Suitable tripod for Pentax 6x7

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Christopher Tidy

2007-04-15 16:52:53 UTC

Hi folks,

I'm thinking of moving into medium format photography when money
allows. Currently I shoot 35 mm with a Nikkormat FT3, which I love,
but there are times when I would like better resolution for my best
pictures.

I use a Manfrotto 190B tripod with the 168 ball head. Do people think
this tripod is sturdy enough to carry a Pentax 6x7? The reason I ask
is because I recently acquired a job lot of surveyor's tripods. They
are heavy and would require the addition of some kind of ball joint to
make them suitable for photography, but they're the sturdiest tripods
I've ever seen.

I'm just wondering if it's worth me keeping one for the future. I plan
to sell the rest of them, so if anyone in England wants one for
photography, let me know. Right now I have plenty!

Best wishes,

Chris Tidy

Stefan Patric

2007-04-16 01:43:44 UTC

Permalink

Post by Christopher Tidy
Hi folks,
I'm thinking of moving into medium format photography when money
allows. Currently I shoot 35 mm with a Nikkormat FT3, which I love,
but there are times when I would like better resolution for my best
pictures.
I use a Manfrotto 190B tripod with the 168 ball head. Do people think
this tripod is sturdy enough to carry a Pentax 6x7? The reason I ask
is because I recently acquired a job lot of surveyor's tripods. They
are heavy and would require the addition of some kind of ball joint to
make them suitable for photography, but they're the sturdiest tripods
I've ever seen.

The 190 series tripod is a borderline choice for use with most medium
format, except for a light one like some of the 645 reflex cameras, which
aren't much bigger or heavy than a full size 35mm. The Pentax 67 falls
in this category as does the Mamiya 7. The Mamiya RB/RZ 6x7 does not. If
it will do only depends on the circumstances of your shots. Long
exposures 1 sec or longer? Probably not. Shutter speeds faster than about
1/10 sec., then with a sturdy enough head, it should do. (Hang a 4 kilo
weight on the tripod to weight it down. Works wonders on a too light
tripod.) Now as to the head....

I'm not familiar with that 168 model ball head, but I'm assuming it's
quite small, only suitable for 35mm. Take a look at the Manfrotto 484RC2
(borderline choice for medium format) or the 488RC2, a much better choice.
Both have quick release, which I couldn't live without, and the 488 has
panning capability separate from the ball locking itself. Really comes in
handy when you want to make a slight horizontal framing adjustment and not
affect the leveling.

Oh, and take those manufacturer's "maximum load" capacities with a grain
of salt. I usually divide them by 2 for a more realistic value.

Post by Christopher Tidy
I'm just wondering if it's worth me keeping one for the future. I plan
to sell the rest of them, so if anyone in England wants one for
photography, let me know. Right now I have plenty!

Yes, keep one. They have wooden legs, right? (Best type of tripod if you
ever get the bug to go to 8x10 or larger. The wood dampens vibration
better than metal, and in the winter, your bear hand won't freeze to it
when you pick it up ;-) ) However, I consider them too large, heavy and
unwieldy for anything smaller than an 8x10 camera, which itself is large,
heavy and unwieldy -- a perfect match. ;-)

Stef

Craig Schroeder

2007-04-16 22:53:35 UTC

Permalink

Chris.

Do a little snooping in the old posts in here and perhaps in Photo.net
as there are endless discussions regarding taming the P67 equipment. I
have P67 gear and find that the equipment really isn't all that heavy
but it is a bit bulky and the tripods that adequately control it are
quite large and heavy. The support equipment is what really makes
field work more burdensome with the Pentax. Some of the vibes are
exaggerated feeling because the mirror return makes quite a flap but
this is after the exposure, remember. Everyone develops their own
levels of standards and what makes great 8X10's can look a big raggedy
at 16X20 so some of your decisions may be based on your required print
sizes. My recommendation is to not underestimate the need for
substantial support for the Pentax. I use medium format rangefinders
and find that I can use tripods that one would typically rate as 35mm
sort of gear but the small mass in motion on them gets very good
results with lighter pods.

On 15 Apr 2007 09:52:53 -0700, "Christopher Tidy"

Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com

Christopher Tidy

2007-04-16 23:03:14 UTC

Permalink

Thanks very much for the thoughts. I did a bit more research and
discovered that the Manfrotto 168 head is the older version of the
488RC0, which has a load capacity of 8 kg, so it should be okay with a
Pentax 6x7. I even found a post at the Photo.net forum by someone
commenting that the 168 head was okay for use with a Mamiya RZ67. Even
if I divide 8 kg by 2, it should comfortably cope with the Pentax.

Yes, the surveyor's tripods have wooden legs. They would need some
kind of ball head adding, but I think I might have one which is
suitable. I think I'll keep one for the moment. They were very cheap
and are exceptionally solid. Their only disadvantage is that they have
steel feet (meant for sinking into soil) as opposed to rubber feet.

Thanks for the advice.

Best wishes,

Chris

Ken Hart

2007-04-18 05:36:59 UTC

Permalink

Post by Christopher Tidy
Thanks very much for the thoughts. I did a bit more research and
discovered that the Manfrotto 168 head is the older version of the
488RC0, which has a load capacity of 8 kg, so it should be okay with a
Pentax 6x7. I even found a post at the Photo.net forum by someone
commenting that the 168 head was okay for use with a Mamiya RZ67. Even
if I divide 8 kg by 2, it should comfortably cope with the Pentax.
Yes, the surveyor's tripods have wooden legs. They would need some
kind of ball head adding, but I think I might have one which is
suitable. I think I'll keep one for the moment. They were very cheap
and are exceptionally solid. Their only disadvantage is that they have
steel feet (meant for sinking into soil) as opposed to rubber feet.

Rubber feet in various sizes (surely one will fit over the end of the legs)
are available in packs of four at your local Home Depot for a dollar or two
a pack. Buy extras!

(Personally, I don't like ball heads, especially for a heavy camera. I like
the camera to move in only one direction at a time. But that's just my
opinion, and I have my tripod already. (Actually, I use studio camera stands
most of the time rather than tripods.))

Alan Browne

2007-04-21 21:24:15 UTC

Permalink

The 055 is about "right" I would say. The 190 (you mentioned earlier)
is a bit on the light side. I have the 055MF3 (carbon fibre legs) as
well as a 190. I use a geared head, but a medium ball should do as well.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Stefan Patric

2007-04-22 18:55:40 UTC

Permalink

Post by Alan Browne

And another recommendation: To reduce camera shake during a tripod
mounted exposure and make for sharper photos, lockup the mirror, if you
can, before tripping the shutter. The torque induced by the mirror
flipping up can really shake a medium format SLR camera a lot. However,
it's only really a problem with slow shutters speeds like less the 1/30 or
so. It also depends on how long a lens you have mounted: longer lenses
amplify the movement.

Stef

Alan Browne

2007-04-23 17:14:45 UTC

Permalink

Post by Stefan Patric

Post by Alan Browne

I would increase the mirror torque/slap range to as fast as 1/125 up to
about 2 seconds. As you imply, different lenses mean different
resonance characteristics due to the slap. Longer lenses would be the
worst for both amplitude and cycle length, I would imagine.

Early edition Pentax 6x7's did not have MLU but it was introduced at one
point and Pentax would even update non MU cameras. (Per Karen
Nakamura's site).

Cheers,
Alan

chorleydnc@hotmail.com

2007-04-17 00:57:02 UTC

Permalink

The Surveyor's tripod that I use had a dirty great hole in the middle:
Used for aligning the transit
I had to cobble together some large washers to provide an anchor for
the ball head.

Best let your purchasers know this beforehand.

David

Christopher Tidy

2007-04-18 11:08:22 UTC

Permalink

Post by ***@hotmail.com

Used for aligning the transit
I had to cobble together some large washers to provide an anchor for
the ball head.
Best let your purchasers know this beforehand.
David

I'll probably just sell them as surveyor's tripods.

Best wishes,

Chris

Michael Weinstein

2007-04-18 16:04:06 UTC

Permalink

On 2007-04-15 12:52:53 -0400, "Christopher Tidy"

Despite the prevalent mythology, the 6x7, 67, 67 II cameras can all be
hand held, especially with the wood grip. Any reasonable tripod is
adequate. I've been using the 6x7 since 1979.

Michael

s***@gmail.com

2013-09-29 12:18:22 UTC

Permalink

Yes, it is.

I use the Manfrotto 190XB legs with a Manfrotto gear head (the 410) with a Pentax 6x7 and a Mamiya 645 Pro TL. Works lovely, though the head is quite heavy.

Despite these legs being "borderline" for awkwardly shaped medium format cameras like the 6x7, a very solid (and heavy) head (particularly one as well matched as the 410, or say a RRS 55 if you go for ball heads) will bring the legs up a full class. Noticeably.

The Pentax 6x7 will also work well on the 190 legs with an Arca Swiss P0 ball head (this is a surprisingly lightweight and rigid support system, and superb for carrying in the mountains).

Yes! 6x7 is a 'Go' on these legs, but I would recommend a stronger head and the excellent Kirk L bracket to get the 6x7 on its side for portrait orientations. Weight is always a consideration.

The legs and head work together as a system! Never more true than with these legs. It takes a lot of money to get much better rigidity and a little less weight than the 190. Very simple, effective and smart path.

Post by Christopher Tidy
is because I recently acquired a job lot of surveyor's tripods. They
are heavy and would require the addition of some kind of ball joint to
make them suitable for photography, but they're the sturdiest tripods
I've ever seen.
I'm just wondering if it's worth me keeping one for the future. I plan
to sell the rest of them, so if anyone in England wants one for
photography, let me know. Right now I have plenty!
Best wishes,
Chris Tidy

JCH

2013-12-29 01:57:15 UTC

Permalink

Post by s***@gmail.com

Yes, it is.
I use the Manfrotto 190XB legs with a Manfrotto gear head (the 410) with a Pentax 6x7 and a Mamiya 645 Pro TL. Works lovely, though the head is quite heavy.
Despite these legs being "borderline" for awkwardly shaped medium format cameras like the 6x7, a very solid (and heavy) head (particularly one as well matched as the 410, or say a RRS 55 if you go for ball heads) will bring the legs up a full class. Noticeably.
The Pentax 6x7 will also work well on the 190 legs with an Arca Swiss P0 ball head (this is a surprisingly lightweight and rigid support system, and superb for carrying in the mountains).
Yes! 6x7 is a 'Go' on these legs, but I would recommend a stronger head and the excellent Kirk L bracket to get the 6x7 on its side for portrait orientations. Weight is always a consideration.
The legs and head work together as a system! Never more true than with these legs. It takes a lot of money to get much better rigidity and a little less weight than the 190. Very simple, effective and smart path.

_____
I concur. I use my Manfrotto tripod #144 with a #056 3D Junior Camera
Head (http://www.manfrotto.com/3d-junior-camera-head). The #144 tripod
is similar to the 190B version. I am 1.93 m tall, and fortunately the
tripod gives me the height i need.

My Pentax 6x6 and 645 cameras have an anti-twist hole 3cm away from the
1/4" threaded mounting screw hole. The 6x7 is heavy with a long lens
(like a 165f2.8 for portraits). They tend to twist a bit in portrait
orientation, so i have looked at getting a Manfrotto quick release with
a plate that provides the correct pin that engages with the anti-twist
hole in the camera body. A Kirk "L" bracket work work as well.

Regards / John

< JCHStudio AT shaw DOT ca >

--