Best tripod for P67 / 300mm combo ?

[rod_sainty2]

Hi Steve and friends,

 

<p>

 

I am in protracted decision mode re finding a stable but not excessively heavy tripod for my 300mm lens (not the new ED 300)and would welcome any advice from those with experience who have gone down this path before me!

 

<p>

 

To date, I have shot four rolls of E100VS film trying to find a tripod / head combination that will squelch the P67's shutter vibration at 1/30-1/2 sec speeds when using the 300mm, MLU, and long cable release. My target was a shopsign across the street from the photo dealer, which included a finely detailed filigree rose pattern. I was on a hard tiled surface, out of the wind. I used the Bogen hex plate with the flat base, and the dealer properly mounted each head using the screws where appropriate.

 

<p>

 

These are the leg / head combinations I tested: Manfrotto 075/029 (=Bogen 3036/3047)using 1 leg section extension, same combo using no leg extension, Ries A100 (wood)legs with no extension / M 029(= B 3047)head, Manfrotto 075/229 (= Bogen 3036/3039 (no extension), and lastly, the Manfrotto 075/410 (=Bogen 3036/3275) jnr geared head (no extension).

 

<p>

 

I have to report that all the shots between 1/30 and at least 1/2 sec were soft when examined at 10X. This was particularly disappointing with the wooden Ries A100, which Ries state as 16 pound in weight and designed for 8x10 cameras, with a 6 inch diam cast plate on top. It felt dead when I was looking through the 300mm and tapping the legs, noticably more so than the 075/029 (3036/3047). Yet the sharpness with the Ries was no better than with the Manfrotto. The result at 1/2 sec with the Ries was slightly better than the Manfrottto, but still soft. In practice, I would still have to avoid that speed.

 

<p>

 

Some further information: With the 1 leg extension test on the Manfrotto, the shot at 1/60 sec was also soft. The test with the 229(=3039) 3D Pro head was done only at 1/60 and 1/30 sec and was slightly worse than the less expensive 029 (=3047)result at 1/30. This must be due to the main support brace being at the front of the 029 (=3047) rather than at the rear as on the 229(=3039). The jnr geared head is a great design with a nice plate, but gave results significantly softer than the 029 (=3047).

 

<p>

 

At least I now know that I don't have to heft the A100 around the trails! But I'm not really sold on the 075, either. It's nice and tall (I'm 6ft, 3inches) but I don't like the centre column and the bracing frippery. I like the Manfrotto 055 (=Bogen 3021) but think it's probably too light. (Is it any worse in actual shooting?) Gitzo is not represented well in the shops here in Australia (actually you hardly ever see them), so I don't have any real idea of their line, except for the 525 I played with recently.

 

<p>

 

I'm more or less resigned to the 075/029 (=3036/3047)and avoiding the 1/30 to 1/2 sec range, perhaps trying the manfrotto telephoto lens support bracket 293. Now I know why the three 300mm shots in Kathleen Norris Cook's portfolio in Pop Photo, Aug 98, were 10 sec at f45, 1 sec at f32, and 3 sec at f45!

 

<p>

 

Does anyone have further thoughts??

[rod_sainty2]

Just to add, my main interest at the moment is building up a

portfolio of landscape and portraits for possible stock and print

sales. I am aware that it's possible to handhold the 300mm at fast

shutter speeds -in fact it was Marc Muench's full-page shot at 1/250

sec, hand-held, in Pop Photo, Nov 1999, that finally sold me on the

lens, that, and needing more reach than my 165 f2.8.

[steve_rasmussen]

Rod, the 300mm optics are actually very sharp as you have said but the

lack of a tripod mount on the body of this lens really limits its use.

There is no tripod that I know of that can handle this lens at eye

level in the bad shutter speed ranges. But it seems that most tripods

do well with this lens when the legs are not extended. I use my 300

for long exposure lightning shots, some landscapes, sunsets and

hand-held travel portraits. You have to know its limitations if you

are going to keep this lens. You might consider getting the 300 ED

that has the tripod mount instead of putting up with all the

aggravations of the old 300. On the other side of the coin, I have

published several shots from my 300 Takumar. It can be done. SR

[rod_sainty2]

Thanks, Steve, for your reply. Unfortunately the new 300mm is not an

option for me. The local distributor quoted me $A 4400 ($US 2200),

that's why I went ahead with the old model. (I did not think to go

shopping internationally via the www, an oversight, but I didn't

think even the best deal could discount it sufficiently to make it

affordable for me).

 

<p>

 

You wrote: "There is no tripod that I know of that can handle this

lens at eye level in the bad shutter speed ranges. But it seems that

most tripods do well with this lens when the legs are not extended."

Well, what I have discovered is that not even the big wooden Ries

A100 with no leg extension could eliminate the shutter vibration (at

least by itself, without trying a telephoto support bracket as well)

at the 1/30-1/2 sec range. My two-shot trial of holding the camera

while pressing the cable release didn't make the shots sharp either.

 

<p>

 

The dealer had run out of Manfrotto 055 (=Bogen 3021) legs to test. I

will do so ASAP. The question I now have is whether it would do as

well as the 075 (=3036), saving me some weight. Has anyone used that

tripod, perhaps with a telephoto support, successfully??

 

<p>

 

For years I have admired Yoshikazu Shirakawa's sharp double-spread

shots of Mt Everest and other mountains in his 1971 book "Himalayas",

which is 12"x17" closed. He lists the 300mm in his arsenal, and the

opening double-spread shot of Everest at sunset from Gokyo would have

needed it for the field of view shown. The caption dates it as sunset

on New Year's Day 1969 - that means he used the early P67 model

without MLU (He acknowledges support from Asahi management, he must

have obtained the gear in 1968). His portrait in the back shows him

standing behind a P67 with 55mm f3.5 on a not-too-big tripod with a

geared centre column with what looks like a Gitzo lock on it. Of

course, for many of the shots he could have been resting the camera

and lens on rocks!

 

<p>

 

I appreciate that the gear will have limitations - but others have

worked around them very successfully - my task now is to learn how.

 

<p>

 

Regards, Rod.

[steve_rasmussen]

Sharp shots can be had with the non MLU models as you saw with

Shirakawa. It adds to my belief that the mirror has less influence on

unsharpness than the shutter. I should mention that when I say that

the 300 can be sharp with tripods with legs unextended, that I also

hold the tripod down with some of my weight. I have sharp shots with a

Bogan 3001, Gitzo 320 and Bogan 3036 unextended. They all fall apart

when extended. The 300 combined with that shutter, likes to twist the

tripod when extended. The 400 Takumar is a big improvement over the

300. The DOF scale on the 300 is off by 2+ stops so be forwarned. It

is the worst of the lenses I own. Even my 1971 150mm Super-Takumar DOF

scale is more accurate. SR

[garrett_adams]

I don't own the 300mm (old or new) but have tested the older 300mm a

couple of times with my P67. These are my opinions and not

necessarily proven facts. In testing various cameras for tendency

towards the dreaded shutter vibration here is my thinking. If one

uses the camera in the natural outdoors it's best not to place the

test tripod on a hard surface like concrete or tile, etc. It's been

said that the first curtains vibration creates a harmonic disturbance

which can easily be transmitted throughout the tripod head and legs

down to the hard surface. Earth or sand "may" help dampen the waves.

 

<p>

 

However, as often stated by many users, I have found the best way to

dampen the vibrations is my own hands. I only use a cable release for

time exposures longer than a couple of seconds. Anything faster is

hand released with the camera mounted upon a good tripod, (Gitzo

G1325 with Arca-Swiss B1).

[rod_sainty2]

Garrett, thanks for your advice. Can you describe your test results

with handholding the 300mm through the 1/30 to 1/2 sec range? Were

you using the G1325? Do you see a reduction in vibration between the

carbon fibre and a metal unit of similar size? I visited the local

Gitzo distributor and was impressed with the quality, but haven't run

any test with film yet.

 

<p>

 

Regards, Rod.

[garrett_adams]

Rod, the first test was over ten years ago, long before carbon fibre

tripods came on the scene. The second short test was a couple of

years ago using my now retired Gitzo 340 metal tripod. The newer

G1325 was purchased after.

 

<p>

 

In tripod hand holding I usually hold the camera like I would without

a tripod. Left hand cradling around the left bottom with thumb and

forefinger resting under and against the focus and aperture rings.

Right hand around right side/top with forefinger gently releasing

shutter button. The only difference is when I use my 135mm or 200mm

I'll often add downward pressure with my hands. This is a good idea

especially to counter possibly unsteady hands. Depending on the

situation like tripod legs on a hard uneven surface, such as

boulders, I will relocate my left hand to the bottom of the B1

head/1325 plate junction area and exert greater downward body weight.

The whole idea is to dampen objectionable vibrations while not

inducing instability due to poor user execution.

 

<p>

 

There were only a few exposures made during the test two years ago

with the 300mm since I was primarily testing my friends 45mm. From a

distance of about 40 feet shot a couple of frames of the front of my

VW Vanagon. I have found that license plates are good test targets to

check for presence of shutter curtain vibration. A horizontal shutter

camera like that used in the P67 will produce a ghost image to the

right while a vertical shutter like those found on many 35mm cameras

the ghost above appears towards the top. In 1997 there was

no "double" image ghost. However as noted by others the old 300mm

while if used correctly is a good lens it is still not considered a

stellar lens when compared to other Pentax 67 lenses. For instance I

feel my 200mm is sharper and exhibits greater contrast. That's not

unusual, in fact it's often a normal consequence with longer lenses

using standard optical glass, (not ED, flourite, etc.).

 

<p>

 

Objectionable vibrations, if present, usually occur on images taken

with the longer focal lengths. Some users have reported that they

thought the shutter in the 67II was less vibration prone, although I

don't recall ever seeing any objective figures or proof. Still, if I

decide to increase my investment in the system I will probably

purchase the new 67II body and AE prism along with the newer 300mm

EDIF lens with its' onboard tripod mount. However my need isn't as

great as some since I also have an extensive Horseman 2x3 outfit with

focal lengths from 47mm to 300mm so I have other alternatives.

[steve_rasmussen]

Garrett makes a good point with the comparison between the 200mm and

300. To add to this a bit, the 200 is not a telephoto, which is good

for performance. The 300 uses a negative rear group that shortens the

lens but also magnifies any imperfection from the front group. The

newer 300 ED is also not a telephoto desgn and looks to have a

slightly positive rear group. Not knowing the refractive indices of

the rear elements though, it is more of a guess on my part. But,

modern designs are trying not to have too much magnification in rear

groups in telephotos. The 300ED is bound to be very sharp given its

progressive cross section. I have suspected the old 300mm to not have

SMC on all surfaces and agree that the contrast is not the best.

Designers will frequently put only one or two layers on elements that

have a low refractive index because they feel that the low index glass

has lower reflectivity than high index glass and won't need as many

layers. This could account for the contrast difference between the 200

and 300. The seven layer SMC probably would have been better to have

on all surfaces of the 300. SR

[rolland_elliott2]

"But, modern designs are trying not to have too much magnification in

rear groups in telephotos" -Steve

 

<p>

 

Hi Steve,

 

<p>

 

I've always found your posts interesting because you often talk about

lens designs and technical aspects of the lenses. However, myself and

99.9% of the photographers out there couldn't tell you the difference

betweeen any lens design, so I was wondering if you could recommend a

good beginer book on basic optics geared towards photography. I

bought a couple of books off ebay, but they are way too technical. No

one should have to look at integral symbols.

 

<p>

 

Peace, Rolland

[steve_rasmussen]

Rolland: One of the best books on photographic optics is by Rudolf

Kingslake. It is called A HISTORY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LENS. It has no

formulas but he does explain aberration corrections. His technical

book is called LENS DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS and is mathematical and

difficult. A good book on color correction is by H. Rutten and Martin

van Venrooij. It is called TELESCOPE OPTICS. The principles of color

correction are similar between refractor telescopes and telephotos.

Only part of the book is on color correction however. SR

[michael_victor]

It seems that few photgraphers are also rifle shooters. The problems

faced in accurately shooting a rifle are similar to that of using a

Pentax 67.

 

<p>

 

When the trigger is pulled, a spring actuated firing pin ignites the

cartridge and pressure rapidly develops (to 50,000psi)while the

bullet accelerates from 0 - 3,000+feet per second in a distance of

two feet. Needless to say, substantial vibrations occur. The best

benchrest target shooters can consistently place five shots into 0.2"

at 100 yards.

 

<p>

 

How do they do it? Heavy rifles hand held on firm but flexible bags

full of sand. The weight minimises movement causes by vibration

through the law of conservation of momentum and the sand bags,

resting on a very heavy concrete bench absorb the energy of the

vibrations rather than allowing it to be reflected back. Shooters

never, ever rest the rifle directly on a hard surface.

 

<p>

 

Translating this to the 67 - increase the camera weight by holding

the body during the shot or hanging a weight from the neck straps and

place some firm but flexible padding between the camera body and

tripod and possibly, place the tripod on a soft but firm surface (eg

one or two bath towels.

 

<p>

 

I rarely use a tripod but have a monopod and have achieved sharp

images with the 300mm, a T6 2x convertor and 1/30 sec shutter by

holding the camera on the monopod with the lens resting on a balcony

rail or log (padded by a towel) and one hand resting against a solid

vertical object eg wall or tree. Remember if you are using MLU you

are primarily concerned with damping horizontal vibrations and if you

are not, then you have both horizontal and vertical vibrations.

 

<p>

 

My other solution is to buy a 645 body and 67 lens adaptor. I don`t

have any problem with this combo.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps - remember Arthur Dent from the "Hitch Hikers Guide

to the Galaxy", never leave home without your towel.

 

<p>

 

regards

 

<p>

 

mike

[loren_irving]

Dear Rod,

I shoot the 300/4 Pentax 67 quite a bit. Sold the first one I had

several years ago because of not being very happy with the sharpness

due to whatever. Since then I have solved my problem and am enjoying

isolating landscape objects and having great results with a used one

(not ED). My suggestion is this: First, forget smaller aperatures F

32 etc. I shoot it at f8 to f16 and am careful not to need great

depth of field in identifying scenes that wil work. Second, I use a

Gitzo 1227 carbon tripod with a Arca Swiss monoball that has a hook on

which I hang my camera bag. This extra weight hung directly under the

monoball really works and makes up for what I'm sure many readers with

think is too small a tripod. Third, a good cable release for sure and

MLU. Here is what I find has made me love using the 300 for really

sharp images...after you lock up the mirror just cool it for a minimum

of 10 seconds before releasing the shutter. What I have found is that

it takes this time to dampen the vibration from locking up the mirror.

So, that's my suggestion. Let me know how it works. Good luck.

Sincerely, Loren Irving