MLU?

chauncey wrote in post #5230723
Have comparisons been made with, remote, tripod, with and without MLU?

The testing I alluded to in the past (maybe 30 years ago) was camera on tripod, with cable release (yeah, mechanical before the days of digital!), with and without MLU, at a range of shutter speeds. Use MLU between 1/8 and 2 sec exposure times. This was true even for film SLRs known go have very good and effective mirror dampening mechanisms like the Olympus OM-1, unlike many other cameras.

Trainboy wrote in post #5220067
I use it when I'm on a tripod and don't have to capture something moving. Period.

Ditto.

This is pretty technical, but if you can wade through it, you'll probably conclude (as I have) that MLU is a good technique:

http://markins.com/cha​rlie/report4e6.pdf


This one is much simpler:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …-series/mirror-lock.shtml

I use MLU whenever I remember to use it.

Well, I don't do astrophotography, and some would say that I am obsessed with getting razor sharp photos. I don't see that as a bad thing.

One of these days, we may look back at one of our prized shots, and wish that it was sharper.

I use MLU whenever I don't need to capture a precise moment in time.

What both of them said.

Alright, let"s digress for a moment.

Glenn's links indicate that along with MLU, a solid tripod is at least as important.

How "rock solid" are your tripod legs as mine seem to have a lot of flex (Manfrotto 190XPROB)?

chauncey wrote in post #5237060
Alright, let"s digress for a moment.

Glenn's links indicate that along with MLU, a solid tripod is at least as important.

How "rock solid" are your tripod legs as mine seem to have a lot of flex (Manfrotto 190XPROB)?

Chauncey:

My tripod is a variation of your's (a 190 CLB with a 486 RC2 ballhead).

The combination is easy to carry with the camera on, but my impressions are that it's not rock solid, which is probably the reason that I use MLU.

When setting the ballhead, the camera "droops" a little bit, so I have to compensate for this. The drooping is due to flexing in the ballhead - which adds to the overall flexibility of the system. Flexibility results in vibration movement.

Okay Glenn, it's nice to hear that someone else is experiencing my difficulties.

Will that tripod and head handle the weight of a Ds MkII with a 300 f/2.8 ISL lens?

chauncey wrote in post #5238524
Okay Glenn, it's nice to hear that someone else is experiencing my difficulties.

Will that tripod and head handle the weight of a Ds MkII with a 300 f/2.8 ISL lens?

The 190 is an OK tripod, which is better suited for portability in hiking than it is as a stationary base for a tripod head. And the Bogen/Manfrotto heads are, at best, 'just OK' but not great. The Manfrotto 055 tripod is much better suited as a base, and a number of better heads exist, but all unfortunately carry a hefty price tag! Arca, RRS, Markins, Kirk, Linhof are all top notch ballhead makers.

Wilt wrote in post #5238657
The 190 is an OK tripod, which is better suited for portability in hiking than it is as a stationary base for a tripod head. And the Bogen/Manfrotto heads are, at best, 'just OK' but not great. The Manfrotto 055 tripod is much better suited as a base, and a number of better heads exist, but all unfortunately carry a hefty price tag! Arca, RRS, Markins, Kirk, Linhof are all top notch ballhead makers.

I agree completely with Wilt's comments. I'm looking for a heavier/stiffer tripod for macro/closeup work, and I know that there are much better heads.

It's been a matter of economics to some degree (hefty price tags as Wilt noted), but I made the classic mistake of buying the wrong things first before doing any research (on this site).

There is a really good website on this topic:

http://www.bythom.com/​support.htm

I think this is were I'm going to end up:

http://reallyrightstuf​f.com/ballheads/02.htm​l

These have been talked about in threads on this forum in the not too distant past ( a few months or so).

I've "only" a couple hundred or so in my present setup (Xmas gift from my wife with direction from me), and it will still serve for those "in the bush" hikes for wildflowers, but it's not a really solid platform.

That being said, I'll still probably use MLU. (Is that like wearing a belt and suspenders?).

Would you share your reasons for the RRS.

I found this interesting, http://www.photosafari​india.com/articles/rev​3-ballheads.html.

The Markins looks interesting.

chauncey wrote in post #5230723
Have comparisons been made with, remote, tripod, with and without MLU?

This might help chauncey:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=477734

Don't know how I missed that, thanks Redmare.

Redmare wrote in post #5242902
This might help chauncey:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=477734

This recent example with dSLR reproduces exactly the results obtained with testing of film SLR and mirror lock up, which I mentioned earlier in this thread. The tests decades ago were conducted for all the shutter speeds from about 1/15 thru several seconds and showed the result at each speed.

chauncey wrote in post #5241836
Would you share your reasons for the RRS.

I found this interesting, http://www.photosafari​india.com/articles/rev​3-ballheads.html.

The Markins looks interesting.

I just bought a new Gitzo GT2540 tripod, and was contemplating which ballhead to go with (RRS or Markins). They're both top quality, but I decided to go with the Markins M10. The Markins heads have the best capacity-to-weight ratio of any ballhead presently on the market. The M10 itself weighs about one pound, but will support something like 50# or so (not that I'll have anything that heavy, but the high capacity should help when loads are extended such as when using a focusing rail and would also help to control drift once the ballhead is secured). You won't go wrong with either brand...I just happen to do a lot of hiking and wanted to minimize the load that I need to carry. Here's a pic of the Markins M10 sitting on the Markins base and topped with the RRS lever clamp. The entire package, including the tripod, came in at about 3.6 or 3.7 pounds.