Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/01/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 04:21 AM 1/8/97 +0000, you wrote: >In article <2.2.16.19970107113826.2147d4dc@postoffice3.mail.cornell.edu> >, "Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu> writes >>I often use the Tiltall "Junior" with the Leitz large ball-and-socket head >>for M, R with small lenses, and even the medium format Mamiya 7. This rig >>is too light for long lenses, macro shots and heavy cameras. When I really >>get into perfection mode, I use my Gitzo 320 with Studioball head--but it's >>BIG and HEAVY. It's especially good with the 100 macro--made a real, >>noticeable difference over the large Tiltall in the field. > >Was this over and above the difference made by mirror lockup, or didn't >you use that? I'm asking this because my reasoning so far is that by >removing the mirror shock from the equation with mirror lock on an SLR >it effectively becomes a non-SLR camera and as shake-free as a >rangefinder, and as usable as a rangefinder with a lighter tripod, and I >would assume this advantage would apply even for macro. I may be wrong, >of course! >-- >Joe Berenbaum > Joe--Actually I had a long period of experimenting in trying to improve the quality of my abstracts done with the 100 mm. f2.8 macro. I did a lot of them literally in fields (peeling paint on old trucks and such) and blew them up to 16 x 20 Cibachromes. So the quality had to be high, and the pictures had to be sharp all over--hence small apertures and shutter speeds (on a sunny day, with slow transparency film) in the danger zone--1/15, 1/8. I began with my R5 on a large Tiltall, which has a built-in pan head, and some photos just weren't sharp enough. So then I got the Gitzo with its own pan head--much better. Then, after having difficulty with a Pentax 67, I replaced the Gitzo head, which was a bit flexible, with a Studioball (with Kirk plate on the Arca-style mount), and there was an improvement, both with the Pentax and the Leica Macro shots. But things could still get better, I felt. I then eliminated the long centerpost, replacing it with the Kirk short centerpost--still another improvement. Then I tried hanging weights from the tripod--the camera bag can be hooked on, or you can hang things from the bottom of the centerpost (you can screw a hardware store hook in there to hold them) and the photos got better again, but still with room for even a higher percentage of sharp shots. So then I took a deep breath and moved to an R6, which has a mirror lifter, and there was a further improvement. So I recommend all these things. The comparison with a rangefinder isn't quite apropos--I never felt the need to do all these things until I began doing the macro abstracts, where the slightest camera movement is a problem, and of course you cannot get very close with a rangefinder. Hence, I suppose, my success with a small tripod and even the large Mamiya 7 medium format RF. These same lessons apply to the Pentax 67, a fine medium format camera which is a real bargain (like a giant 35 SLR; good lenses; an excellent MF field camera). The P 67 has a mirror lifter, but the huge shutter causes some movement when it takes off on its journey, and you'd better have the camera locked to a big tripod to get the best results, even when not doing closeups. I use the Gitzo/Studioball rig there too. Hope this helps! Charlie Charles E. Love, Jr. CEL14@CORNELL.EDU