Sag when using a tripod

<p>I'm not sure if what I experience is normal for tripods or if I need to upgrade, so I'm asking before I go and spend a bunch of money, only to have the same issue. Part of my problem is that I'm somewhat tall and hate to bend over to look through my viewfinder, so I need legs that go to 63" or so, figuring the head and camera body (with grip) make up the rest. At 6 feet, I guess my eye level is at about 69". It's hard to find legs this long without having to extend the center column.</p>

<p>When I mount my camera on my tripod (or a lens by the collar), I have to adjust for a bit of downward sag when I'm composing. Even after locking the ballhead as tight as I can, I still get some sag, maybe 20%-25% of the frame. My legs and head are rated for gear at least 3x the weight that I'm using, and I never extend the center column. So is this something to just get used to or will more expensive heads perform the same? I assume the head is the issue, since it seems unlikely the legs are bowing so evenly, regardless of where the lens is oriented (over a leg or between).</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Don't force it, get a bigger tripod head or perhaps even a new tripod too.</p>

<p>Your lens and camera seem to be too big for the equipment you're mounting it on regardless of how they are "rated". </p>

<p>I agree with JDM. Sagging suggests that the tripod is sufficiently springy as to flex under the weight. That means it won't resist vibration--you need stiffness. One partial solution for a tall person using a short tripod is to view through a right-angle viewer--I've done that sometimes when standing on a hillside while shooting. But you need a stronger tripod.</p>

<p>(The good thing about being large, when it comes to tripods, is that you probably can carry a heavier tripod than a small person.)</p>

<p>Suggest its the head/plates rather than the legs. More expensive heads and quick release systems such as Really Right Stuff (the one I can speak for though there are others that I'd expect would perform as well) sag much less. They use camera plates tailor-made for each camera model. Further you can use an L plate which makes it much easier to turn the camera on its side , and positions it over the head centrally, and this again reduces sag. Of course all of this costs.</p>

<p>If you pursue this route you can use a RRS/Kirk/ Arca swiss/Markins etc head and plates with Manfrotto or similar legs. What you can't do is get the benefit of the Arca Swiss-based QR system used by all the better players with a Manfrotto or similar head.</p>

<p>The legs? I think everyone has a height at which they are most comfortable using a tripod, though the way you work it out seems to infer that you want to be totally erect - most people lean in towards the tripod a little and it costs an inch or two. You are by no means unduly tall and you'll be able to get something that will enable you to stand how you want. Strangely, Manfrotto tripods seem aften to be a bit short- but for example Benro make 3 section tripods that are comfortably tall enough for you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sagging is usually a function of the head, as David suggests. See also Thom's (slightly outdated) discussion on the subject <a href="http://bythom.com/support.htm">here</a>. Having suffered similarly with a Giottos ball head I splashed out on an Arca-Swiss d4 gear head, which lens me fine tune (though it's very expensive), but a decent ball head sags much less than the Giottos. I'll again mention the Triopo RS-3 which I keep advocating (see my "heads for every budget thread" - usual disclaimer: I just found this a bargain and think it deserves recommending, I'm not affiliated), which is stiff enough that it's much more rigid than my Giottos and very cheap; I'm sure that the more refined heads from the usual suspects (Arca-Swiss, Really Right Stuff, Markins, Burzynski, probably Gitzo and Acratech) also limit the sag to be undetectable. Spending money on a head upgrade (or at least a little money seeing whether the RS-3 is good enough for you) should help you. Though if you have a big lens, maybe a gimbal (or cheap approximation, like the Manfrotto 393 I use) would be a better solution?<br />

<br />

I'm a little surprised that you're having trouble finding tall enough legs - the height of head and camera (up to the eyepiece) and the distance from the top of your head to your eyes actually means that 6' is a pretty normal height that should be accommodated by many tripods. I find it useful to be able to peer slightly over the top of the camera, partly for composition and partly to see the top LCD/controls, but I can move between that and the finder without moving more than my neck. As such, although I'm 5'10" (ish), I find, for example, a Manfrotto 055CXPro3 to be slightly taller than I'd like with all the leg sections fully extended - I suspect it would be close to "right" for you; I leave the bottom section on my TVC-34L unextended most of the time - it's nice to have the capability to extend a bit if shooting upwards or on a slope. I've not particularly been aware of Manfrotto tripods being exceptionally short, though the more portable ones like the 190 series certainly aren't intended to reach head height.<br />

<br />

What tripod/head are you currently using? What camera/lenses are giving you trouble?</p>

<p>Thinking about it more, Dave and Andrew are probably right. The legs would have to be pretty bad to sag, and the head is the likely culprit. A good head won't sag, although you don't have to go as far as Andrew and get the lovely but amazingly expensive Arca-Swiss d4. My Arca-Swiss Z1 doesn't sag at all, nor will good heads from the other manufacturers he named.</p>

<blockquote>which lens me fine tune</blockquote>

 

<p>You know you've been posting to photography sites for too long... (In my defence, I'm using a Dvorak keyboard, and "n" and "t" are adjacent, though not on the same finger.) Anyway, the d4 is lovely for realising you've pointed the lens in slightly the wrong direction, and wanting to tweak it precisely; all the expensive ball-heads (and the cheap Triopo) solve the problem of the lens moving as you lock the head and rely on the head to take the weight. It's partly a function of the neck of the ball being solid, and a large enough QR plate to hold everything steady. There are also solutions like the Manfrotto 359, which means that something's holding the camera still as well as the lens, but (since I've not yet got one) I have to assume they're a bit fiddly for fast operation.</p>

<p>My previous ballhead showed enormous sagging, despite being loaded with far less weight than the official 16kg it was supposed to carry. The replacement wasn't cheap, but constantly correcting for the sag was so incredibly annoying I stopped bringing the tripod completely.... My guess it's really your ballhead, especially when you write you need to lock it down as hard as possible... that sounds like my old one (a Manfrotto 488). My new one does not need locking down, with the proper friction setting, it stays put. So much nicer in use :-)<br>

<br />As for the height, I am roughly the same length (6"2 / 1,88) - my Manfrotto 055DB reach high enough without the need to move the centre column up. Not the lightest tripod you'll ever find, but works well for me (with the new ballhead, that is).</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input. I'm going to weigh some options and see if anything works better. The Arca Swiss D4 sure looks sweet, but $1200 for a head is pretty far out of my price range.</p>

<p>About the height of legs...I don't mind stooping over a bit if that's the perspective I want, but some of the leg options I was seeing were 54" or so...even with a couple inches for the head and a few more for the body, that's a fair amount of stooping. And there are times I want my eye-level perspective, which I can't do with short legs, but with a tall tripod, I can easily use less extension to match the viewpoint of shorter legs. </p>

<p>I am 6' 1" tall. I use a Feisol 3442 tripod which weighs about 2.1 lb and extends to 56" without the center column.<br>

If you figure the ball head with Arca Swiss clamp adds about 6 in and the camera about, the total height is about 67." You will not have to stoop. This tripod is very stable, not cheap (~ $400) but not the most expensive by any means. Add a (mid price) Markins or Acratech or (low end) Photo Clam, ball head and a custom mounting plate from (Acratech or Kirk) and you will not have any sagging or twisting. The trick to a stable set up is that mounting plate. If you rely on that little generic plate that goes with e.g. the Manfrotto 055xxx it is secured with a screw and a bit of cork to the bottom of the camera but the camera can rotate around the screw, loosening and thus wobbling ever so slightly. The custom plate is built to the dimension of the base of you camera and it is designed so that once it is screwed on it will not loosen. Part of the reason for its stability is the carbon fiber construction; another factor is that the spider which holds it all together is machined from a solid block of aluminum. The Feisol 3442 is very good for travel too, folding down to 19 inches. It has another little trick, too: If you buy a compatible ball head the legs fold back over the head so that the head does not extend the folded length while traveling. Do a web search for reviews of this tripod, you will see there are a lot of satisfied customers.</p>

<p>I hope this helps.</p>

<p>After reading all of the responses and checking out the described options, I've gone with the Feisol CT-3442 legs and the Arca-Swiss Z1 head. I also got the release plate specific to my camera model. Thanks for all the input; I'm really looking forward to no sagging.</p>

<p>I want to thank everyone for their input on my question (I hope you are all still following the thread). The improvement with the new tripod and head is like night and day. While there's still a touch of sag (about one AF point at 200mm), it seems to be at the plate, but is totally easy to manage, unlike my old system, trying to overcompensate by 25% or more of the frame.</p>

<p>The irony is, I read all the advice initially...don't skimp on a tripod or you'll be spending more on another one later. I thought a $250 system wasn't skimping, since there were $50 tripods and heads out there. Now, obviously, I see that $1000 is really the minimum for a quality setup. <br />I'm really pleased, because even though this combo is a bit heavier, it's clearly more stable and it folds up smaller, so it's easier to fit in my luggage when I travel. I'm going to Europe for 2 weeks in May, and I was debating whether I should bother bringing the tripod or not. Now it's a no-brainer.</p>

Earlier in the thread there was a mention about the L-brackets. Think carefully before splashing out on one

as some users report loss of sharpness when the bracket is in vertical position. Seem pretty logical to me

as when it's oriented vertically the entire mass of the lens and the camera are sprung on a long cantilever

which - naturally - will transmit and amplify any vibration.