Vibration - Tripods - Carbon - TV

some time ago, Kornelius Fleischer posted a response on this web site

suggesting that much better results could be achieved when shooting

mf if a tripod were chosen that reduces vibration, including shutter

vibration. in fact, he went as far as stating that all camera

tripods are inadequate since they fail to offer special vibration-

reducing features, as compared to video tripods.

 

i have been using a bogen tripod (don't know which one, but a fairly

hefty one) and a 3047 head for about six months now and remember

being initially amazed at the improvement over my hand held results.

My question now is whether I could achieve a similar (or any) further

improvement by upgrading to either carbon (known to absorb vibration)

or some kind of video based product with a fluid or air based

vibration reducing feature. I don't want to get carried away. On

the other hand, this is a serious pursuit, i've already got lots of

$$$ invested and Kornelius made quite a big deal of it and I have

found other posts that he has made to be extremely helpful.

 

Any specific suggestions on tripods, heads and where to purchase

would be greatly appreciated. thanks, tony.

Using a mirror-up prerelease (or the camera's self timer), a cable release, or weighting the tripod with a bag, and/or faster lenses that allow shorter exposures could each produce very slight improvements over the tripod alone, but in my opinion you're unlikely to see any difference between a reasonably sturdy Bogen or Gitzo and the carbon fiber equivalent. The admittedly lower end video tripods heads I've seen are designed to allow smooth pans and tilts, not eliminate vibration for a still camera. The rule is that the heavier the tripod the better, but it doesn't take long for the law of diminishing returns to apply. You may or may not be there, but test for yourself before you throw money at a "problem" based on anyone's pet theory.

Anthony - I use a Nikkor 500 f4 on a Bogen metal tripod and sometimes

with a 1.4 or 2 x converter. Careful use is required at the best of

times. We also have an Arriflex SR 16mm cine camera and use this with

a Canon 300mm f2.8 on a chunk of alloy which supports camera and lens

= a heavy piece of kit. This sits on a Ronford Baker carbon video

tripod with a Sachtler fluid video head. I have only used the 500mm on

the carbon/fluid combination a couple of times, as this doesn't really

suit the way I use the 500mm.

<P>

However the Sachtler head is superb and has the normal fluid damping

to minimise hand-induced vibration, but it also has a spring balance

mechanism which you can dial in to suit the weight of your kit, that

allows the head to have resistance when you tilt it and this can allow

very very smoooth pans and tilts.

<P>

There was a comment in one of the recent threads on the work of Tom

Mangelsen and the poster was commenting on the quality of the images

he takes. The quality of his poster-size images made from 35mm is

superb and I noticed (in a photo of him at work) that he uses (or has

used) a fluid video head for his 600mm f4 lens. I guess that pretty

much answers your question. Try a Sachtler - you will be surprised by

their versatility - but horrified by the cost (between $2000-$3000).

This is a problem, and I feel ther is far more to it than negative format and focal length. I own an old Linhof with a Profi II, which is my "lightweight" alternative, only a little heavier than the lightest Gitzo CF. With no wind and MLU, it is quite adequate with SL66 up to 150, Hasselblad (2000FC and 501C) up to 180 mm, and even usable with a 2x Mutar behind the 180. Hovever, if I use my Leica R6 (MLU) and 180, it is NOT adequate, though it works with my older SL and SL2 with the same lens (and those don4t even have a MLU!).

My "heavy" gear is a wooden, Swedish tripod (Stabil) with a Monoball. It is heavy, but very fast to use, and it supports anything I4ve ever put onto it. I4ve stopped even thinking about CF now.

I won4t even try to explain this (it is not the result of only one test, it is consistent over a long time), but only suggest that you could be lucky or unlucky with any specific combination of mass distribution, damping, and vibration spectrum.

Obvious suggestion: before committing your hard cash, test the combination with the very gear you intend to use!