Hejnar tripod foot for 800PF

[Dieter Schaefer]

After reading a few reviews on the various Arca-Swiss type replacement tripod feet for the 800PF, I decided to give the Hejnar one a try. I already own the Hejnar replacement foot for the 500PF, so this felt like a safe bet. I was concerned about losing the padding on the original foot that made carrying the lens a bit more comfortable - but even though the Hejnar doesn't have the padding, the camera/lens combo can be carried quite comfortable using the tripod foot as a grip. The Hejnar foot is substantially longer then the original foot and also extends much farther back - which allows to balance the Z9/800PF comfortably even with the 1.4xTC attached. The Hejnar foot also does not interfere with reversing the lens hood. It comes with four new screws that are substantially longer than Nikon's original ones since the mounting block is thicker. Overall it feels like a quality product for a quite reasonable price.

I could have used a RRS rail I have attached to the original tripod foot - but it looked weird, didn't really align properly and securely and hence was quickly discarded as an option. Still wish Nikon would just deliver their lenses with Arca-Swiss compatible tripod feet. This is the 2nd additional purchase for the 800PF after the Zemlinphoto lens cap to replace the ridiculous lens sock Nikon ships the lens with. Overall, this adds $200 to the purchase price.

Edited May 3 by Dieter Schaefer

[ShunCheung]

I have several Hejnar feet for various lenses, such as the 500mm/f5.6 PF, Z mount 70-200/2.8, 400/4.5 and 100-400, but for the 800mm PF, I have the Kirk foot that seems to work pretty well also.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Unlike with the 500PF where it was a safety issue to replace the original tripod foot, with the 800PF it is "only" so one can use the lens with an tripod head that has an Arca-Swiss-type clamp on it. Which, I suppose, is pretty much standard.

[ilkka_nissila]

12 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Unlike with the 500PF where it was a safety issue to replace the original tripod foot, with the 800PF it is "only" so one can use the lens with an tripod head that has an Arca-Swiss-type clamp on it. Which, I suppose, is pretty much standard.

It isn't really. If you want the best stability for your long lens, you need to use a fluid head and among those brands (Sachtler, Cartoni, Manfrotto) who make fluid heads for video cameras the Arca-Swiss plate is not commonly used. I would venture a guess that worldwide, even for still photography some kind of Manfrotto plate is probably the most common, but things may have changed somewhat with the many Chinese Arca-Swiss compatible brands. 10-15 years ago there was no camera store in my country who stocked Arca-Swiss compatible heads and most even didn't know what it was. Now, with the numerous less expensive tripod brands adopting Arca-Swiss compatible QR systems, they are finally available here as well. But Arca-Swiss themselves now make incompatible heads where the plate was slightly modified so that the typical "compatible" plates and feet cannot be mounted. I would say the situation with tripod plates is as chaotic as it has ever been. But the really limiting factor for Arca-Swiss becoming an universal standard is that very few fluid heads use it. And Arca-Swiss doesn't seem to want a standard based on their old plates, either.

[ilkka_nissila]

I also find the Arca-Swiss plates to be slightly uncomfortable when hand-holding (sharpish corners). Some of my A-S "compatible" products do not physically fit or lock across brands. And finally, last summer I got a DJI gimbal for video. Does it use the  Arca-Swiss plates for mounting the camera? No, it does not, it comes with its own, incompatible, plate.

[Dieter Schaefer]

8 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I also find the Arca-Swiss plates to be slightly uncomfortable when hand-holding (sharpish corners).

When hand-holding, I am not using the tripod foot at all but turn the lens collar so the tripod foot points up (and can be used as a handle to carry the camera/lens combo). Of course, when I am taking the lens down from a tripod to better follow some action, then that tripod foot is in the way of holding the lens properly. And reaching that AF button on the lens.

8 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

If you want the best stability for your long lens

With bird photography (any action photography really) using a gimbal head, stability isn't the main concern. In fact, during shooting, the head base and the gimbal are usually unlocked to allow one to follow the bird around. The entire setup mostly is to take the weight of one's arms. Without proper tripod technique it can even happen that the images taken on the tripod are less sharp than the ones taken hand-held.

I started out with Manfrotto plates on my tripods - I'll never go back to those.

8 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I would say the situation with tripod plates is as chaotic as it has ever been.

I forgot about those additional incompatible mounting systems. Even within the Arca-Swiss system one has to be careful - for example with using lever-style clamps from on manufacturer and plates from another; they may not necessarily clamp down securely.

[ilkka_nissila]

On 5/4/2024 at 10:36 PM, Dieter Schaefer said:

With bird photography (any action photography really) using a gimbal head, stability isn't the main concern. In fact, during shooting, the head base and the gimbal are usually unlocked to allow one to follow the bird around. The entire setup mostly is to take the weight of one's arms. Without proper tripod technique it can even happen that the images taken on the tripod are less sharp than the ones taken hand-held.

I guess you are referring to situations when photographing fast action? I find that when photographing birds in water, a fluid head allows easier following of slow movement than a gimbal. The fluid head smooths jitters and I find it easier to get very controlled slow to medium speed pans with it. When shooting wildlife video, e.g., of some courtship behavior in water, or other kinds of wildlife video action (such as mock fighting by male deer), I find it advantageous to be able to follow very slow movement by panning smoothly. All the other heads than the fluid head seem to make it difficult to do pans (which may not be 100% horizontal, they may involve some diagonal movement) without jitter. The fluid head that I have (Gitzo GHF2W) is quite small and lightweight and it's designed for focal lengths up to 200 mm, but it can handle a payload of up to 4 kg, so this includes combination such as Z8 + 180-400, 180-600, 500 PF etc. I've used it with the 500 PF and I find it to have advantages over other heads in dampening vibration and smooth panning at slow speeds, but a larger fluid head would be better for long focal lengths for sure, I just haven't committed to such a purchase mainly due to the weight of such heads (1.8-2.2 kg is a typical weight for a Sachtler fluid head, and of course there is no Arca-Swiss mounting, they have their own systems). Another type of shot that can benefit from the dampening abilities of fluid heads is in long focal length landscape photography, if there is even a slight bit of wind the effects of that wind are alleviated by a good tripod and head. Finally, when working with very very long focal lengths in wildlife photography, one may need to use long shutter speeds to get adequate light to the image.

One thing I love about fluid heads is that many of them have adjustable internal counterweighting so one does not have to rely completely on a long quick-release plate but most of the balancing happens by adjusting a dial that moves a weight internally. Gimbal heads require external balancing which can mean that e.g. with some lenses a vertical grip cannot be attached, depending on the design of the components. Another advantage is that fluid heads can be used with normal (non-telephoto) lenses while gimbal heads cannot, so for shorter focal lengths, one may need to carry a separate head for those shots. With a fluid head mounting a camera on it does require a QR plate that is aligned in the front-rear direction and so a the built-in grooves in an L-bracket wouldn't work without some kind of adapter, but still it's easier to make this work than with a gimbal head.

There are some hybrid gimbal/fluid heads such as the Gitzo GHFG1 that may solve the slow panning problem that I've had. That too has an Arca-Swiss compatible mount, so it's not like the big manufacturers have completely ignored Arca-Swiss; they are slowly adopting its use in more heads but still there are a lot of heads that are not compatible, including most video heads.

Edited May 6 by ilkka_nissila

[Dieter Schaefer]

On 5/6/2024 at 5:06 AM, ilkka_nissila said:

I guess you are referring to situations when photographing fast action?

Indeed - mostly bird in flight. Which covers a wide range of both speed and type of motion. From the slow and steady flight of a pelican to the erratic flight of a tern and the almost unpredictable flight pattern of smaller birds. I have zero experience with fluid heads and just looked at some reviews of the hybrid gimbal/fluid heads Gitzo GHFG1 you mentioned. A common tenor appears to be the lack of precise control of the fluid dampening. From what I understand, fluid heads are good for slow panning (and video) but I have some doubts as to how they perform with the more rapid panning that bird photography often requires (unless on loosens things up so much that there is no more resistance from the fluid).

[ilkka_nissila]

19 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Indeed - mostly bird in flight. Which covers a wide range of both speed and type of motion. From the slow and steady flight of a pelican to the erratic flight of a tern and the almost unpredictable flight pattern of smaller birds. I have zero experience with fluid heads and just looked at some reviews of the hybrid gimbal/fluid heads Gitzo GHFG1 you mentioned. A common tenor appears to be the lack of precise control of the fluid dampening. From what I understand, fluid heads are good for slow panning (and video) but I have some doubts as to how they perform with the more rapid panning that bird photography often requires (unless on loosens things up so much that there is no more resistance from the fluid).

I have not used the Gitzo fluid-gimbal head, but I have two gimbal heads and two fluid heads. None of them are really "high-end" but not the cheapest either. High-end fluid heads have more adjustment options to achieve the desired level of drag. One of my problems with gimbal heads is that when starting a slow movement from rest, there is a "jolt" in the resistance (rest friction?) and subsequent movement. But it could be a question of the quality of the product. Fluid heads make it easy to start a slow movement without any jolt. They also dampen high frequencies in the movement which can be unwanted (at least in some cases). Of course, this also means that when following a fast and erratically moving subject, the fluid head provides some resistance to faster movement (to go faster you need to apply more force) while gimbal heads do not. Fluid heads are more compact in external dimensions than gimbal heads and they allow mounting of the camera to the head when you need to shoot at shorter focal lengths that don't have tripod mounts in the lens. But for me the soft and fluid slow movements and compact size really make me use them instead of gimbal heads. Although I am not skilled at panning I want to learn that and I find the fluid head does reduce the off-axis blur in panned shots at slow shutter speeds. With gimbals or hand-held I get blur in two axis; with the fluid head I mostly have blur in the direction of panning (due to my limited ability to follow the subject's movement precisely). But I'll practice and hopefully get there. 😉 I'm not at all saying that a gimbal head isn't better when following a fast and erratically moving subject with a fast shutter speed set in the camera - I do think it is, especially with larger lenses. However, when working with a more compact tele such as the PF Nikkors, or the 100-400, the adjustable counterweight on my two-way fluid head makes it easy to balance the lens. With my gimbal heads, some of the light tele + camera body combinations  can be difficult or impossible to balance on a gimbal (as the lenses have become less front-weighted, the balance point of the combination moves to the back and there can be physical obstructions preventing correct balancing). Note that not all fluid heads are equipped with the same features, some don't have internal adjustable counterweights.

Edited May 9 by ilkka_nissila

[Dieter Schaefer]

On 5/9/2024 at 5:55 AM, ilkka_nissila said:

Although I am not skilled at panning I want to learn that and I find the fluid head does reduce the off-axis blur in panned shots at slow shutter speeds.

Do you have VR on or off when you pan at slow shutter speeds?

On 5/9/2024 at 5:55 AM, ilkka_nissila said:

With gimbals or hand-held I get blur in two axis; with the fluid head I mostly have blur in the direction of panning (due to my limited ability to follow the subject's movement precisely).

Shouldn't VR eliminate the off-axis blur?

When I first got the 300PF and shot at prop planes at slow shutter speeds at an air show, I consistently got blurry shots and was tempted to blame it on the lens. Until I realized that the small weight of the lens made my panning inaccurate and I didn't maintain the planes in the same position in the viewfinder; I was usually going too fast.

On 5/9/2024 at 5:55 AM, ilkka_nissila said:

some of the light tele + camera body combinations  can be difficult or impossible to balance on a gimbal

I had that problem with the AF-S 300/4 (with and without TC-17EII, and AF-D 80-400) on a D300/MB-10 mounted on a Jobu Jr. 3 (smaller size gimbal); with the clamp in the correct mounting position, there wasn't enough travel in the Arca-Swiss rail; everything had to move too far forward to balance the heavy weight in the back. The poorly designed tripod foot (slanted forward) made the issue even worse. Hardly any upward movement allowed with the setup.

 

What I find most aggravating with gimbal heads is the need to perfectly level the tripod every time on sets up or moves it to allow for level panning. But most of the time, I need to movement required isn't level and one now fights (residual or intentional) friction of two panning knobs. I am sure practice makes perfect but I mind losing all those images I would have gotten had I not bothered with a tripod.

[ilkka_nissila]

34 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Do you have VR on or off when you pan at slow shutter speeds?

Shouldn't VR eliminate the off-axis blur?

When I first got the 300PF and shot at prop planes at slow shutter speeds at an air show, I consistently got blurry shots and was tempted to blame it on the lens. Until I realized that the small weight of the lens made my panning inaccurate and I didn't maintain the planes in the same position in the viewfinder; I was usually going too fast.

I had that problem with the AF-S 300/4 (with and without TC-17EII, and AF-D 80-400) on a D300/MB-10 mounted on a Jobu Jr. 3 (smaller size gimbal); with the clamp in the correct mounting position, there wasn't enough travel in the Arca-Swiss rail; everything had to move too far forward to balance the heavy weight in the back. The poorly designed tripod foot (slanted forward) made the issue even worse. Hardly any upward movement allowed with the setup.

 

What I find most aggravating with gimbal heads is the need to perfectly level the tripod every time on sets up or moves it to allow for level panning. But most of the time, I need to movement required isn't level and one now fights (residual or intentional) friction of two panning knobs. I am sure practice makes perfect but I mind losing all those images I would have gotten had I not bothered with a tripod.

When I pan using the tripod, I have VR OFF, and when I do it hand-held, I have VR in SPORT mode (if available, otherwise NORMAL). While VR reduces off-axis blur in panned shots (over the blur when hand-holding with VR OFF), I find that it doesn't work quite as effectively in reducing the blur as a tripod with a fluid head. Of course, hand-holding with VR offers greatly increased freedoms of movement, but when faced with a long wait with a subject not seemingly doing anything and then suddenly taking off from the water, I can more easily maintain the subject in the frame when using a tripod to hold the rig. I can then easily follow the swimming and take-off without having to first re(acquire) the subject in the viewfinder. The waiting time could easily by 30 min or longer between take-offs (e.g. of red-throated divers). They can do stuff also between flights, but the waiting times can still be long. For me holding the camera pointed at the subject hand-held for such long waiting times would be frustrating.

I think panning at slow speeds really takes a lot of practice to get the technique right, it's one of my weak areas. I read a travel photographer's book about slow shutter speed use to convey movement and the author said that you have to use every opportunity to practice this technique (a thousand times ...) before it starts to produce good results consistently. I really love the way some photographers are able to nail it, the smooth tones due to low ISO look great, and so does the feeling of movement.

I have two leveling solutions for my tripods. This one can be really time-consuming to set up but does not require any space under the tripod so it is good for low-level work:

https://www.manfrotto.com/global/levelling-base-338/

I had it modified with little holes to allow a metal rod to be used to make adjustments so that the skin in my fingers doesn't wear off. However, it's so slow to set up that I usually use the other solution which is a Gitzo bowl adapter and leveling base:

https://www.gitzo.com/global/leveling-base-systematic-gslvls/

This part replaces the top plate in Systematic tripods:

https://www.gitzo.com/global/75mm-half-bowl-video-adapter-systematic-series-2-4-gs3321v75/

and allows the bowl adapter to be used for leveling (some fluid heads fit directly the bowl).

The Gitzo leveling base and bowl adapter work great and are very quick to adjust to get the top plate level, and after that all the flat-base fluid and gimbal heads are always leveled. 🙂 If you have a Systematic 2-, 3-, or 4-series tripod, the bowl adapter fits. Some other modular tripod systems may also have similar accessories available.

When working for a longer time (several hours) at a location the setup time is not that bad. I do understand that if you prefer to stay mobile and walk around to find subjects, then the tripod can be annoying and cause lost shots. But my (limited) experience with bird photography suggests that the birds take their time to get used to my presence and by staying reasonably still at one spot, I increase my chances of seeing a bird come very close without being bothered by my presence. This has pretty much been the only way I've been able to get some successful bird shots... 🙂 Usually the close encounters have been at dusk, so that means also my ISO will be fairly high. But the lighting can be quite moody, which I suppose is a good thing.

 

 

Edited May 10 by ilkka_nissila

[Dieter Schaefer]

40 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

For me holding the camera pointed at the subject hand-held for such long waiting times would be frustrating.

Sure is. One's arm usually starts hurting the instant before some action happens. Or one is distracted for an instant (especially when not alone). And the scenario you describe is the one where I wish I had a tripod. Just to wish for not having one a second later when the bird took off and I miss the shots because of it. I dream of a clamp that would release smoothly and instantly when I want it to so I could stand/sit there with my lens mounted to a tripod and the instant I'd be better off without one, I'd have the clamp release without me having to pull a lever or turn a screw.

I use an Acratech leveling base - makes things a lot smoother. The in-viewfinder horizon of many cameras also helps a lot in leveling things out. Made the mistake of not purchasing a tripod with bowl adapter - and not willing to spend money on getting something that I don't use all that often.

 

Earlier this week I was at a local fish ladder to see if I could photograph some osprey or bald eagle fishing. Tripod would be great as waiting times are long - but there's other photographers and space is limited. Also, the number of positions to shoot from is limited and the birds could dive to your left or right. No one were I was standing used a tripod as everyone doing so would be in somebody else's way. What I would have needed there was two cameras to use with two different lenses. I missed an osprey diving five feet from me  because 500mm focal length was definitely too long: with a good portion of luck involved, this is all I've got:

 

Edited May 10 by Dieter Schaefer

[mike_halliwell]

3 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

'loose'I'd have the clamp release without me having to pull a lever or turn a screw.

Funny that, I'm playing with a magnetic 'holder' I built at the moment. It's two cylindrical magnets that fit into 2 cylindrical holes, maybe 0.5mm bigger in dia. There are opposite polarity cylinder magnets at the bottom of the holes. (in the foot)

They were far too strong to start with and you could pick up the tripod via the body/lens! It's surprising just how strong these small neodymium magnets are 😂

As I'd stupidly stuck the magnets in, my way of reducing the pull was small discs of plastic, the thickness of a yoghurt pot. 5 discs down the hole was about right to not come out too easily, ie accidentally, but with an up pull was free quite easily.

I'd thought to have the magnet 'pegs' on the foot, but they ruined the hand-holding.. The magnet pegs protrude by about 10mm... ouch on the palm !

I tried tapered 'pegs' for easier location, but rotational twist made them come out too easily.

The fore-aft twin cylindrical shape prevents normal pan and tilt movement releasing the foot.

I made a non-magnetic version, with just pegs and holes which worked OK, but i was worried it would escape too easily... although the parallel peg/hole was pretty good. 5mm was way too short. 15mm was too long... 10mm was Goldilocks' porridge. 😉

Prototype 2 will have smaller magnets or maybe same size but with steel inserts in the foot.

I'm many miles from my workshop at the mo' but will try and send some pics soon!

NB. This was for a Manny 501 HDV fluid head. A 'loose' ball head may dump your lens 😮