70-200/2.8 I tripod ring flex

[czeano]

Well, I could actually *see* the camera and lens wobbling in the breeze. If I can get this uploader figured out:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.40.84/lights.jpg[/img]





That's a 2 sec exposure, 100% zoom, tiny crop. There's pretty obvious X & Y movement, and I'm pretty sure that shot was done with the tripod square and "settled" and even with the tip of the lens against a wooden column for a fourth point of stability.





Further investigation this afternoon in good light leads me to believe that the ring mates well with the lens but there might be a very little (almost negligible) bit of play between the lens and body (7D, so metal mount both sides), and most of what I was experiencing was probably between the ring and the tripod mounting plate or the tilt & pan head itself. I'm going to chalk this up for now to be an excuse to find a sturdier tripod head and several assistants with wind screens...

[canoli]

what part of the frame is that - is DOF or diffraction having any effect here?


Unless I could feel obvious play in any of the metal-metal connections I wouldn't worry too much about the lens/ring.


In any case you can't go wrong building a sturdier system!

[czeano]

f/9, about 1/3 from top edge, 1/3 from left edge... I'll settle on diffraction (and out of focus) for the halo, but all four points of light (1 big, three small) were quite stationary. The contrast from the background (black) made them good measures of the vibration. In some they look like hand-holding vibration by a caffeinated pigeon.

[Matthew Gilley]

Were you shooting the sky?

[neuroanatomist]

Just like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a camera is only as stable as the most unstable part of its support. You've mentioned the Manfrotto 055B legs - a decent set. The lens mount to the camera is not a point of instability, nor is the tripod ring to lens coupling likely to be one. You mention a pan & tilt head - what brand and model, and what's its rated capacity? The 7D + 70-200mm f/2.8 is a reasonably heavy combo. Also, what (if any) quick-release system?

[czeano]

Head is an 804RC2, which claims to be rated for over 8.5 lbs. Lens+body combo comes out to (back of envelope) a little over 5 lbs.


Despite the near-omnipresent rants about the smoothness of the head's adjustments in Internet reviews, it would seem up to the task... although now I do recognize it's the most "economical" element of the setup and might be due for replacement.

[canoli]

I think we probably found your "weak link." It's not so much the head's load capacity, although you're getting close to it with the 7D/70-200 2.8 IS/TC combo, it's the quality of the parts. Low end consumer gear really can't be expected to produce professional, tack-sharp images outdoors unless conditions are quite still...

[czeano]

I think we probably found your "weak link." It's not so much the head's load capacity, although you're getting close to it with the 7D/70-200 2.8 IS/TC combo, it's the quality of the parts. Low end consumer gear really can't be expected to produce professional, tack-sharp images outdoors unless conditions are quite still...

So for someone who's not fond of ball heads, and also not ready to drop 1600 on that sexy gitzo geared machine... does anyone think a wimberly (or equivalent) gimbal is going to present any horrible user experience on a less-than-300mm lens for a photographer expecting to upgrade focal length within a few months?


I'd really prefer to avoid buying heads when I could be buying glass.