Balance your gear with a rail.

[Kodiak]

I have this device for an unusually large lens. Manfrotto support 359-1.

I see that the illustration was done with an F3 mounted… this is an antique!
I have never seen someone using that product possibly because one can not
pan/follow a moving subject with it.

[Shadowman]

I see that the illustration was done with an F3 mounted… this is an antique!
I have never seen someone using that product possibly because one can not
pan/follow a moving subject with it.

Maximum swivel is about 15 degrees.

[Inkanyezi]

Maximum swivel is about 15 degrees.

I guess that would be +/- 15 °? What I was thinking of would maybe be two very lightweight dampers attached to two legs, permitting a total swing of about 60 °. Not rigid braces, only shock absorbers damping vibration.

The bicycle inner tube I dropped over the tripod just lay there slack, but effectively took out any tendency of resonance.

[HaseebM]

Do you sell that rail? Recently bought a focus rail for macro work but this one looks good for heavier lenses as well as for astrophotography. Thanks.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi all,

Just to add another dimension to this thread ...

Camera: Nikon D7100
Lens: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6 - i.e. with no tripod ring
Subject: Wildlife at distance (always too far!)

Rightly or wrongly, when shooting with my monopod, I often use the ball head set 'stiff' - enough to take most of the 'weight' of the bending moment caused by the camera being attached to the head and the lens stuck out in front, this saves my having to hold it up to achieve a balance while 'waiting'.

When the subject, usually a perched bird, does something interesting, I can overcome the friction of the ballhead to achieve a better framing/composition as it stretches or even flies off.

So I have often thought that a home made device such as Kodiak's would be useful to balance the lens/camera assembly, I cannot justify the cost of the commercial solutions for a hobby and I don't really have the workshop facilities (or skills) to construct one myself - but perhaps I'm just making excuses!

I had considered sourcing a tripod collar, but suspect this would just 'reverse' the problem, as the camera is (within 20g), the same weight as the lens (both circa 750g each) and the weight might then be too far back from the lens collar bush.


A similar issue occurs if the camera is on my pan-and-tilt head equipped tripod in a hide (blind); where a better balance would reduce the 'pull' down I need to exert on the pan/tilt bar to maintain the "perched" composition, while leaving the controls free enough to follow, should it take flight.

Anyway, I lob that in as another reason why it might be useful, especially for the less 'exotic' lenses - to add to Grahame's list.


Like Hasseb, I also have a macro rail, but the camera with hefty 105mm f/2.8 lens on puts a lot of off-balance weight on the mechanism.

Cheers, Dave

[george013]

•

Now the whole rig has a neutral stress.

Should I need to tilt the rail, I re-balance the rig.

Your centre of gravity in photo 1 is somewhere on the red line, I guess somewhere below the ax of the lens. That's the point that should stay on the red line in photo 2. And some correction for the ballhead.

George

[Kodiak]

Your centre of gravity in photo 1 is somewhere on the red line, I guess somewhere below the ax of the lens. That's the point that should stay on the red line in photo 2. And some correction for the bullhead. George

Yes George, you got that right!

[george013]

I wonder what would be the difference if you set it out of balance, so the site of the camera is a little bit heavier. The mirror is going up.
George

[Kodiak]

I wonder what would be the difference if you set it out of balance, so the site of the camera is a little bit heavier. The mirror is going up.George

The neutral stress is meant to eliminate some sort of resonance. A little bit
away will allow for a little bit of resonance… specially on the body side since
the mirror is there. Let's put it this way: the rail is doing the greatest part of
the job with it two support points. The balanced rail has much greater tolerance.

[george013]

The neutral stress is meant to eliminate some sort of resonance. A little bit
away will allow for a little bit of resonance… specially on the body side since
the mirror is there. Let's put it this way: the rail is doing the greatest part of
the job with it two support points. The balanced rail has much greater tolerance.

The rail makes the combi camera/lens more solid,stiff. But the vibration from the shutter causes a movement centered around your balhead, the connection with the tripod.



If the camera is balanced, the the impact of the mirror might be greater then when the camerasite is a little heavier. It's just a thought.
I think it's worth to try it with the lasertrick of Urban.
George

[Kodiak]

I think it's worth to try it with the lasertrick of Urban.

Please, just go ahead George, and post your observations…
As far as my experience goes, it works!

[Glenn NK]

This thread is of particular interest to me; several months ago I did some sharpness testing of my f/28 70-200 Mark I compared to my 24-105 and 100 macro. I shot an oil painting that was about 4 metres/12 feet away. The results were the reason I sold the older 70-200 and bought the newer version of the same lens two weeks ago (Mark II).

During the shooting (all shots using a tripod), I tried something to get a better feeling for vibrations (I suspected that vibrations were a problem with some of the images). The following images show my setup; it consists of a shallow dish with sloped sides with water, balancing precariously on the hot shoe - the slightest movement of the floor will set the water moving (the sloped sides magnify the movement compared to a dish with vertical sides). Note that this is a qualitative test, not quantitative.

When the mirror slapped up, the water had tiny ripples in it (camera is vibrating). When mirror lockup was used, there were still some ripples but they were much smaller. Vibration is very difficult to control.





Today what I found is that without mirror lockup (standard shoot with remote), by holding my finger very lightly on the end of the lens hood (70-200 tele lens), I could feel definite vibrations, but could not feel any when my finger was on the camera body. The vibrations/movement at the end of the lens hood does not bode well because vibrations = movement; particularly if the movement/vibrations occur at the end of the lens.

The next step was to try to damp the vibrations. Urban's method of using a bicycle inner tube was intriguing, so I tried to think of something practical for field use to stop the end of the lens from moving. I first tried a small towel draped over the lens hood - not much effect. So I tried a large heavy bath towel. From a qualitative point, it improved things quite a bit but not perfect. The problem is how much weight can one hang on the end of the lens before it overstresses something.

The quest will continue - off to shoot some sunset stuff with the 70-200.

[PhotomanJohn]

Well, I thought I would play around with this lens support idea and build something up and test it. My guess is that the mirror and shutter motion would mostly excite the lens vertically so I would make just a support as opposed the "V" style like Kodiak did which constrains the lateral motion as well. I grabbed a 1/4" cap screw, a press-on knob, a piece of Delrin and a RRS Mini Clamp and made the adjustable support shown below. The idea to set the stop is to apply slight upward pressure to the end of the lens then adjust the stop so it just is in contact with the lens. There needs to be a slight preload on the lens.







I then set up the tests as follows:
D800 w/ 70/200mm f/4 lens and remote shutter release
Manfrotto 055CXPro tripod with RRS ball head and 10 lbs of lead shot bags hanging from it
Camera settings :1/80 sec, f/8.0, 200mm
Target distance: 10 ft
Live View focus
Both normal and mirror lock-up (5 second delay)

I found the set-up performs very well with a small difference between mirror lock-up or not and only a very, very small improvement with the front lens support in either case.

The surprise came when I made the same tests using my RRS lens mount (which I normally use) instead of the rail set-up. It was significantly worse than just the rail without the lens support in normal operation and far, far worse using mirror lock-up! (Yes, you read that correctly.) I assumed I had done something wrong and ran the test again - same result. Then for a third time with the same result. I did not try with a longer delay than 5 seconds because I had already decided that the lens mount is going to be gathering dust unless there is an overwhelming need to use it. If anyone has any ideas about this (other than the obvious one that I don't know what I am doing) please pass them along.



So with this particular set-up, the lens support made very little difference which is in line with Manfred's original comment but I think I will still use it. I would imagine that other set-ups could have different results so your mileage may vary.

John

[Andrew1]

For some other ideas on methods.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=telep...r=0.9#imgdii=_

[PhotomanJohn]

Andrew - Good link! A lot of those designs look like they are intended to improve the static support of the camera and lens but won't do much for vibration because their rails are too thin and flexible compared to the weight they are supporting.

John

[george013]

John,
Why didn't you try it with the slider in unbalance. The weight to the camerasite. To my theory the impact of the impuls from the mirror-slap wil be less. I haven't time and possibility to try it.
George

[Inkanyezi]

The reason for using the inner tube over the three legs, was that I could sense the mirror-slap with a finger at the middle of one of the legs of the tripod, and that this vibration had rather long duration. The pod also vibrated in a similar way with wind, although with other cameras than the RB67 I could not notice any problems in the photos. Trying only the tripod, without camera, with the laser pointer, tapping a leg to induce resonance made the point move around in an ellipse rather than linearly. I guess movements are different when induced by mirror-slap, compared to tapping the leg.

So imbalance and resonance may be different with different cameras, and the remedy might also be different. I think it has to be tried out. When problems are encountered, the laser pointer is a good indicator that helps when trying out a remedy, or it could be used to analyse whether you actually have a problem. I don't doubt that the cradle works with the setup shown in the beginning of the thread, and that it can help others, but tripods and cameras are different, and different solutions could apply. Sometimes there isn't even any problem at all.

[Glenn NK]

Playing around again with my 70-200 f/2.8 lens on the body:

When the unit was mounted on the tripod (first photo in post No.32), I discovered that hand-holding the camera in my right hand, and very lightly placing a left hand finger on the lens hood, there was no perceptible vibration.

YET - when mounted on the tripod, there are quite perceptible vibrations of the lens hood.

What this tells me is I should avoid the use of a tripod with this lens/camera combination.

Now, let me quote from John's post (Shadowman) his last trial with the 70-200 lens with the tripod collar:

"The surprise came when I made the same tests using my RRS lens mount (which I normally use) instead of the rail set-up. It was significantly worse than just the rail without the lens support in normal operation and far, far worse using mirror lock-up"

My setup was using the tripod collar on the lens - the vibration at the end of the lens hood was disturbing.

Yet when I hold the camera/lens in my right hand (left hand NOT supporting any weight - just touching the lens hood to feel the magnitude of vibrations), there is very little vibration in the lens hood.

Conclusion: Mounting the camera on the tripod ring and the tripod is not a good solution with my setup.

In effect, I've verified what John found when using the tripod mount.

This does not negate the finding of others, particularly those of Daniel. The end-of-lens support that he and John used probably alleviate the vibration problem.

I've always been an almost fanatic tripod user, but for this particular camera/combination, I'm having serious second thoughts (again echoing what John said).

Finally, last night shooting the sea and the mountains, I tried live view mode - I could hear the shutter fire (very quietly on a 5DII compared to normal shutter mode), but the vibrations on the lens hood seemed to be entirely negligible.

It seems that every combination must be checked out as there is considerable variation between mounting methods and shutter modes.

Glenn

[chauncey]

My broken gear caused me to buy this rail system that works great...
http://www.amazon.com/Neewer%C2%AE-D.../dp/B00857R0TE

[PhotomanJohn]

My broken gear caused me to buy this rail system that works great...
http://www.amazon.com/Neewer%C2%AE-D.../dp/B00857R0TE

William - I love your awesome wheeled tripod (or quad-pod?)

Glen - The issue with a tripod, especially an aluminum one, is they are springy with little damping. When you hand hold the camera you have a low spring rate and the significant damping your tissue provides. The camera moves due to the mirror or shutter shock but does not oscillate back and forth. The image stabilization in the lens can follow that movement much better than it can the relatively high frequency oscillation when on a tripod.

As people say, the carbon fiber ones have a better damping to stiffness ratios. I noticed a big difference between my original Manfrotto 055 and my current carbon one. As you, I got better results hand holding my longer lenses than I did on the tripod.

John