in tripods, how stable is stable?

I have a relatively cheap aluminum tripod and ball head purchased some years ago as a set—a Vanguard Alta Pro 263AT with SBH-100 ball head. Why this one? It was The Wirecutter's top recommendation at the time (and still is, weirdly), and the set was only about $160.

I'm skeptical of my tripod/head combination's stability. When supporting a long lens (with camera attached), any bump on the tripod or on the lens itself will start the whole setup quivering with vibrations that take up to three seconds or more to die down completely, judging by the image in the viewfinder.

While I have neither the desire, nor the need, to spend many hundreds of dollars to upgrade, I am curious how much better a support can be.

I remember reading once that, when a long lens is properly supported, you can whack the front end with your hand and see no movement in the viewfinder. Now, I don't know if this was written by an authority or by a random dude making stuff up, but this statement is literally incredible to me. In my imagination, the lens would have to be bolted at several points to a solid concrete pedestal for this to be possible.

In truth, how much more stable is a pro-quality, let's say, thousand-dollar tripod/head set than my hobbyist one?

(I know that stability is also influenced by the quality of the long lens's tripod collar, but for the sake of argument let's just assume that part is as good as it can be.)

how much more stable is a pro-quality, let's say, thousand-dollar tripod/head set than my hobbyist one?

IDK. I suppose you sink the grand in carbon fiber mainly paying for antimatter you don't need to carry? Otherwise you get Manfrotto's top of the line (metal) leg set for less and have change left, to splurge on the perfect head.

Linhof made kind of decent tripods too (assuming you have somebody apprentice volunteering to cart or carry them...) if such a beast is permitted to weigh, it can become quite solid.

Thanks to both of you, and let me clarify that I'm not after advice to improve stability. I just want to hear some anecdotal evidence regarding how much more stable an expensive set of legs and head are than mine.

Also, can anyone confirm or deny the statement regarding the ability to whack the front of a long lens with no resulting vibration?

Wanted or not,

1. be sure it's the long lens mounted to the tripod, not the camera body
    
   
2. as suggested, add mass by hanging something on the tripod
   
3. go for mass in the tripod itself. Portability and stability - usually you have one OR the other
   
4. mirror up and a remote release, .....
   

good to let's say 20 lbs

Only that the head will stay where it is put under that weight. It has nothing directly to do with stability

I remember reading once that, when a long lens is properly supported, you can whack the front end with your hand and see no movement in the viewfinder.

Keep in mind that whoever offered this advice is unlikely to be an expert. One of the first things they teach you in expert school is to avoid whacking your lenses. I have seen someone accidentally strike their lens (wouldn't call it a "whack") and I was impressed with how quickly the movement stopped.

Something to add to JDM's list: keep the center column either all the way down or as low as you possibly can.

I have seen someone accidentally strike their lens (wouldn't call it a "whack") and I was impressed with how quickly the movement stopped.

Okay now that's interesting. Can you describe their support setup?

The most stable camera platform I could devise is an industrial ball head (designed to support heavy sub-assemblies during manufacture) anchored to a boulder. Not really transportable. Every tripod with collapsible legs introduces a wobble factor with every mechanical joint (consider 5 segments vs. 2) plus the rigidity of the head. Every joint adds flex. Increased length of each part adds flex. Increased focal length adds flex. My most stable tripod is the industrial head on a surveyor's tripod which I use for astro photography. I have high-end ball heads on a GT3450 which is rock solid until the focal length exceeds 200 mm. At that point, balance of long lenses and avoiding the temptation to whack the gear becomes critical. However, the tripod that travels with me is a lightweight Velbon 4-section carbon with an Acratech head. Lightness counts unless you're close to the car.

How much rigidity do you need vs weight and cost? I doubt you would be happy with gear that passes the whack (or tap) test you described (no visible movement) unless you have a Chiropractor on retainer. If my support dampens out within a second of a firm tap, I'm satisfied. Only when I use long lenses do I drag out the heavier gear.

If you are looking to get a rigid tripod without spending big bucks on carbon, look for a used aluminum studio tripod and a head designed for view cameras. I used to have a Majestic with a gear head - a nice rig that cut groves in my shoulder when carrying it, but it was solid.

The most stable camera platform I could devise is an industrial ball head (designed to support heavy sub-assemblies during manufacture) anchored to a boulder. Not really transportable. Every tripod with collapsible legs introduces a wobble factor with every mechanical joint (consider 5 segments vs. 2) plus the rigidity of the head. Every joint adds flex. Increased length of each part adds flex. Increased focal length adds flex. My most stable tripod is the industrial head on a surveyor's tripod which I use for astro photography. I have high-end ball heads on a GT3450 which is rock solid until the focal length exceeds 200 mm. At that point, balance of long lenses and avoiding the temptation to whack the gear becomes critical. However, the tripod that travels with me is a lightweight Velbon 4-section carbon with an Acratech head. Lightness counts unless you're close to the car.

 

How much rigidity do you need vs weight and cost? I doubt you would be happy with gear that passes the whack (or tap) test you described (no visible movement) unless you have a Chiropractor on retainer. If my support dampens out within a second of a firm tap, I'm satisfied. Only when I use long lenses do I drag out the heavier gear.

 

If you are looking to get a rigid tripod without spending big bucks on carbon, look for a used aluminum studio tripod and a head designed for view cameras. I used to have a Majestic with a gear head - a nice rig that cut groves in my shoulder when carrying it, but it was solid.

Excellent. This is the kind of anecdotal data i love. The image of an industrial head anchored to a boulder is just lovely.

If my support dampens out within a second of a firm tap, I'm satisfied.

I would be happy with that, too. I think i understand now what it would take to get that level of rigidity and damping.

No image movement with a whack? Nonsense. If it does that, it's probably not portable.

Thanks for that!

when a long lens is properly supported, you can whack the front end with your hand and see no movement in the viewfinder.

I put a 400/6.3 on a serious Linhof ballhead, bolted onto the before mentioned 13lbs Manfrotto hiking legset. When I tip the front of the lens (downward like a sticky typewriter), I see movement in the VF and it seems a bit less, when I aim for the back of the lens in the tripod collar, the setup springs back and seems steady. - So the 2 second mirror pre-release of a DSLR should work quite well with it. but there is still a reason to utilize cable releases on such tripods.

I assume for mounting long lenses solidly you need a 2nd tri or monopod below your monorail or maybe below the back of your camera when you mounted it's bed to a tripod?

I doubt unwhackably solid to exist unless you manage to mount your lens into a sawed off artillery piece tht continues to weigh way more than yourself.

I doubt unwhackably solid to exist unless you manage to mount your lens into a sawed off artillery piece tht continues to weigh way more than yourself.

Yes! That makes sense to me. But it's good to have another confirmation that a significantly better support IS possible, even with ordinary (but expensive) equipment. Thanks.

"Expensive" is relative... I think I paid something DM250 - 125€ now for the "Multiblitz" rebadged used Manfrotto legs in the late 80s and the ballhead came with a rusty Linhof tripod that didn't sell well or easily, due to it's weight. it must have been in the same price range. so 250€/$ in total.

On a side note: the tripod collar unly utilized a ridiculously tiny faction of the head's top plate.

...

 

 

Only that the head will stay where it is put under that weight. It has nothing directly to do with stability

So when deciding on a tripod, how do you apply the weights provided by the tripod manufacturer in what you need?

. . . let me clarify that I'm not after advice to improve stability. I just want to hear some anecdotal evidence regarding how much more stable an expensive set of legs and head are than mine. . . .

Anecdotally, yes, more money, usually gets you more stable.

My Manfrotto 475B is 'stable' with an EF 500/4 and EF 400/2.8 on it. In any case, the HEAD is most likely going to be the weak point. I use a 3 way geared head for any big rig - their big one I have forgotten the number. BTW the 475B is sold as a "Studio Tripod" it's heavy, but it is solid and stable.

***

Also, can anyone confirm or deny the statement regarding the ability to whack the front of a long lens with no resulting vibration?

'Whack' eh? Seems to me that sentence was constructed by one skilled in Marketing and Advertising containing an assumed hyperbole and it was not intended to be read as a technical analysis.

WW

BTW the 475B is sold as a "Studio Tripod" it's heavy, but it is solid and stable.

That's a seriously sturdy-looking tripod.

terrawhack

Lol.

I'm not sure that the OP's question is yet answered. I think he wants to know how to recognise what "stable" is and when he's got it- not just start off on the never ending treadmill of different materials, different heads for incremental improvements that still might not supply "stability".

I've photographed a long time and had a few tripods and heads, mostly in the middling price bands. I have never owned a tripod that offered me reliable stillness when on grass longer than a cut lawn ( probably my most common footing) or wet sand, or where the sea comes in and hits the tripod legs part way through a long exposure. I've never had a tripod/head setup that doesn't vibrate in even a stiff breeze and especially with a telephoto or zoom attached. Some of these circumstances would defy pretty much any tripod or head. Others are unaffordable or not portable, at least by me. So I guess I'm questioning whether the range of conditions photographers shoot in, the variability of the footings, the nature of the subject and lenses needed to photograph them , make "stability" an elusive concept, an expensive animal to hunt and no guarantee of success. We all exceed the capabilities of our tripods/heads sometimes and miss shots because of it. But sometimes , standing on a seashore in the Outer Hebrides in a gale and trying to make a 5 second exposure - it may well defeat any equipment that one could practically elect to use.

To me the best I hope for is to understand the conditions in which my tripod/ head is going to work and when its capabilities are being stretched and indeed when I might be better off knowing I probably won't get that shot and when I might be better off hand-holding. To recognise the times when I have to compromise how I set up a shot so I'm doing something that my kit might just allow me to get away with. I know I can't avoid some degree of camera movement, but I can in large measure avoid disappointment. And with digital, bracketing for wind is cheaper than buying a tripod that might not vibrate today ( but will surely vibrate on other days) and is clearly a lot easier to carry.

I'm not sure that the OP's question is yet answered. I think he wants to know how to recognise what "stable" is and when he's got it- not just start off on the never ending treadmill of different materials, different heads for incremental improvements that still might not supply "stability".

 

I've photographed a long time and had a few tripods and heads, mostly in the middling price bands. I have never owned a tripod that offered me reliable stillness when on grass longer than a cut lawn ( probably my most common footing) or wet sand, or where the sea comes in and hits the tripod legs part way through a long exposure. I've never had a tripod/head setup that doesn't vibrate in even a stiff breeze and especially with a telephoto or zoom attached. Some of these circumstances would defy pretty much any tripod or head. Others are unaffordable or not portable, at least by me. So I guess I'm questioning whether the range of conditions photographers shoot in, the variability of the footings, the nature of the subject and lenses needed to photograph them , make "stability" an elusive concept, an expensive animal to hunt and no guarantee of success. We all exceed the capabilities of our tripods/heads sometimes and miss shots because of it. But sometimes , standing on a seashore in the Outer Hebrides in a gale and trying to make a 5 second exposure - it may well defeat any equipment that one could practically elect to use.

 

To me the best I hope for is to understand the conditions in which my tripod/ head is going to work and when its capabilities are being stretched and indeed when I might be better off knowing I probably won't get that shot and when I might be better off hand-holding. To recognise the times when I have to compromise how I set up a shot so I'm doing something that my kit might just allow me to get away with. I know I can't avoid some degree of camera movement, but I can in large measure avoid disappointment. And with digital, bracketing for wind is cheaper than buying a tripod that might not vibrate today ( but will surely vibrate on other days) and is clearly a lot easier to carry.

Thanks, David, for those anecdotes and for the perspective.

My question was prompted by observing how my tripod performed under nearly ideal conditions. I've been trying out an old Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lens, the longest i've ever used. All of the testing has been done on my apartment balcony or indoors.

If my poor tripod takes five seconds to still the vibrations from a modest impact, i shudder (heh heh) to think how it would do against strong gusts while standing in sand.

John answered the question to my satisfaction a few responses ago when he said that a decent tripod would damp a moderate bump in under a second—presumably while looking through the same 400mm lens. That would be a vast improvement for me.

Induced vibration......

It's giving me the excitation...