chulster

Heh heh, the correct value is 10.314159265 seconds, but you get a "A" for effort!

Thanks for the link, Dieter. It will be interesting to see how the various tripods compare. I remember reading something to this effect. The article said using the hook with bungee cords to tie the tripod down to an immobile point on the ground was more effective. I haven't tried it myself. BTW if anyone is interested i took a video to demonstrate the damping time for my tripod after a firm tap on the mounted 400mm lens: DSC_9510.mp4

How big of a difference are you seeing? I totally forgot that i had the same problem with my own second-hand D800 after a while. Exposure would vary quite a lot, up to a whole stop or even more. Turned out the camera's aperture control unit had gone bad and needed replacing. That cost about $250. If you're good at taking complicated things apart and putting them back together, you can buy the part on AliExpress for a lot less than that.

If the scene is indeed entirely unchanged between shots, then most likely you are noticing the variability of the mechanical aperture control that Nikon DSLRs use with all but the newest (E) lenses. Nikon DSLRs have a lever just inside the lens mount, on the left side (as seen when looking at the front of the camera). This lever mates with another lever integral to the mount of most Nikon-fit lenses. When you take a picture, the lever in the camera needs to move just the right amount to close the aperture to whatever f-number you or the camera have chosen. I guess this motion is subject to variability. The newest Nikon lenses, like all Canon EF lenses, use electronic aperture control. The camera sends a signal to the lens to stop down to some f-number, and the lens uses its own electronic actuator to do so. I guess this is more accurate (repeatable) than the mechanical linkage of non-E lenses because reasons. Note: manual focus lenses without a CPU do not allow the camera to control their aperture. You set the aperture using the aperture ring, and during an exposure the camera simply moves its aperture lever all the way so that the lens's aperture lever will go as far as it can. No precision is needed. So, if you're testing with a manual focus lens, the explanation above is irrelevant.

Thanks for your advice! Though I could have done with some paragraph breaks. ;)

Cleaning, Lubrication, and Adjustment.

I don't know if this is the same as what SCL mentioned, but i once had the use of an AF-S 300mm f/2.8, and that thing's AF motor was so fast, and the mass of the focus group so high, that the act of focusing caused the viewfinder image to quiver like jello when you tap the bowl. It was in good condition, but my tripod was the same POS.

With this 400mm lens, at any shutter speed up to about 1/2000s, i have to use mirror lockup with EFCS to avoid blur due to camera shake. The routine is: compose, wait 3 seconds, focus, press remote release once, wait another 2 seconds, press remote release again. I expect i may have to keep using EFCS even if i were to obtain a much better support. But it would cut down on the waiting time between steps.

I've been thinking about improvising a "beanbag head" for the long lens. It would have a saddle shape with straps on the sides that you can fasten around the lens. It would have an Arca-Swiss plate on the bottom. I've seen one or two beanbags on Amazon that had 1/4" screws on the top for fastening a camera. Maybe i can use one of these upside-down and put a tripod plate on the screw upside-down as well.

It does indeed. Thanks for this excellent information.

It's giving me the excitation...

Thanks, David, for those anecdotes and for the perspective. My question was prompted by observing how my tripod performed under nearly ideal conditions. I've been trying out an old Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lens, the longest i've ever used. All of the testing has been done on my apartment balcony or indoors. If my poor tripod takes five seconds to still the vibrations from a modest impact, i shudder (heh heh) to think how it would do against strong gusts while standing in sand. John answered the question to my satisfaction a few responses ago when he said that a decent tripod would damp a moderate bump in under a second—presumably while looking through the same 400mm lens. That would be a vast improvement for me.

I concur.

Lol.

That's a seriously sturdy-looking tripod.

Yes! That makes sense to me. But it's good to have another confirmation that a significantly better support IS possible, even with ordinary (but expensive) equipment. Thanks.

Thanks for that!

Excellent. This is the kind of anecdotal data i love. The image of an industrial head anchored to a boulder is just lovely. I would be happy with that, too. I think i understand now what it would take to get that level of rigidity and damping.

Okay now that's interesting. Can you describe their support setup?

Um, never mind. Nikon's online quote for AF adjustment is $282.95. That's significantly more than what I paid for the 400mm lens.

This is an excellent point. My other lenses require anywhere from -5 to +12 AFFT, with some needing none. However, the ones that need positive adjustment outnumber the ones that need negative. This does implicate the body, doesn't it? (I have no other.) If I could have the D810 adjusted so that a lens that currently needs +5 AFFT would need none, then the 400mm lens would become perfect at +20. How much does Nikon charge for adjusting the AF on a body?

Thanks to both of you, and let me clarify that I'm not after advice to improve stability. I just want to hear some anecdotal evidence regarding how much more stable an expensive set of legs and head are than mine. Also, can anyone confirm or deny the statement regarding the ability to whack the front of a long lens with no resulting vibration?

I have a relatively cheap aluminum tripod and ball head purchased some years ago as a set—a Vanguard Alta Pro 263AT with SBH-100 ball head. Why this one? It was The Wirecutter's top recommendation at the time (and still is, weirdly), and the set was only about $160. I'm skeptical of my tripod/head combination's stability. When supporting a long lens (with camera attached), any bump on the tripod or on the lens itself will start the whole setup quivering with vibrations that take up to three seconds or more to die down completely, judging by the image in the viewfinder. While I have neither the desire, nor the need, to spend many hundreds of dollars to upgrade, I am curious how much better a support can be. I remember reading once that, when a long lens is properly supported, you can whack the front end with your hand and see no movement in the viewfinder. Now, I don't know if this was written by an authority or by a random dude making stuff up, but this statement is literally incredible to me. In my imagination, the lens would have to be bolted at several points to a solid concrete pedestal for this to be possible. In truth, how much more stable is a pro-quality, let's say, thousand-dollar tripod/head set than my hobbyist one? (I know that stability is also influenced by the quality of the long lens's tripod collar, but for the sake of argument let's just assume that part is as good as it can be.)

Quite likely!

If you want, I'll clean and relube your lens for the cost of shipping and your permission to take some test shots with it. I've been considering buying one of these myself, but it would be nice to try it out first. PM me if interested.