Balance your gear with a rail.

[Kodiak]

•

It stroke me, some days ago, when I saw a post where an exemple
was shown mounted on a very good and most expensive ball head.

— My purpose here is not to tell anyone what and/or what not to
do with his/her money but merely to explain and illustrate the option
I have chosen after exploration, research, and development. —

I am coming back, for this, to an article and photographs I committed
a while back.

Balancing my gear with a rail. The camera has its weight right over
the attachment screw on the tripod head. The lens weight is all in the
front camera body at the bayonet mount thus creating proper conditions
for accentuated camera shake upon shutter release.

To properly balance my gear, I set both camera and lens on my new rail,
making sure that the lens is supported. Then I use a round tubular shape
object under the rail to find the balance point. Once found, I know where
the rig should be anchored. Note that this anchoring point is valid as long
as I use the rig in the horizontal plane.


This is the way it is done normally.

Even correctly attached, a movement is observable… even with my pro heads.

This the rail I design and made for my purpose.

Once mounted securely, the lens is supported as well.

Finding the balance point.

Now the whole rig has a neutral stress.

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

[loosecanon]

I like the idea of a think to support the lens. I use a short sliding plate, to which I have a quick release plate top and quick release base bottom so as to give better balance - just slots in when needed in a few seconds.

Do Manfrotto still make that workhorse of a ball head for the hex plate system? I have one and find it great with big lenses.

[PhotomanJohn]

Kodiak,

I also balance the camera and lens on a rail for any serious photography on a tripod. Since I use the Arca-Swiss system, I just loosen the ball head and slide the rail in the clamp until it is balanced. As you, I balance it at the angle it will be used.

The one thing that i haven't done is make up a lens support like you have. I could make an adjustable one that is mounted to an Arca clamp which would work for all of my lenses.

Have you ever done any tests to see how much improvement you get with the lens support?

John

[Kodiak]

Do Manfrotto still make that workhorse of a ball head for the hex plate system?

Well, this is a classic from that maker… they sure do!

I have one and find it great with big lenses.

For all my lenses 300 ƒ2.8 and bigger, I use Arca types. For all the others
I use the hex plates for some but mainly the pro plates as seen on the
first two pictures.

[Kodiak]

Have you ever done any tests to see how much improvement you get with the lens support?John

Hi John,

No tests, 'cause I was sure this was the "guilty as charged" observation.
When I noticed that some shots could not wear the tag "dead sharp", I got to
investigate eventual problems. Quickly, I found the movement of the lens tip.
Fiddling ideas got me to this rail and now, all my shots may wear the tag again!

[IzzieK]

Another interesting thread, Daniel...a good one too.

[Manfred M]

That would have been the shot of my setup, I suspect.

Now, there is no arguing that a two point support is going to be stronger than a cantilever; but the real question is it really necessary? I did some measurements to find out.

My camera and lens weigh 2.59 kg, but the bulk of the weight is in the camera body itself. I put together a setup as per your rail and measured the forces. So what does the additional support buy us. The weight at the point where the camera is mounted is 2.23kg and the front support carries .36 kg; or less than 14% of the weight. I really should be using Newtons as a unit of force; kgs are a unit of mass but let's not go there; the ratios will be identical.

Nicely said, the additional support buys you very little, and as long as you are not applying a significant force to the lens hood; the whole setup is quite stable.

At this point I'm going to ignore bending moments; which are the real issue on the ball head (force x distance), but these will be slightly worse with the additional support rig, due to the increased weight and distance of the weight distribution from the ball head. The small diameter ball on your rig is going to have to be clamped a lot harder than my 50mm ball.

So why use a rail setup at all? Well, when the forces are higher and the weight distribution is more even. I would definintely consider a rail system if the weight distribution moved foward and was getting in the 35% - 40% range.

Bottom line is just because something looks more rigid, doesn't mean that the cost and weight penalty are worth it. Frankly I can't think of anyone taking a picture when someone is pushing down on the lens hood anyways. I have some long night exposures that clearly prove that the rig without the rail system and this lens (as well as the 14-24mm lens) is clearly rigid enough.

I'll defer to you and your photographic knowledge; but when it comes to mechanical engineering; I expect that the reverse is true.

[Stagecoach]

Kodiak,

I use similar principles and method with real close up macro work.

Its three main advantages are;

a) It reduces stress on the mounts especially when using a heavy lens, tubes, and flash attached at front of lens.

b) It greatly reduces rig movement when manually focussing allowing faster working.

c) It reduces rig movement from mirror slap when the shot is taken thus enhancing sharpness.

Grahame

[Kodiak]

I use similar principles and method with real close up macro work.

Its three main advantages are;
a) It reduces stress on the mounts especially when using a heavy lens, tubes, and flash attached at front of lens.
b) It greatly reduces rig movement when manually focussing allowing faster working.
c) It reduces rig movement from mirror slap when the shot is taken thus enhancing sharpness.

10/10… you may go ahead of the class! ;-)

[Manfred M]

a) It reduces stress on the mounts especially when using a heavy lens, tubes, and flash attached at front of lens.

Yes, makes sense. My Panasonic video camera's lens mount is rated for up to 1 kg; although I find the rating a bit strange as I would expect that this is really a bending moment issue (i.e. tearing the lens mount screws out). A N-m or ft-lb rating would make a lot more sense.

b) It greatly reduces rig movement when manually focussing allowing faster working.

Again, makes sense.

c) It reduces rig movement from mirror slap when the shot is taken thus enhancing sharpness.

Okay, now this one I need an explantion for. The mirror slap moves the rig; you must have one heavy mirror? I would think using isolation mounts would be a more elegant and effective solution.

[Kodiak]

Bottom line is….

The bottom line is, for my application in macro works, shock wave transmission.
Which is the only reason one should use a cable release or remote release in the
first place… and with mirror up operation. This is taken care of by the second resting point.

Displacing the attachment point to the centre of the combo weight is helping against
the softer surface of the mounting plate which, again, allows for vibrations.

And yes, your RRS ball head reminded me of this article… and no, if one uses a normal
lens, there will be —in this you are absolutely right— no benefit at all.

Grahame listed very well the conditions where to use such contraption.

[Stagecoach]

Manfred,

Mount fixings (screws) is the term I should have used for the engineers reading. For the non engineers, the point of weakness being the holding screws of the metal parts into plastic.

For a non supported load extending forward the affect of vibration caused by the mirror is going to be greater than that if that load is supported. This can very easily be seen if using live view and simply lightly touching the lens, without support it will spring, with support it will spring far less or not at all. By rig, I was referring to camera/lens with respect to the tripod movement.

This of course would not be a problem if it were possible to use mirror up, but very often it's not.

[Polar01]

If one did not want to go the way Kodiak has by building a rail to help with the weigh of heavy lens or for special work as Grahame has listed or conditions. I would suggest looking a RRS long lens support packages for some ideas.

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl...ry.621/it.C/.f

Cheers: Allan

[Kodiak]

If one did not want to go the way Kodiak has by building a rail to help with the weigh of heavy lens or for special work as Grahame has listed or conditions.

Very correctly observed Allan, but RRS stuff will cost … my self-made gizmo
cost me 13€ in material and 2 to 3 hours in my workshop (I love to work there too!).

The great advantage of my creation is that I do not have the heel of the base bar
in my face when I am peeking in the viewfinder! … since the camera mounting
screw position is fixed at the back of the rail. Not so the RSS rail.

[Stagecoach]

Allan,

Focus rails can also be adapted and used for the purpose but of course there is also specialist kit available.

[Manfred M]

If you really want to go wild; the cinematographers shooting with DSLRs tend to have some really sturdy rigs; with a price to match. Try hanging a matt box, follow focus and a few accessories, and you'll make Kodiak's setup look strictly amateur.


http://store.redrockmicro.com/Catalo...ma-Bundle.html


On the other hand, the roots for this gear is the mainstay of serious filmmakers and the setups on proper video cameras is quite similar. The super serious shooters will have a large screen / monitor thrown into the mix to ensure that they have pulled a sharp focus.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Mount fixings (screws) is the term I should have used for the engineers reading. For the non engineers, the point of weakness being the holding screws of the metal parts into plastic.

For a non supported load extending forward the affect of vibration caused by the mirror is going to be greater than that if that load is supported. This can very easily be seen if using live view and simply lightly touching the lens, without support it will spring, with support it will spring far less or not at all. By rig, I was referring to camera/lens with respect to the tripod movement.

This of course would not be a problem if it were possible to use mirror up, but very often it's not.

Thanks Grahame; not being a macro shooter, my knowledge here is very limited (I've only tried it a few times with borrowed lenses). I would have expected that having a metal-to-metal mount actually creating worse vibration issues than using an isolation approach using a dense elastomer, between the two metal parts; rather like an engine mount or when mounting heavy machinery on a concrete base.

[Kodiak]

If you really want to go wild; …you'll make Kodiak's setup look strictly amateur.

Looks? Yes, like all hand made made prototypes… but the function is
unquestionably pro. Anyway, my clients don't look at my rail but at the work.

Manfred, I am having a good time with you and the others with who I may
communicate with heart and brain… So thank you, and Grahame, and Allan,
and Izzie, and John and yes… Yes!

[Inkanyezi]

I definitely like the idea, but think that there is still a flaw, inherent to the fact that we accept a wasp waist in our setup when using a tripod. Part of the problem has been addressed in some tripods by stabilising the legs and also by not having any centre post. Balancing the equipment up top is a solution as well, although maybe a simpler solution could be damping vibrations of unbalanced gear, as weight per se, or balance, are not really any problems, but springiness and oscillation in the entire setup.

Many years ago, when I was using a sturdy Gitzo, without extending the centre column, I still had vibration problems with the RB67, and I solved it in part by very simple means. The problem was that even the sturdy three-legger could vibrate, and what I did was to drop a bicycle inner tube over the tripod. This took out much of the vibration, and images became sharper.

However, I could still see that the mirror slap made the laser point jump, and when photographing the laser point, the negative displayed a short line, rather than a point. The RB67 has a lot of mass, but also a substantial mirror slap. When firing the shutter separately, no vibration could be traced, whether with bicycle tube or without. Vibration was most pronounced at rather short exposures. Long exposures of half a second or so seemed unaffected. Also, the Zenza Bronica did not suffer from mirror slap with the same tripod, something I attributed to the different mirror movement. Even though the Bronica is rather noisy, the mirror slides, rather than slaps.

Again with the laser pointer, I tried to damp the camera by just holding a hand over the lens, touching it, when using a short exposure time, and it made the little line substantially shorter, so short that it was really difficult to see that there was any movement at all, and I used this laying of hand as a remedy from then on.

I didn't take it any further, but I think that bracing the gear on top of the tripod to some lower part of the setup could do wonders, if vibration problems are experienced. Some kind of shock absorber might do the trick, overcoming the inherent problem of the wasp waist of the tripod head, the one we try to address with a larger ball.

Of course the solution of using mirror-up before the shot works too for more or less static subjects, but when using the camera for wildlife shots, some really flexible bracing might be worth a lot, as a shock-absorber attached to a lower point.

So, just as the cradle, what I look for, is a larger base than the tripod head, one that might effectively take out any resonance but won't be in the way for movement and would re-orient itself when the camera is turned in different directions.

When I tried the laser pointer when using a bean bag for ground level close-ups, I could not trace any vibration at all. I think the reason could be that the bean bag won't have a resonance frequency.

[Shadowman]

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