Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Alexey Merz wrote: >Joseph Codispoti wrote: >> Jeremy, >> Thanks for the education on tripods. I have always held that the heavier the >> tripod the better the photo. > >Not necessarily. As Ansel Adams points out in _The Camera_, any tripod >will have a (set of) resonance characteristics (dependant on how it's set >up), as will any camera/lens/shutter speed combination. These effects >can interact in unfortunate ways. > >Adams describes one tripod that was sufficient for his 8x10 setup that >wouldn't give sharp exposures with his 2.25^2 Hasselblad. Nevertheless, >a less substantial tripod gave great performance with the Hassy. > I have some experience with this. At present I have about 10 tripods including Gitzos from a 126 to a #5 Geant, a 1228 Carbon Fiber, and one each of a Manfrotto and Linhof. I've had a Berlebach wood tripod in the past. I use 35mm up to 400, and various other formats including 4x5 (got rid of 8x10) with lenses up to 480mm. The #5 Geant is used with an 8' stepladder to get above traffic, for the most part. At 1/15 sec, the 400 on any of my Nikons will not produce a sharp picture when mounted on the #5 tripod with a Sinar head at eye level, but will on the 1228 CF. On the other hand, a fully rigged Sinar with 480 lens on the CF Gitzo is silly. In general, I find that the 1228 Carbon Fiber Gitzo performs similarly to a 300 series with respect to vibration damping and resulting quality of image, but weighs closer to a 100 series Gitzo. That's worth a lot. Weight is good, except when you have to carry it. A combination of vibration damping, rigidity and light weight is even better, as I can add to the weight with a bag of rocks (or whatever else). The one improvement that I wish for on the CF tripod is that each leg section should be 10cm longer. There was another message re: attaching a spring toy. This works if the spring toy has resonant frequencies that are in sync or appropriate fractions or multiples of the camera/lens/tripod resonances. Otherwise it doesn't mean as much. A more accurate test is to attach a mirror via something sticky to camera, lens or tripod head and shine a flashlight or pocket laser at it from some distance, and have it reflect onto a surface. Then give the lens a light whack or fire the shutter and see if the reflected light jiggles, and how quickly it gets steady again. Carbon fiber (and wood) tripods tend to dampen vibrations better than metal. The more elastic a material is the less the damping. Steel is very elastic. A bag of beans is not elastic. A bean bag dampens vibrations better than steel. This is separate from the issue of resonant frequencies. Since it is very hard if not impossible to make sure that between the variables of tripd material, rigidity, lens weight, lens length, camera shutter, camera mirror, etc., a resonant frequency or multiple is not approached, concentrating on damping vibrations is a better tactic; therefore the carbon fiber tripod or wood tripod is a good solution even apart from the weight advantages of the CF tripod. And in winter the CF tripod is a pleasure compared with the metal one. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com