Re: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 questions )
I use a Kirk King Cobra gimbal head with my FA 600mm. Wimberly also makes a fine gimbal head. Have never tried a fluid head. Can't imagine using ANY ball head (regardless of load carrying capacity) with a lens as large and heavy as the 600. As Pal pointed out, the gimbal head totally removes the weight of the lens as a factor in moving it about on the head. If you shoot a big lens and haven't tried it with a gimbal head you just don't know how good these heads are. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: Pål Audun Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 2:43 AM Subject: Re: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 questions ) > Christian wrote: > > > >If a massive ball head (StudioBall, ArcaSwiss) is not acceptable to you what > >would you use for supporting a long lens? > > > A heavy duty fluid (video) head or a gimbal head. Haven't used the latter > but some (not all) swear by them. The advantage with those heads, apart > from the steadiness, is that they make the lens balanced. > > Pål > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 questions )
Christian wrote: >If a massive ball head (StudioBall, ArcaSwiss) is not acceptable to you what >would you use for supporting a long lens? A heavy duty fluid (video) head or a gimbal head. Haven't used the latter but some (not all) swear by them. The advantage with those heads, apart from the steadiness, is that they make the lens balanced. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 questions )
Pål; If a massive ball head (StudioBall, ArcaSwiss) is not acceptable to you what would you use for supporting a long lens? My preference is for a massive ball head because in the end it is faster (for me) to use. With just one knob i can have complete movement, whereas with a pan-tilt head I have at least two adjustments to make. When shooting small birds speed is very important. On the other hand, for low-level work or out the car window, resting the lens on a heavy beanbag gives me the stability I need. By the way, My bogen ballhead is inadequate for anything over 300/4. And if the lens doesn't have a tripod collar, verticals are impossible unless I add a catch-plate to the QR plate to hold the bottom of the camera. Christian On Thursday 07 March 2002 03:04, Pål Audun Jensen wrote: > > But isn't that a proof that the head isn't steady enough? I use the same > technique when shooting from my car window without tripod. It works too. > > Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 questions )
Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think. Len --- -Original Message- From: Pål Audun Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 questions ) Sorry, but this article is written by a fool. No ball head on the planet can support a 600mm lens. No wonder this guy struggles with the lens. Take a look at the image and see the thin stem of the head holding the long and heavy 600mm lens with most of the weight off-axis. This guy is trying to defeat the laws of physics. Every nature photography book I own, written by European nature photographers mind you, will tell that this setup simply doesn't work. It is also my experience. I stopped using my heavy duty ball head because it didn't produce sharp images with my 600mm lens. Not only is the magnification a problem; equally important is the weight. A Pentax 600/4 weights 7kg with almost all the weight in the front of the lens. This means you cannot really trust the weight load capacity of your tripod/head since most of the weight are off-axis. A 300/2.8 with converter will in fact be a set-up that's far easier to handle. - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 questions )
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Alan Abbott wrote: > How powerful is that flash as well? > Must be bloody good to illuminate what he is looking at with a 600mm!!! I remember some thread on photo.net where some goof suggested illuminating a whole town with the built in f;lash on his camera... "But it's only for fill flash, it should be okay." dave -- dave o'brien - http://www.diaspoir.net Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 questions )
How powerful is that flash as well? Must be bloody good to illuminate what he is looking at with a 600mm!!! Alan > -Original Message- > From: Pål Audun Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Tripod and head for super telephotos (WAS: Pentax 300mm A 2.8 > questions ) > > > Mark wrote: > > > >You need to add two things to your lens to obtain really > sharp pictures, > >however: A solid tripod and good technique. Here's a nice > article that > >describes long lens technique: > >http://www.naturephotographers.net/bh0201-1.html > > > Sorry, but this article is written by a fool. No ball head on > the planet > can support a 600mm lens. No wonder this guy struggles with > the lens. Take > a look at the image and see the thin stem of the head holding > the long and > heavy 600mm lens with most of the weight off-axis. This guy > is trying to > defeat the laws of physics. > > Every nature photography book I own, written by European nature > photographers mind you, will tell that this setup simply > doesn't work. It > is also my experience. I stopped using my heavy duty ball > head because it > didn't produce sharp images with my 600mm lens. > > Not only is the magnification a problem; equally important is > the weight. A > Pentax 600/4 weights 7kg with almost all the weight in the > front of the > lens. This means you cannot really trust the weight load > capacity of your > tripod/head since most of the weight are off-axis. A 300/2.8 > with converter > will in fact be a set-up that's far easier to handle. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
