Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-29-2010, 09:14 AM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 180
Long telephoto lens support

Hi,

I'm considering one of these for use with a 600mm lens (on a Gimbal). It screws onto the camera at one end, and onto the lens tripod collar at the other, to make the lot more rigid and avoid vibrations (caused by mirror slap for example):

Feisol QP-400

Has anyone got some experience with this accessory , and does it help much?
Anyone know of other manufacturers with a similar plate? I'm already aware of the RRS CB-YS and the Manfrotto 293, but the Feisol is lighter and/or cheaper.

Thanks in advance.

Nick

09-29-2010, 04:02 PM   #2
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,701
Velbon make a Lens support called the SPT-1 Works very well as designed. Just have to be sure that the distance between the two mounting points will encompass the mounting points of your particular lens and camera combo and possible extension tube if you use one. The mount point for the camera moves higher and lower compensating for the diameter of the lens which works really well. see here for pics:
Velbon Telephoto Lens Support #SPT-1 - Digital Camera Warehouse Australia
09-29-2010, 04:10 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
Hi Nick,

I know of someone who bought the RRS accessory and loves it. I am guessing this plate would work well, but I don't use them since my pressing the shutter button is very soft and I and can regularly shoot between 1/125 to 1/200 sec. at 600mm using long lens techniques. I use a Wimberley WH-200 gimbal head.

A couple of questions - just to eliminate any other factors and have all of the information:
  1. Is your tripod using a center column? If so, is it extended?
  2. Are you confident the tripod's max. load is sufficient? What model is it?
  3. What lens are you using?
I know for some folks there is a physical limitation so they don't use the long lens technique of using your hands/face to dampen vibration.

Regards,
Marc
09-30-2010, 06:47 AM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 180
Original Poster
Arjay, thanks for pointing out the Velbon, I hadn't heard of it.

Mark,

I have an FA* 600mm f/4, which I got very recently so I've only taken a few test shots so far, haven't had the opportunity to use it in the field (living in downtown Paris doesn't make it easier in that respect ).

I have 2 gimbal heads: an Induro GH-BA (Sidekick copy), which I've mounted on a Feisol CB-50D ballhead (max. load 41lbs!), and a Jobu BWG-J2. My tripod is a Giottos MTL9351B, which I would say is equivalent to a Manfrotto 055, having held both side by side. I haven't extended the central column when I tried the 600mm on it.

My first impressions were that I could see the image in the viewfinder wasn't very stable (I haven't noticed much difference between the two gimbals in that respect, but I'll have to examine this in more details again).
I've also noticed, even with shorter telephotos, that the lens seems to vibrate after the mirror has slapped - I guess this problem would be more severe the longer the lens. I'm not sure whether the vibration is along the barrel of the lens or within the gimbal/tripod though.

I haven't read about long lens technique yet, but I have wondered wether holding a hand over the lens barrel would dampen some of the vibrations. Sure it doesn't stabilise the image in the viewfinder that much, but I would assume it is easier for the shake reduction system to deal with those random-ish movements induced by the hand not being too steady, rather than higher frequency vibrations.

Do you think that with the proper technique the use of such plates becomes redundant (i.e. what is gained is negligible)?

I assumed at first that the gimbals were useful for improved stability as well as allowing panning. I now wonder if the FA* attached directly on the ballhead (either by the tripod collar or by using the Feisol plate) might be just as stable as on the gimbal, with only the panning more difficult to do.

Anyway, here are a few pictures taken with the FA* by the previous owner - I think he told me he'd used mirror lock-up and remote release, from a hide, Manfrotto 055 tripod and Wimberley gimbal:







Thanks again,

Nick

09-30-2010, 08:13 AM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
Nick

That is only part of the equation with respect to vibration.

what you depict will eliminate the issues about minor "looseness" between the lens and camera body, and perhaps the teleconverter in between, and may help somewhat, but there is another source of vibration, that can be a killer with any long lens and that is associated with the stiffness of the head mount, and head,

While a gimball mount will support the lens through the center of mass, and therefore the lens will not drift from position vertically even if the gimbal is not clamped, the length of the mechanism is prone to introducing high frequency vibration.

I have found another product that helps stabalize long lenses on a tripod, shown in thelink below

359 Manfrotto Long Lens Camera Support (#3252)

I do not know where you can get it now, but it stops rotational vibration around the tripod pivot point.
09-30-2010, 09:33 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
Hi Nick,

I second Lowell's comments on vibration - very good post. Of course my setting up on a surface that readily transmits vibration will never help matters (eg. on my wooden deck for backyard birding). I have to remain motionless to ensure the best possible shot because it's on an elevated wooden deck.

Im my mind, therein lies crux of the issue: the personal traits of the photographer may influence or determine what you may need in terms of equipment and accessories for a heavy super telephoto lens. For example, as already mentioned, one person I know who owns the FA* 600/4 has the RRS accessory because he hits the shutter button instead of squeezing it. He has seen a noticeable improvement in "keepers" since installing it. I simply squeeze the shutter and can get clear shots to as low as 1/125 to 1/200 sec. @ 600mm.

Yes, my left hand is normally dampening the lens, as is my face on the back of the camera with lower shutter speeds. It's mainly to counteract the movement caused by the pressing of the shutter button, nothing more.

I am also glad that I asked about your equipment and I believe that I can identify a potential problem here. I don't think you'll find true success in your quest for a solution until you address it - the tripod. Your FA* 600/4 lens weight is nearly 50% heavier than the max. load of the tripod:

Giottos MTL 9351B max. load: 5 kg

FA* 600/4: 7.2 kg

Any time you exceed the maximum specs on a material or it's construction, compromise will result. For reference, I owned the Giottos MT 9360 - max. load of 17.5lbs or ~8 kg. It was insufficient support with the Wimberley WH-200 gimbal head and a P50 plate - there was too much vibration for my liking even with long lens technique. I have since moved to the Gitzo 3541XLS and have no regrets.

My FA* 250-600/5.6 lens weight is actually 5.8kg (12.8 lbs). Both the 2500-600/5.6 and the 600/4 share the same tripod collar design. Add a K10D+grip and gimbal head, the weight now is at 8.5kg (18.75 lbs). I weigh all items and luggage with an Ultimate (now Feedback) Alpine Digital Scale - it's accuracy is to +/- 10 grams. I do this before traveling by air, to ensure I have no surprises!

As an FYI, I've spoken directly with Wimberly (I'm a Professional Services member) on using a Sidekick with heavier super telephotos. I was advised against using it with a heavy lens, unless air travel weight or something similar was a consideration. That doesn't mean you cannot consider other options, including the Mongoose head, which is very light, but the design leaves more than a few serious/professional nature photographers divided on it's long term durability. My understanding is that the entire load of the lens rests on a much smaller surface area - near where the lens platform attaches to the main arm of the head. OTOH, I have no concerns slinging my setup of tripod+gimbal head+lens+camera over my shoulder and have peace of mind.

That being said, I would consider using a high-quality ball head while in a blind/hide too. The tensioning on the ball would be important in addition to proper long lens technique.

I would recommend you seriously consider getting a tripod such as the MTL 927xB series with a max. load of 10kg if your budget limits you. If you are able to afford a higher load tripod, please seriously consider doing so (ie. Gitzo line). Otherwise Feisol makes a slightly higher max. load of around 12-13kg and it's more cost friendly.

If you review some of my image posts, you'll find examples of low shutter speed images. I'll do my best to help where I can.

Regards,
Marc

Last edited by Marc Langille; 09-30-2010 at 09:55 AM. Reason: updated with additional information on the Giottos tripod I used
09-30-2010, 11:07 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 8,085
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Nick

That is only part of the equation with respect to vibration.

what you depict will eliminate the issues about minor "looseness" between the lens and camera body, and perhaps the teleconverter in between, and may help somewhat, but there is another source of vibration, that can be a killer with any long lens and that is associated with the stiffness of the head mount, and head,

While a gimball mount will support the lens through the center of mass, and therefore the lens will not drift from position vertically even if the gimbal is not clamped, the length of the mechanism is prone to introducing high frequency vibration.

I have found another product that helps stabalize long lenses on a tripod, shown in thelink below

359 Manfrotto Long Lens Camera Support (#3252)

I do not know where you can get it now, but it stops rotational vibration around the tripod pivot point.
+ 1
I use the Manfrotto 359 Long Lens Support for my K1000/8.



Phil.

09-30-2010, 11:16 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
Marc

your post reminds me of another post somewhere, that you should really only load a tripod to 50% of the mamximum weight limit if at all possible.

that, however, just adds fuel to a post I just wrote today.

ALL TRIPODS WEIGH 30 POUNDS

a 10 pound tripod needs 20 pounds of weight, a 20 pound tripod needs 10 pounds of weight and a 30 pound tripod does not need any weight to dampen out vibration.
09-30-2010, 12:02 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
Hi Lowell,

No kidding, I see what you are saying! My Gitzo weighs 4.3lbs and the total weigh is somewhat close at 23lbs! Indeed, very few top level super telephoto shooters will opt for anything but the Gitzo line, simply because they don't want a weak point in the equation. Most Gitzo tripods are the top choice simply because they can be completely dissambled and serviced in the field and a lifetime warranty really good peace of mind.


To clarify my previous post for Nick and anyone else: a tripod with a lighter maximum load can hold a heavier lens, but there are compromises. If it's only being used in a blind then either Giottos would be OK, since only the first and possibly a small amount of the second leg section is in use. The remainder are retracted inside and do assist with load tolerance and lessens vibration. Result is a much stiffer setup.

I'd not recommend any such Giottos tripod with full extension of the legs while using a solid gimbal head and a heavier lens like the 600/4 or 250-600/5.6. So far my results seems to prove this, since the shutter speeds I shoot at with the K10D are often below (sometimes less than half) the reciprocal value of the lens FL.

Regards,
Marc
09-30-2010, 12:26 PM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Langille Quote
Hi Lowell,

snip......
I'd not recommend any such Giottos tripod with full extension of the legs while using a solid gimbal head and a heavier lens like the 600/4 or 250-600/5.6. So far my results seems to prove this, since the shutter speeds I shoot at with the K10D are often below (sometimes less than half) the reciprocal value of the lens FL.

Regards,
Marc
Marc, one question here, and I will ask you since you are the guru on long glass, but considering the focal length and shutter speeds we are discussing, and considering shooting in a blind, where you are somewhat limited in the panning etc that make a gimbal mount necessary, why not a bean bag and shake reduction, as opposed to a tripod?

I have attached a shot, and I know it is not in the same league as your work, or with the same lenses, but this is what SR can do for you.

the shot below is a 100% crop (so that uploading would not reduce pixel count) out of a shot where the juvenile night heron filled the frame to it's entirety. (second photo.)

this was in the evening, as the sun was setting, with no flash. 1/40th using ISO1600 on my K7 HAND HELD The lens is my SMC-Pentax 300F4 with the SMC-F 1.7x AF TC attached. effective focal length was 510mm.

given what SR can do, wouldn't a bean bag make sense?



BTW the K7 is not that bad at ISO1600 is it. And please don't comment about the lateral CA of the 300F4.
09-30-2010, 05:58 PM   #11
Veteran Member
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Marc, one question here, and I will ask you since you are the guru on long glass, but considering the focal length and shutter speeds we are discussing, and considering shooting in a blind, where you are somewhat limited in the panning etc that make a gimbal mount necessary, why not a bean bag and shake reduction, as opposed to a tripod?
Thanks Lowell - I am not sure if I am as knowledgeable as you allude to, but I will do my best to answer your questions/thoughts. Actually I do use a beanbag, but primarily in a vehicle. The blind setup is the past was often a stout ball head - it is a great option. Then I can consider bringing a Sidekick if needed. However, most of the time I used a ball head was with the lighter Sigma 500/4.5 or the FA* 300/2.8.

The biggest issue is with a bean bag is that I don't have any support for it - the blind is of no use in that matter since I use a relatively lightweight Ameristep Doghouse blind for portability. Since I often want/need a tripod for landscape work, etc. it all fits together nicely as a packaged system. In other words, it's the simplest setup in terms of logistics - nothing but the tripod and head is needed, plus it's quick to move the tripod to another opening in the blind if needed.

Did I explain myself correctly and does that all make sense? Just want to be sure since the above fits my needs, although I agree that your suggestion has merit, no question! A good example is a hard blind (natural building materials, semi-permanent) - that could be a good spot for a bean bag.


QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I have attached a shot, and I know it is not in the same league as your work, or with the same lenses, but this is what SR can do for you.

the shot below is a 100% crop (so that uploading would not reduce pixel count) out of a shot where the juvenile night heron filled the frame to it's entirety. (second photo.)

this was in the evening, as the sun was setting, with no flash. 1/40th using ISO1600 on my K7 HAND HELD The lens is my SMC-Pentax 300F4 with the SMC-F 1.7x AF TC attached. effective focal length was 510mm.

given what SR can do, wouldn't a bean bag make sense?


BTW the K7 is not that bad at ISO1600 is it. And please don't comment about the lateral CA of the 300F4.

Dang, that's actually pretty sharp for such a low shutter speed at 510mm AND hand held!! Kudos.

I normally do have SR enabled when I shoot, especially for the low shutter speeds. I am not certain if/why some folks don't believe it works. That SR, plus perhaps my long lens technique is really solid at dampening vibration? Add a stout support system for a heavy lens and it should be good.

Not to hijack Nick's thread, but I can provide a few examples of bean bag shots from a vehicle?

Regards,
Marc
09-30-2010, 06:21 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
Marc

Thanks for comments. While sr is good at 1/40 you need a cooperative subject too.

Re the blind I was thinking a more permanent thing and forgot these can be totally non structural. In your situation of course a tripod is better. Have you also thought monopod? I note you say you also use SR is that when on the tripod?

Nick sorry for the hijack
09-30-2010, 06:34 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Marc

Thanks for comments. While sr is good at 1/40 you need a cooperative subject too.

Re the blind I was thinking a more permanent thing and forgot these can be totally non structural. In your situation of course a tripod is better. Have you also thought monopod? I note you say you also use SR is that when on the tripod?

Nick sorry for the hijack
Yes Nick, apologies!

Lowell: I've considered (and own) using a monopod with the 250-600/5.6, although it will take practice. It's no issue with the 300/2.8 of course.

I do use SR on the tripod, but remember the lens/camera setup on a gimbal head allows easy movement in all directions with just your thumb and finger. It's basically up to the photographer to hold the lens correctly and dampen any vibrations. So far SR seems to work well, sometimes getting 1/125 sec. @ 600mm (on a stationary subject of course) with tack sharp results.

Regards,
Marc
10-01-2010, 08:24 AM   #14
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 180
Original Poster
Thanks Marc and Lowell for your help, and no worries at all, no-one's hijacked anything, this is all useful information relevant to the matter of long lens vibration on a tripod.

I guess what you are both saying is that before I worry about vibrations along the barrel of the lens, I should first make sure I have a sturdy tripod/head/lens combo.

I didn't have the 600 f/4 when I chose my Giottos, what I liked about it (besides the price ) was the fact that the central column is fully adjustable at any angle between 0 and 180 degrees, which might be useful for macro, and that it came with a hook at the end of it. I hope extra weight attached to it might help somewhat.
I hadn't envisioned myself using the 600 f/4 with more than the first leg section extended anyway - in fact, I thought I'd go looking for one of those tiny foldable chairs next, to sit on while shooting. Do you ever shoot with your 250-600 f/5.6 on the fully extended Gitzo, Marc?

The nearest tripod to mine that kinda fits the new requirements would be the Benro C-297, which is still affordable in my opinion. Before I got the Giottos I asked on a local forum whether carbon added extra stiffness compared to aluminium, but got no answer, so I decided that the small weight gain - a few hundred grams - didn't justify the doubling or trebling of the price.

Could you explain what determines the max. load on a tripod? Is it the leg section diameter, the stiffness of the material, other factors..... ?
And what happens when you overload a tripod: what exactly induces movement in the whole setup?

Oh, and another question, just out of curiosity: what is the "typical" range of frequencies of the vibrations you'd get along the barrel of a super telephoto lens, or in the arm of a Sidekick, if anyone's ever measured that?

Thanks again to all
10-01-2010, 09:11 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
QuoteOriginally posted by nicolas1970i Quote
Thanks Marc and Lowell for your help, and no worries at all, no-one's hijacked anything, this is all useful information relevant to the matter of long lens vibration on a tripod.

I guess what you are both saying is that before I worry about vibrations along the barrel of the lens, I should first make sure I have a sturdy tripod/head/lens combo.
that about summs it up
QuoteQuote:
I didn't have the 600 f/4 when I chose my Giottos, what I liked about it (besides the price ) was the fact that the central column is fully adjustable at any angle between 0 and 180 degrees, which might be useful for macro, and that it came with a hook at the end of it. I hope extra weight attached to it might help somewhat.
the extra weight helps, and I too have a hook at the opposite end of the column for that purpose, but what also helps with many tripods and stiffness, and designs seem to be going away from this is secondary braces that clamp each leg to the central column. these take a lot of the deflection out of the legs because even though the top section is stiff (biggest diameter) deflection in the lower leg sections cause the top section to pivot at the connection to the neck. by stoping this rotation, the entire leg is stiffened substantially. Both my current tripods have this, but the down side is it stops the legs from being spread in a non uniform pattern, something people do from time to time due to limitations of the ground.
QuoteQuote:
I hadn't envisioned myself using the 600 f/4 with more than the first leg section extended anyway - in fact, I thought I'd go looking for one of those tiny foldable chairs next, to sit on while shooting.
I have a little one, is 16 inches long and 2 1/2 inches in diameter fully folded, 3 legs in a tripod and triangular stool top. came in its own bag for about 15 at a hunting store. Soccer chairs are good also but bigger, and with 4 legs sometimes difficult to sit flat. case of 3 legs being better than 4
QuoteQuote:
Do you ever shoot with your 250-600 f/5.6 on the fully extended Gitzo, Marc?
while I don't have a monster like that I use my 300F4 plus 2x TC and also my celestron C90 (1000mm F11) on higher than one section, usually two full and part of the third extended
QuoteQuote:

The nearest tripod to mine that kinda fits the new requirements would be the Benro C-297, which is still affordable in my opinion. Before I got the Giottos I asked on a local forum whether carbon added extra stiffness compared to aluminium, but got no answer, so I decided that the small weight gain - a few hundred grams - didn't justify the doubling or trebling of the price.
hard to comment about weight when already packing 25 pounds of lenses and cameras
QuoteQuote:

Could you explain what determines the max. load on a tripod? Is it the leg section diameter, the stiffness of the material, other factors..... ?
And what happens when you overload a tripod: what exactly induces movement in the whole setup?
biggest issue I have seen with overloaded tripods is slippage of legs if if the toggles are not good, and / or if the bushings are sliding because they cannot be tightenned more. There is also an issue with Ball heads, same issue, smaller balls will slip under the weight of the lens, there have been some complaints about shifting aim of the lens as the balls are tightened, and the smaller the head the more prone the head to mounting plate can be to flexing. You need to remember that everything bends under load, even if you cannot see it. Long lenses exagerate shake. It took me years litterally to sort out my C90 and the mount so that there was no vibration. and a mirror weighs nothing compared to a 600mm F4
QuoteQuote:

Oh, and another question, just out of curiosity: what is the "typical" range of frequencies of the vibrations you'd get along the barrel of a super telephoto lens, or in the arm of a Sidekick, if anyone's ever measured that?

Thanks again to all
Never measured frequencies, I use a simple method to satisfy myself on stability. if I tap either the lens or the camera does it continue to shake after the initial hit. I suppose with a strobe, and a high enough frequency, along with a macro lens, or an accelerometer and a 'scope, one could measure it. but not me.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
feisol, lens, telephoto lens, tripod
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Manfrotto 359 Long Lens Support with gimbal head? need to tame the SMC 1000mm tvfd911 Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 9 05-08-2010 05:51 PM
HowTo long range telephoto shots falconeye Photographic Technique 3 04-08-2010 04:32 AM
Don't let this happen to you: using M42 Long telephoto lens vizjerei Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 12-17-2008 05:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:09 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top