New studio product: Edelkron FlexTilt Head 2

[Shadowman]

Great response and very likely true regarding quality of product. The only other thing that would delay manufacturing would be lack of funds, goods bottlenecked in customs, or waiting for bulk shipments to lower shipping costs.

[Manfred M]

Mike as someone who spent a significant part of his working life in manufacturing (new product launch was one of my key responsibilities), I can certainly understand the issues / problems involved. Let me try to explain what can and does go wrong during new products introductions.

1. Production capacity - machinery, tooling, staffing and components have to be in place to deliver the products on time. Because of the expense involved, producers tend to invest enough in these for estimated steady stated production requirements. They will make estimates on these volumes and plan accordingly.

Product launch requires a fair bit of inventory as, in my experience, the launch pipeline can be up to 80% of annual sales volume, so you want to have enough inventory on hand when the product launches to meet the order requirements. Pre-building this inventory is always an issue - the manufacturer does not want to build things that do not sell as quickly as they hope as that would tie up cash. On the flip side, they need to start manufacturing early in order to build up launch inventory in order to meet demand.

2. Productionalization issues - a product that comes out of R&D is not production ready, so the appropriate production tooling has to be built, The items that you see on the website are often hand-built prototypes. There are always issues in productionalization as things never quite work out perfectly. Sometimes the issues are quite minor and at other times the tooling and production equipment does not perform as expected and this can definitely delay the launch. Sometimes engineering issues are discovered during product launch and the problem is serious enough, the launch can be pushed back until the issue is resolved.

There are also potential supplier issues, especially if the company is subcontracting some of the manufacturing or parts. They can have the same kinds of issues as the product manufacturer. Unfortunately, defective subcontracted parts are only noticed when the manufacturer starts to assemble the product.

3. Production ramp up issues - new products means that the staff that build the product are still learning and this generally means that the products are being built more slowly while the learn how to put the new product together. This is not only the product, but also the product packaging.

4. Shipping issues - the shipping department has to be able to get the orders out the door (as well as support ongoing business), so pushing the product out the door can also be a bottleneck. The actual shipment will likely be handled by one of the commercial carriers (FedEx, UPS, USPS, etc.). They pick up once a day and if their pickup vehicle is full, they may not get the whole order picked up that day.


Believe me Mike, no company wants to have problems with a new product launch, but they do happen all the time...

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for the detailed response, Manfred.

Everything you mentioned is the kind of issue I imagined. Notice that none of the issues you explained would be consistent with the cause for delay explained to me by Edelkrone: "We have received an exciting, yet overwhelming demand on this incredible new edelkrone product and there has been a related delay on our manufacturing end." It's clear and understandable to me that there has been an unrelated delay, but not a related delay.

I ordered the product on the first day it became publicly available. So, this indicates to me that they have not shipped any product directly to customers. That in itself seems to exclude the possibility that the delay in manufacturing is explicitly due to the large number of orders. Explaining that the large number of orders is the cause is like saying that so much cash was delivered to the company that their bank's vault wasn't large enough.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the detailed response, Manfred.

Everything you mentioned is the kind of issue I imagined. Notice that none of the issues you explained would be consistent with the cause for delay explained to me by Edelkrone: "We have received an exciting, yet overwhelming demand on this incredible new edelkrone product and there has been a related delay on our manufacturing end." It's clear and understandable to me that there has been an unrelated delay, but not a related delay.

I ordered the product on the first day it became publicly available. So, this indicates to me that they have not shipped any product directly to customers. That in itself seems to exclude the possibility that the delay in manufacturing is due to the large number of orders.

Mike - unfortunately, I can see lots of reasons for this happening.

The major parts in question look like they are likely injection moulded. If a mould failed the qualification test, it might have to be scrapped and a new one built (assuming the issue is so major that it cannot be repaired). If the orders were starting to mount, the supplier could have opted to go for a multi-cavity mould (assuming the original was single cavity) to handle the anticipated greater demand.

This would certainly, in my mind, suggest the response you received.

All that being said, I too would be a bit suspicious. Unfortunately, vendors (especially salespeople) seem to be unwilling to be open and honest with their customers.

[Mike Buckley]

I have now received the product. Though my experience with it is little more than a first glance, I am very impressed.

My biggest concern all along has been the stability of the device and I'm quite pleased with it. As one example, if I fully extend the part that holds the camera forward of the tripod, lifting the unit by holding only that forward part also lifts the tripod. The joints in the unit hold steady. The tripod weighs 3.6 pounds and the unit weighs another 1 pound.

There are three pairs of joints that make it possible to raise and lower the camera, move it forward and backward, tilt it up and down or use any combination of those movements. Those joints seem quite tight and stable. The six screws that control the pertinent joints can also be tightened (or loosened). Similarly, the part that controls the panning motion can also be tightened or loosened. (I may tighten it, as I don't plan to pan and will probably want that as tight as is safely possible so I am prevented from accidentally moving the camera to the left or right.) Allen wrenches are provided with the product to make all of that possible.

The joints are so tight that I plan to remove the battery grip from the camera when using this device. The tightness of the device's joints understandably requires holding the tripod steady with one hand while moving the camera with the other hand. (Anyone using a heavier tripod system including perhaps a hanging bag may be able to move the camera without holding the tripod steady.) When moving the camera, I can feel some give occurring between the camera body and the grip. I want to avoid putting undue stress on that connection and the only way to do that is to remove the grip when using this device.

I made one test shot using a 30-second exposure. The center of the camera body was about six inches forward of the center of the tripod, which is the least stable place it can be positioned. Using a Nikon D7000 and a 35mm prime lens, which is the combination I most often use in my makeshift studio, the image was perfectly sharp when viewed at 100%.

I'll do other tests including the use of my heavier and longer Tamron 90mm macro lens as well as exposures up to two minutes. Once I've done that, I'll get back to you.

After that, the only other testing I can do is to use the device regularly and report back after a couple of weeks or so about the practical considerations I've learned along the way.

I also plan to mount my ball head in between the device and the camera for situations when I want to use a "Dutch tilt" or when I want the camera in the vertical orientation. If I understand the company's website correctly, they were supposed to include some adaptors that make that possible. They weren't included, so I have emailed the company about that. Based on past experience, I'll hear from them soon after they open for business the next day.

[DanK]

Mike,

Thanks for keeping us updated. When you get to testing it with your Tamron, I will be interested in how well it handles the fine adjustments macro requires, which we discussed earlier in the thread. My guess is that if the joints are kept tight enough to avoid slippage, you will have enough hysteresis to be annoying--that is, when you push it to a position in any one direction, the rig will rebound slightly to its prior position. This is analogous to the sag people experience after tightening ball heads. Your gear is a bit lighter than mine, so you might experience a bit less of this (because you won't need quite as much tension on the joints), but I'll be interested to hear your experience.

Dan

[Mike Buckley]

I will pay special attention to the hysteresis, Dan. I had not heard of the word, but seeing your explanation reminds me that hysteresis can be so frustrating that it causes me to become hysterical.

[DanK]

I will pay special attention to the hysteresis, Dan. I had not heard of the word, but seeing your explanation reminds me that hysteresis can be so frustrating that it causes me to become hysterical.

Some claim the two have a common root, but I forget the argument.

[Mike Buckley]

Edelkrone got back to me the next business day and apologized for not including the adaptors needed to connect my ball head to the device. They will send them to me right away.

[Mike Buckley]

I continue to be impressed with the device's stability.

See the details about the four images displayed below. Note that my only reason for taking the photos was to get a reasonably valid impression of the device's ability to hold a camera and lens stable enough, not to scientifically test that capability (I wouldn't know how to do that).

I intentionally extended the sections of the head so the camera was positioned much farther forward of the tripod than I would plan on using in real-world shooting situations; in normal situations I plan for the camera to be more directly above the center of the tripod to ensure maximum stability.

Photo 1
The sections of the head were fully extended, which means one of the sections was fully supported by the main part of the head. The center of the camera was about 6 inches forward of the center of the tripod. Nikon D7000 and Nikon 35mm prime lens. Shutter speed 1 minute. Mirror up. Image cropped only on the sides and downsized for display here.




Photo 2
Part of Photo 1 viewed at 100% of the full-size file




Photo 3
The sections of the head were almost fully extended (not as much as in Photo 1) and the camera was raised, ensuring that none of the sections were supported by the main part of the head. The center of the camera was about 5 inches forward of the center of the tripod. Nikon D7000 and Tamron 90mm macro lens. Shutter speed 1 1/2 minutes. Mirror up. Entire image (nothing cropped) downsized for display here.

My focus was slightly off, as this is the first time I've used a macro lens at a magnification of 1:1.3 and I'm not yet used to the throw of the focusing ring.




Photo 4
Part of Photo 3 viewed at 100% of the full-size file

[Mike Buckley]

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Though I will write a summary post once I think I've exhausted all the new stuff to learn about this head, I'll continue adding posts such as this one to explain the practicalities in greater detail.

DanK's Hysteresis
Dan wrote in an earlier post: "When you get to testing it with your Tamron [90mm macro lens], I will be interested in how well it handles the fine adjustments macro requires...My guess is that if the joints are kept tight enough to avoid slippage, you will have enough hysteresis to be annoying--that is, when you push it to a position in any one direction, the rig will rebound slightly to its prior position. This is analogous to the sag people experience after tightening ball heads."

There is no question that the fine adjustments required when using the 90mm macro lens can be a pain. Even so, though I still have next to no experience at using a macro lens, from what I can tell those adjustments are a LOT easier to make when using this head than when using a ball head (my only basis of comparison). The hysteresis is so much easier to deal with when using this head because I only have to compensate for it, as opposed to using the ball head when I have to do that as well as tighten the head without accidentally moving it. Also, in the case of my ball head, which is relatively light, it seems that I have to compensate more than when using this head, even though that perception may admittedly be contrary to the reality of the physics.

Dan also mentioned that "Your gear is a bit lighter than mine, so you might experience a bit less of this (because you won't need quite as much tension on the joints)..."

I have no way of making a similar comparison because all of my gear is relatively light (crop-factor bodies and prime lenses); I don't have any way of comparing the use of relatively heavy and light gear.

Adjusting Tension in the Joints
The video that serves the purpose of a manual explains that the two Allen wrenches are supplied so the tension can be adjusted if the joints loosen over time. I found it immensely useful to adjust the tension right away.

The tension of the panning control when when taken out of the box seems to be designed for using a DSLR in video mode, which is when you would want to be able to easily and smoothly pan the camera. (It pans 340 degrees.) However, I never make videos, so I want that tension to be much greater than the default tension. Otherwise, when reaching for the lens to adjust the focus or even reaching for the camera to change a setting, I would accidentally move the camera to the left or right. Now that I have tightened that tension, I have the best of both worlds: I can still move the camera to the left or right to change the framing of a still photo and I can work with the camera system without accidentally moving it.

I also ever so slightly adjusted the joints that control the other movements of the camera. At least for now, I've got the most desirable balance: the tension is loose enough that I can move the camera system with sufficient ease and tight enough that the camera will be held in place once I've achieved the ideal framing. If my thinking about that changes after I've got more experience using the head, I can easily alter the tension on one or more joints.

Adding Weight to the Tripod System
My tripod weighs only 3.6 pounds. Using it without any additional weight required holding the tripod steady in one hand while moving the camera in the other hand. Otherwise, the tripod would move when I moved the camera. Not good!

I quickly learned that it is much more effective when using this head to hold the camera in both hands, allowing the pressure when moving it to be evenly applied from both sides. So, I added 15 pounds of weight to the tripod system by hanging two sand bags on the tripod's hook designed for that purpose. Problem solved! I can now move the camera system without having to also hold the tripod in place.

Removing the Battery Grip
I also removed the battery grip from the camera when using this head. As mentioned in an earlier post, the joint between the grip and the camera had noticeable give, which also made me think the pressure being applied to that joint when moving the camera system might eventually harm it. Eliminating the grip resulted in an immediately noticeable improvement.

This is the first time I had used the camera on a tripod with the grip removed, so I wondered if it would still be easy to change the battery without removing the camera body from the head. If you can change your battery without removing the camera from your current head, you'll likely be able to do the same when using this head.

[DanK]

Mike,

thanks for keeping us posted.

Dan

[george013]

Mike,
I come from the onion thread. I missed this one.

I just want to make 1 remark. When you want to test the stability of that head, I think you should use a shutter speed of 1/10s or something like that. That will show the vibration due to mirror or curtain slam during a bigger part of the exposure. Using a much longer exposure you're more likely testing your floor. My opinion.

George

[DanK]

Mike,
I come from the onion thread. I missed this one.

I just want to make 1 remark. When you want to test the stability of that head, I think you should use a shutter speed of 1/10s or something like that. That will show the vibration due to mirror or curtain slam during a bigger part of the exposure. Using a much longer exposure you're more likely testing your floor. My opinion.

George

I agree that testing at a slow speed is a good idea. However, if you shoot with the mirror locked up, as I do in all of my table-top macro, the major vibration is at the end of the shot, when the mirror slaps down. It was actually visible when I did the stack for this image, which I posted recently:



I used my heavy geared-head-plus-rail setup. I didn't notice any vibration when I took the shots, and the stack stacked fine, suggesting no appreciable movement. However, I could easily see the flower vibrating AFTER each shot, and I had to wait to let it settle back down.

[Mike Buckley]

George and Dan: Thanks for the tips. I have now added information to the details about the photos explaining that they were captured with the mirror up. As for accidentally testing the stability of the floor rather than the head, it's a concrete slab poured directly onto the ground. My idea was to test the head's ability to keep the lens from sagging during a long exposure and I think the resulting photos prove that the lens did not sag.

Dan: You mentioned that you could see the flower vibrating after each shot. Are you saying that the vibration of the closing mirror went through the head, the tripod, the floor, the tabletop and your flower?

[ST1]

Manfred, I agree--I want only arca-compatible plates and clamps. The Hejnar conversion I used for the Manfrotto geared head is here: http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/product-p/m410.htm. It makes the geared head yet bulkier and more expensive than it was to start, but after a short time, I simply wasn't about to continue changing plates every time I needed the geared head.

I too have a Hejnar modification on my Manfrotto Geared head. Mainly because of the ability to use a Kirk L Bracket thereby allowing me to easily switch the camera from Landscape to portrait orientation.

Without the modification I found that using the geared head with the camera in portrait orientation moved the camera off to the side of the tripod centre point. That then caused me issues when trying to take a series of images for a panorama stitch.

[ST1]

Thanks for documenting you findings on this head Mike. It looks like it could be very useful for your studio work.

[Mike Buckley]

Technique: I learned an improvement to my technique after seeing a video provided by the manufacturer. (Ironically, it was a video demonstrating their quick release plate, not this head.) When starting with the head's extensions fully lowered to the main part of the head and when intending to make a major adjustment to the position of the camera, it's easiest overall to begin by first pushing the camera forward and tilting it down. Having done so, it's then easier to raise the camera from that position than raising it from the initial position.

[DanK]

Mike,

Dan: You mentioned that you could see the flower vibrating after each shot. Are you saying that the vibration of the closing mirror went through the head, the tripod, the floor, the tabletop and your flower?

The tripod was on the table The table is very heavy and solid, so it seems possible that the entire setup could be vibrating via movement of the wood floor, but I don't know.

Dan

[Mike Buckley]

Photo 5
A new test photo per Dan's and George's suggestion to use 1/10 shutter speed. Camera is in a normal position with its center close to the center of the head (not extended forward as in the previous photos) and raised slightly above the main part of the head. Nikon D7000 and Tamron 90mm macro lens at 1:1 magnification. Mirror up. The entire image (nothing cropped) downsized for display here. (The spots are on the subject, not my sensor. )





Photo 6
Part of Photo 5 viewed at 100% of the full-size file.