "motors". Vibrations are detected and opposing force is applied. In terms of effect, it is similar to the action of noise-cancelling headphones everyone has on planes these days. In skis, the stability in turns is greatly increased, and the aerodynamic stability in jumps.

Hi,

 

A rather low-tech method I have used seems to work for me.

 

 

I bought a plastic storage box about 14"x12", cut off the top of the sides leaving and inch or so for the remaing bottom and sides.

 

The remaining bottom was attached to a quick release plate for my tripod head.

 

I made a bean bag to the dimensions of the box bottom and filled it with plastic shot sold in sporting goods stores.

 

I use a bungee cord to hold the camera to the box bottom and bean bag.

 

 

Not much cost, and it works great for my 35mm and mf cameras...

Thanks for the replies and giving me a better picture of the issue. Not enough mass makes

sense, I imagine it's like being on a train rumbling down the tracks and placing ones hand

on the cabin wall, not likely to dampen any vibrations.

 

I will be shooting wildlife with the lens, primarily birds, waterfowl, smaller mammals and

occasionally deer. I have a smaller tripod and ball head for using uncollared lenses. I need,

in a big way, to get a carbon tripod with a better max weight rating. There is no way I want

to tote that heavy Bogen around.

 

"I recently purchased a Gitzo GT-3540..." - Edward Ingold

 

Interesting you would mention this lens, as I'm leaning towards the GT3530S for my legs.

It appears to have the stregnth and bulk to handle a 500mm balanced with a friendly

weight for carrying. Being 5' 7" I don't think the lower max height rating will really be an

issue for me. For waterfowl shooting I really like to get a lower camera angle for birds on

the water and shore. For birds in flight and perched I don't think a foot, or so of tripod

height will make much difference.

 

Mark, the only other lens combo I can see using with this tripod and gimbal set-up (at this

time) would be a Nikon AF 300mm F4, is a gimbal over kill for this lens, would I be better

served with a ball head for the combo of the 500mm f4.5 and 300mm f4? For waterfowl I

like the idea of

catching bird in flight, landing and taking off. I think a gimbal will give me the best

mechanics in that regard. Additionally, I'm looking at this 500mm as an interim lens, a

good lens to get started and as my success and needs change, so will my budget. I would

like to get my camera support right from the get-go and have a set-up that will take me

through many generations of cameras and future lenses I may purchace.

 

Again, thanks for the replies and helping me as I enter a new area in my photography,

bb

<I>For birds in flight and perched I don't think a foot, or so of tripod height will make

much difference.</i><P>

 

My preference for shooting <A HREF="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/

flyingindex.html">birds in flight</a> is hand-holding. You need a very high shutter

speed -- 1/1500 or higher, usually -- to freeze a flying bird, so stabilization (IS,VR,

tripod) isn't as important as at moderate exposure times. I do seem to get better results

with IS on than off, but other people who do excellent flight shots feel it is better to have

IS off.<P>

 

Tripods and gimbal heads are great for flight shots if the target is moving predictably from

left to right (or vice versa) and isn't too high above the horizon. They aren't much good if

birds are high overhead -- ever try to point a tripod-mounted lens nearly straight up and

then try to aim it at a rapidly-moving subject?<P>

 

I would guess that a gimbal would be overkill for a 300/4. Try this: can you balance the

lens with camera attached on the tripod foot, or does it tend to tilt backwards? If you

can't balance it, it won't easily balance on a gimbal. The other possible issue is clearance:

if the camera is close to the tripod foot, when you point the lens up the camera may

impact the gimbal. You'd have to try the 'fit' with a particular gimbal+lens+camera

combination. In general, a ballhead is fine for a lens

like a 300/4. Gimbals come into their prime for 300/2.8-sized lenses and bigger.<P>

 

You can compromise and get a good ballhead and a Wimberley Sidekick. The latter

converts a ballhead into a very good gimbal quickly and reversably. It's not quite as good

as the 'full' Wimberley (I've used both), as the Sidekick+ballhead is heavier, more

expensive in total, and not quite as smooth as the 'full' Wimberley. But it works well with

500 mm lenses.<P>

 

But even with the Sidekick, if you're out in the field with your big lens and then you want

to use a small lens with the plain ballhead, you're left with the problem of what to do with

the 500 mm. I mentioned one solution on <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=00L0fU">this thread</a> but it's not for everyone.<P>

 

Finally, if you want to use a 500 mm lens on small mammals (meaning, chipmunk-sized),

you will need extension tubes and/or a teleconverter. None of the current big-glass 500

mm lenses (Canon, Nikon, Sigma) focus close enough for frame-filling shots of small birds

and mammals. Add enough extension and you can use a 500 + TCs for good semi-

macro shots of dragonflies -- that's how I got most of the pictures on <A HREF="http://

faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/dragonflies.html">this page</a>

300mm f4.0 with a big body would not balance well on a gimbal. Use it on a regular ball head.

 

Just my 2-cents, which you can accept or reject as you like: You are putting the gear before the image. When someone says they want a lens and tripod for birds, wildlife, etc., that's like my mom saying she wants the perfect camera for landscapes, portraits, action shots, all in one.

 

The first tripod we all buy is never the last and you will own three or four (each with a different head) soon enough. If you go into this thinking "I have to get it right the first time around", you will never be happy. Buy what feels good in the store, don't think too much, and just shoot it a lot. You will then know where you need to be. It's baby steps, not a home run on the first try. We all have gone through it. Good luck.

Erik, I can appreciate your comments, in practical application one size rarely fits all. I think

you're reading a bit more into my situation, though.

 

"I would like to get my camera support right from the get-go and have a set-up that will

take me through many generations of cameras and future lenses I may purchace." - bb

 

This only means I don't want to under support my lens in regards to vibration issues and I

want enough support to effectively handle something like a 600mm f4. Through 25 yrs of

photography I have learned there are smart purchases that can save unseen aggravation. I

believe quality legs are one of those items, as are quality heads. Too often the emphasis

and budget is put into the body and lens, while trying to take shortcuts on equipment that

is equally important. I believe I have 5 tripods now of various sizes, yesterday's purchase

of a g1549

(1548 with a center column) will be my long lens legs.

 

Mark, fascinating set up piggybacking smaller lenses on your longs lens rig. As you and

Erik point out I can't expect the gimbals to give smooth performance on my 300 f4 (and

smaller) and that page and your jpegs gave me some good insight into making my long

lens support functional for smaller lenses. I really would like to have the option to put on a

different lens if shooting opportunities arise. Your set-up give a lot of versatility to the

shooter. Since a lot of my work will be behind my home, I can tote that type of weight

rather easily in a backpack.

 

At this point a ball head is probably my best purchase and I'm leaning toward the A-S V1.

The gimbal is still something I want to try, but a quality ball head is can effectively do the

job and the gimbal can be on with list for the meantime.

 

Thank you all for you insight, it's as real benefit to have the opportunity to read advice

from seasoned veterans,

 

bb

Brian,

 

When you're ready, point your browser at www.tripodhead.com - the Wimberley Head is the defacto standard (not to mention the current benchmark) for long lens support.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

This has been a terrific thread. Let me add just one tiny suggestion that is useful in some situations, i.e., when you photograph a bird or animal that is NOT in motion (e.g., a perched flycatcher or other bird that seems likely to sit in one place for at least a few seconds, or say, a two-toed sloth hanging in a tree). You can use your DSLR's mirror lockup feature. Only higher-end cameras have this, unfortunately, but it's quite valuable. On the Nikon D200, for example, you get your bird framed and in focus, then you trip the shutter once to lock the mirror then wait a few seconds for the vibrations to cease. You watch your bird for the "right moment" when its head/eyes are ideally situated, then you then click the shutter again (I use a remote cord). Without "mirror flop" the amount of shutter vibration is greatly reduced. During my recent trip to Costa Rica I had some real success using this method in low-light situations.