Hi folks,
In my opinion, the reason OMs (and any focal-plane shutter camera) needs a
heavy and sturdy/stiff tripod, and one with the tripod head very close to the
apex of the tripod, is to minimise the vibration of the focal-plane
shutter/mirror complex, and the vibration of the aperture stop-down
mechanism especially in long lenses.
Heavy big 4x5's etc have advantages BECAUSE they are heavy AND the
shutters are leaf shutters in the lenses (which don't create much vibration or
displacement of the mass of the camera/lens combo), and the lenses are
usually comparatively short (less leverage of the moments (a physics term
from away back when) of the things moving above the tripod apex) that will
affect the stability of the image getting on the film..
So I'm happy to use a Gitzo 321? Studex as recommended by John Shaw
for my little OMs. Even that is less solid than I'd like sometimes.
Brian
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:09:55 -0600
> From: "Daniel J. Mitchell" <DanielMitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Of all the pods out there which is best for the OM bodies
> > and why?
>
> I don't think the fact you're putting OM bodies on it makes much difference -
> -- if you were putting huge heavy field cameras on it, it might change
> things, I
> guess, but OM bodies and lenses are light enough that it shouldn't be a big
> problem. (unless you have the 1000/6.5 or something, I guess).
>
> It's pretty much impossible to answer the question without knowing what you
> want from your tripod. The best one for size and weight will be the worst for
> stability, and vice versa. Then, at a given size, there's the price -vs-
> weight
> argument -- carbon fiber is lighter than aluminium, but a lot more expensive.
>
> -- dan
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|