Headless Tripod?

I'm thinking of going headless for a while with my 8x10" Gowland monorail. The camera rail is cylindrical, so I can level the camera horizontally without a tripod head. Movements on this camera are fairly generous, so I think I can put up with the inconvenience of achieving the equivalent of vertical tripod head tilt with camera movements. Pan I guess I can achieve by rotating the whole tripod or slightly unscrewing the camera as Reis recommends with its non-panning heads.

<p>

The advantages should be: more stability, less weight to carry, no concern about damage to the tripod head if I have to check it on a plane (though there are obviously other ways of avoiding this concern).

<p>

My questions for the forum are: am I missing something? Has anyone tried this and found it terribly impractical or alternately, terrifically practical?

David, I went headless once!! Never again !! The weight of the head

compared to the inconvenience of not having one went in favour of the

extra few kilos. What head have you got that you consider too heavy ?

Maybe a lighter head or ball head may be the answer ?? Regards Paul

David,

<p>

I have used a headless tripod for some time and did not find the

adjustments grueling. I use a Reis tripod and found that by adjusting

the length of the back legs I could level the camera rather quickly.

Eventually I bought the simpler Reis head for tilt and found that

helped some. My sole suggestion would be to add a quick on/off tripod

release--I use the Linhof to speed up that action.

Ron Wisnder suggested it to me years ago. Since I got the Reis a200

for next to nothing, I thought it worth a try before searching out

heads. It works.

Bob

Oh my goodness I almost always leave my Ries A100 head at home unless

I am literally shooting 20 feet from the car. If your style doesn't

often require you to point the camera more than a few degrees up or

down there just isn't much need other than convenience and it makes a

big difference in weight on a big tripod like the Ries.

David: I think a lot depends on what you are going to be

photographing.If you shoot buildings and some scenics and keep the

camera level a lot you will probably get by. I shoot scenics and

nature for most of my work and I cannot do without tilt. I also don't

want the horizon cutting through the center of my photographs. I

usually either go for a high or low horizon. I also like to include

the near foreground in many of my shots, so tilt is important. You

undoubtedly have a reason for opting not to use a tripod head. For my

photography, it is unthinkable. It is just complicating what is a

simple setup process.

I use a Graphic View 4X5 mounted to a Ries H series tripod - the big

one with the 6" plate - and no head at all. This setup could survive a

tornado! Since the Graphic View has the swings and tilts built into

the camera support, there is no need for a head. I love this

setup....it beats any newer 4X5 that I have tried hands down. Since

shooting this way it has been very difficult for me to adjust to the

much flimsier (?) Cambo that I have mounted to a Bogen 3046 with a

3063 fluid head. I really believe the main difference is in the camera

support device though. The GV is just superior in that area to the

Cambo.

Thanks for the initial responses. I'll keep checking in if there are

any more.

<p>

To answer Paul's question: I'm more interested in stability than

weight, though it wouldn't hurt to lose a couple of pounds. My

current head is a Bogen 3030 (3-way pan/tilt head, the Gowland 8x10

only weighs about 6.5 lbs plus lens plus filmholder, so I can get away

with a somewhat lighter than usual tripod for this format). The 3030

is okay if the lens isn't racked out more than 16 inches or so--more

and vibration becomes a potential issue. I am thinking of switching

to a video head or a Ries head to cut out one axis of rotation, but

before I buy another head, I'm considering seeing how it goes without.

<p>

Doug's reason for keeping the head is a valid concern for me. I just

set up the camera with a 10" lens--what I might normally use for a

scenic with some important foreground detail--and determined that

focused at about infinity I can get the equivalent of 15 degrees of

downward tilt by dropping the lens all the way and compensating with

front and rear tilts. I can get about half that much upward tilt.

This is keeping the camera stage level. I could get more by adjusting

the legs or even modifying the camera to get more front or rear fall,

which would be fairly easy to do without impairing the structure of

the camera in any obvious way.

Note to Anthony: I thought I was the only one on the planet that used

a Graphic View. I love that old camera. Mine is the Graphic View II

with the center tilts. Using the camera base still amounts to using a

tripod head though, it's just built in. I built a mount block which I

use instead of the Graphic mount at times so I can mount the camera

on top of a heavy, gear driven tripod head. Talk about stable! There

is no right or wrong way to mount a camera on a tripod as long as it

is stable and does what the photographer wants. It just seems easier

to me to use a sturdy tripod head. After more than 150 years of

photography, designers still haven't come up with the perfect tripod

head or lens shade/filter holder. Good shooting.

Go out this weekend and try it. Then you will know if it works for

you.

<p>

You could "dry" shoot if you don't want to use film.

A headless test shoot is definitely in my plans before I take off for

a week in Finland at the end of the month (going for

professional/non-photo reasons, but plan to have a bit of time to

myself), but the opinions of those who have been doing it for some

time have been helpful. It may be that I tend to keep the camera

level much of the time because I live in New York City, and it's

pretty hard <I>not</I> to take a picture of a building outdoors in New

York.

Hi Headless,

<p>

Great Idea. I have been using the 4" bowl in a video tripod for ages.

For all types of camera from 35mm to 4x5. Absolutly no problems.

Faster and lighter. Just like a ball head to use with out the

possibility of the outfit falling over. Much shorter to carry and

stow. No knobs to catch on stuff and cars. Downside? Needs a fitting

I have developed to enable 90o format shange for 35mm. Not your

problem with sheet film or square format either for that matter. I

also sugest the use of a quick release. I use the hex plate for its

simplicity.

<p>

Good luck if you are still looking.

I tried this just today with a Slik 700DX and 9lb Toyo 23G view camera

... worked like a charm! I simply replaced the head and center column

with a 3/8" bolt and a pair of fender washers, which cost me less than

60 cents at the local hardware store. I not only made the tripod more

stable but lightened it by 2.4 lbs in the process. And in the future,

I can return it to its original form in less than five minutes using a

5/8" wrench and a pair of Channelocks.

<p>

Fortunately, the Toyo has a quick-release mount, and by aligning it so

the rail is in line with the rear leg, I can quickly tilt it as needed

by adjusting only one leg. There's enough play in the tripod mount to

allow me to easily level the camera left-to-right as well. Straddling

the rear leg to compose the image is a bit of a nuisance but since I'm

on a fairly tight budget at the moment, I can live with it if it means

not having to spend any money for a while.