Hasselblad 503CW and Stock Tripod Head

[q.g._de_bakker]

David, you said that the <i>"extra size of the tripod does however make a significant contibution to the rigidity"</i>. When and where was rigidity a problem, so that this imagined <i>"extra size"</i> could be a good thing?<br>A light tripod, David, is a tripod that weighs almost half of a same size/same construction other tripod. The typical difference between carbon fiber and alumin(i)um tripods.<br>You do pay for that: lightweight is considerably more expensive, and less good. Because yes: while not every heavy tripod may be a good tripod, when weight is the only difference, the heavy tripod is indeed always the better tripod.

[david_smith35]

<p>"extra size of the tripod does however make a significant contibution to the rigidity". Of course it does - a thin spindly tripod is much less rigid that a tripod with large diameter legs.<br>

When I purchased my carbon fiber tripod it was nowhere near half the weight of the equivalent aluminium (do you have a problem with spelling that word?) version that you claim. Incidentally I still have my old aluminium tripod, and it's lighter than my carbon fiber tripod. Not by much, only a couple of pounds.<br>

"considerably more expensive, and less good." Yes, they are more expensive, but not less good, just more expensive. A heavy weight tripod is great - especially when you're the sort of person who never walk more that 100 yards from the boot of your car.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David, you keep avoiding the direct comparison of metal vs carbon tripods, talking about assumed but not real differences, such as extra size or rigidity issues. Now again, you're comparing a thin spindly tripod to one that isn't. Why?<br>When comparing carbon fiber to alumin(i)um tripods of similar build, the carbons (and it's their only raison d'être) are lighter.<br>And that is not good, no matter what you might think of it.<br>I understand that you feel defensive, and why, having payed too much to get something that is inferior to something much cheaper. But i can't help it: it is basic physics. The way nature works. Carbon fiber tripod's only good thing is that they are easier to carry.

[david_smith35]

<p>I have done nothing BUT compare aluminium and carbon fiber.<br>

"Now again, you're comparing a thin spindly tripod to one that isn't. Why?" Because you raised the subject in a previous post.<br>

I do understand that that you cannot resist the urge to contradict and argue even when you're obviously wrong, but you arguments really don't hold any water. They are just opinions, nothing more.<br>

By the way, I see you are still having a problem with your spelling.</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David, i haven't <i>"raised the subject"</i>. Really tiresome, this silly game you're playing.<br>If you could point out what would be wrong, you would be contributing something meaningful. But so far you have just been moaning incoherently.<br><br>John, believe me: carbon fiber tripods are not as good, because lighter. And more expensive. But you don't really have to take my word for it. Just use Google a bit and you'll find out sooner than someone here who is really defensive about his spending decisions and says he does nothing but compare, yet has yet to find out what the result of that is. ;-)

[david_smith35]

<p>"But so far you have just been moaning incoherently."<br>

Pretty rich coming from someone who only about a year ago had his wrist slapped by one of the moderators on here for exacerbating a petty and childish argument with another poster over an insignificant thing.</p>

<p>You really do have a serious problem, don't you Quinten.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_boyd9]

<p>Thanks Q.G. de Bakker<br>

Ended up getting the Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod w/ Manfrotto 804RC2 Tripod Head and i used it today and i really like it. Its a bit heavy but once again thats not a problem because it just makes me feel more relaxed about putting a 5000$ camera on it.<br>

Thanks to anyone who helped out </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I have used a load of tripods in my life. I can tell you about my humble experience:</p>

<p>The heavier the better, and the most rigid and with better locks also the better. Plastic parts use to be worst than metal parts. The bigger the surface to hold the camera the better. Soft pads under the camera are also good to damp vibrations, but they must be not so soft and big enough to avoid too much flex with the camera.<br /> I find very important the quality of the tripod parts; locks, hinges, threads, leg tightness and rigidity (I`ve found some tripods that have some leg looseness even after tighten them), feet caps or spikes, heads, etc.</p>

<p>Carbon vs aluminum? Carbon is lighter and strong; aluminum is heavier and strong. If the topic is about holding a camera, heavier is better than lighter. Carbon fiber tripods use to have a hook to increase its mass. It could make a light, rigid tripod to be as good as an aluminum one. If you put a hook with a weight bag under an aluminum tripod, it will make it better, too.</p>

<p>BTW, I currently use several tripods, two of them the very same model (both Gitzo series 3), one in aluminum and the other in carbon fiber. By far I prefer the aluminum one, but the CF is way more usable because is much lighter.<br /> Lighter vs heavier many times means to use it or not; I think it is always better to use a tripod (for the best image quality, obviously), so expensive carbon fiber ones could be worth the expense. A medium sized aluminum tripod could be a good compromise between portability and weight.</p>

<p>I have also had a series 5 aluminum Gitzo, that was unbeatable on the studio. Too awkward to carry outdoors, obviously. I sold it time ago, and have regretted it many times.</p>

<p>Something I like to say: If you find someone shooting with a camera on hands, he probably is a journalist or a snapshooter. If the camera is on a tripod, he is then a photographer... (just a joke :)</p>

[fotografz]

<p>The weight of a tripod doesn't necessarily insure vibration free shooting, although it sure can help.</p>

<p>Some cameras have a pesky resonance which can cause vibrations at certain shutter speeds (applies to focal plane shutter cameras more than Leaf shutter).</p>

<p>More often than not, the connections between the tripod and camera can be a source of minute movement in wind or any other movement inducing event … or the use of the center column or not … or extension of more spindly bottom leg sections, can affect stability and suppression of movement.</p>

<p>Some photographers subscribe to the use of certain materials in a tripod as being more effective at suppressing vibrations and minute movement. Some of the better tripods have wood legs … and some carbon fiber ones while lighter, are more effective at vibration suppression than tripods made with more ridged materials.</p>

<p>For example, grab a length of PCB pipe at one end and hit the other end with a hammer … then do the same with a metal pipe. </p>

<p>BTW, the Hasselblad cameras (V or H) have the Quick Release plate already built-in to the base of the camera. Use of Hasselblad's Quick Coupler is one of the most secure, vibration suppressing QR systems for their cameras.</p>

<p>The base plate on V and H cameras are the same, so any of the Quick Coupling units will work … even though the current one is labeled Quick Coupler H it still works with the V cameras. Highly recommended. </p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Re weight and shaky cameras: the mass of a tripod helps isolate what's on one end of it from what's on the other. If the camera is the source of vibrations, a massive tripod underneath will only help keep those vibrations where they are: in the source, the camera.<br>So when the camera is the source, there's only one thing to do: provide something that will absorb or dissipate those vibrations.<br>A fully extended centre column will often do fine, resonate like a kalimba's key. But with the camera on top of that, not good indeed. So we need something else.<br><br>Connections between tripods and cameras are often a problem, yes. Usually the camera is connected to the tripod (or quick coupling shoe) using a single screw. That screw forms a point the entire camera can pivot around, so doesn't do a lot in stopping vibrations that originate in the camera. It would be better if there were more points of contact.<br>Connections between the different parts of tripod heads and the other bits of a tripod can be a place where some movement can occur. That movement can indeed be caused by something like the wind, absorbing it's energy, turning it into motion of the tripod. Effectively (but with something like wind hardly noticeable) reducing the wind's energy. The same connections can do the same, aborb/convert energy, to vibrations that originate in a camera. When the camera itself is the source of vibrations, we do not want to isolate the camera, but share that energy with anything willing to absorb some of it. So sometimes a good thing, those connections that aren't rock solid.<br><br>Materials that dampen vibrations more than others can only take effect when the tripod that is made of them is set in motion, already vibrates. The main goal is to prevent that happen in the first place, and the most effective way of doing so is to make it as inert as possible. Mass is the main working bit.<br>When doing that experiment, strike a plastic pipe and a metal pipe, do not just pay attention to the resonance, but also see which of the two moves most. What energy doesn't show itself in a nicely ringing and long lasting resonance will be used up by a much bigger displacement. Long lasting low amplitude high frequency resonance vs short lived low frequency large amplitude movement. The first is preferable. So another thing about resonance is whether it actually is a good or a bad thing. The energy that keeps a pipe vibrating for a longer time is energy not available anymore to shake a camera that is sitting on top of a tripod made up of such pipes.<br>Of wood it is often said that it is great at damping vibrations. That must be why so many musical instruments use vibrating wood to reinforce the sound made by something else, or is used by itself as an idiophone. Wood actually vibrates and resonates pretty well. But again: a good or a bad thing, that?<br><br>Most of the Hasselblad V System cameras do have the old style foot, that isn't compatible with the later quick release that's also used on the H System cameras. So though you can indeed use the latter for (almost) all Hasselblads, very many will first need an aditional adapter plate fitted to the already installed adapter foot. But there of course also are quick coupling units that will work with the old style foot without adapter. Highly recommended indeed.

[fotografz]

<p>Q.G., the OP didn't mention older Hasselbald V bodies …. he was specific to a 503CW which uses the modern built-in foot that works with the current model Quick Coupler unit.</p>

<p>I had a number of V cameras: 501, 503, 203, and all of them used the modern QR Coupler unit. The built-in H QR plate is identical to the V versions …. and I used my Vs and H cameras interchangeably on the same Hasselblad QR Coupler.<br>

- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You're right, Marc. I was thinking 'generally'.<br>The new foot was introduced in 1994, together with the 503 CX<i>i</i>, 203 FE and 501 C cameras. Earlier cameras don't, those and later cameras do have the new style foot.

[tom_bloomer1]

<p>Did a lot of homework. Bought and returned several products - especially ball heads.<br>

I've been delighted with my Induro AT213 tripod.<br>

I got the short center column and added a Vangard ABH340K ball head.<br>

Replaced the Vangard QR clamp with a Desmond DBA-1 60mm Quick Release Clamp.<br>

I don't think you can beat this >$300 combination without spending 5 times as much on brand name stuff. <br /><br>

</p>

[david_smith35]

<p><em>Re weight and shaky cameras: the mass of a tripod helps isolate what's on one zzzzzzzzzzzz</em><br>

Good grief, practically a whole page of pseudo scientific clap trap. It's just a tripod for crying out loud.</p>