Mafrotto 055MF3 and 468MGRC2 Head - I expected better performance

I'm frustrated by the vibration and elastic tension I see when using my Manfrotto 055MF3 carbon fibre legs and Manfrotto 468MGRC2 head and I would just like to know if this is the best I can hope for with this combination or what would have been better for similar money. I've shot a video to show the problem.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=RbeUPsiGLZo

I don't comment on this in the video but when trying to adjust my aim, precisely, at 10X magnification, the elastic tension in the system means that I have to push the aim a fraction past the point I want because the head (legs?) then springs back. In other words, I cannot place the aim exactly where I want to, and just let the camera rest. I need to compensate for elastic movement in the system.

I thought that a £175 head ($350) would perform much better than this. How much better would a Wimberley, RRS, Markins or Kirk head be, if at all? Or is the problem in my legs, in which case, what should I have bought instead for my £200 ($400) budget?

You need to decide if the shots you get mounted with that combo are as you would expect. The touching and playing around movement is irrelevant unless it also impacts at the point of exposure. The 055 and the 460 are great pieces of equipment and I would expect them to deliver good support. I have the 190 MF3 which is a lighter CF model I use for travel and very good indeed. I have owned the 460 Pro head and also very good. I never used live-view when I had a 40D so can't say if the movement is normal. I expect it is. Also can't tell if you got ther camera mounted to the head or the lens collar. You will get way more bounce with the camera mounted. Live-view is gonna significantly magnify the impact of what you may normally notice (or not) in the VF ... isn't it?

Thanks for the reply. I do understand what you mean about the actual photos being the final judge of whether there is a problem, but I would like to know whether my equipment is performing as it should, or could I have got better performance for similar money.

It's mounted on the collar and everything is tightened up thoroughly. Like I said, without a basis for comparison I don't know whether my experience is to be expected or if it is below par.

Of course Live View magnifies the problem. That is the point in using it to demonstrate what I am seeing. But the thing is, I thought the idea of a tripod was to stabilise the system. Mine does not seem very stable. Peeping through a tiny viewfinder will not reveal these small problems, but when the image is viewed on a 40" 1920X1080 TV screen, which is how I view my pictures, any shake will be apparent.

I really did believe that with a tripod and head such as this I would have no trouble to manually focus on the moon. When I first tried I was horrified by the amount of shake. I didn't spend £375 on a support system and expect to see that. Shouldn't I be able to focus accurately on the moon with this kit, without having to guess how accurate my focus is? I don't think accurate manual focus on the moon is terribly easy through the viewfinder of a 1.6X crop body wth standard focus screen. Live View and 10X seems the obvious choice for making the task easy. It turned out not to be as easy as I hoped.

If my expectations were too high then fair enough. I'm just curious to know how other people find their gear to perform under similar conditions. Should I have bought an RSS head? Would it be any better? The Manfrotto blurb says it has a 2" ball. I don't know how on earth they measure it but my ball is nearer 1.25" diameter - nowhere near 2". I thought I was getting something roughly the equal of the RSS BH-55 head but with the hydrostatic operation putting it ahead of the game. If the RSS head is no better then I can't really expect more from my own head. If the RSS is noticeably better then I figure Manfrotto has sold me a pup. If performance is not on a par with a 2" head then I figure I've got justification to take it up with Manfrotto. If the performance is all I could hope for then I may as well be happy with what I've got.

It's all very well speculating on what should or shouldn't be. I don't want specualtion. I would like to know how other people find their support system performs. Is a Wimberley gimbal any better? How about RSS, Markins or Kirk, or even Benro? To make that judgement people will need to stick a 400mm lens on their tripod and use 10X Live View magnification to make the comparison. I'm not asking people to run out specially and perform the test. They should know, from their own experience whether this is normal or not.

I do have to say that I find I get better results from my 100-400 if I leave IS enabled when on the tripod. I know for long exposures that I can't get away with that, because the image does drift, but for short exposures - maybe 1/250 - 1/800 or so, IS does improve things. That appears to go against all common wisdom for this lens. At faster shutter speeds still, I guess the IS no longer serves a useful purpose, but it surely does no harm either. Since I'm typically shooting wildlife with this lens I do stick with shutter speeds above 1/250 if I can. If IS can do a better job than the tripod at stabilising the image then what use is the tripod, apart from in taking the load off my hands?

Maybe it is not the head as such but the mounting plate. I did ask on here I while ago whether to go for an RC2 or RC4 plate and the general concensus was that RC2 would be fine. Was that recommendation misguided, I wonder - https://photography-on-the.net …light=rc2+rc4+h​ydrostatic?

Is it your tripod or the head giving you this problem?

I use the older 055PROB, originally with the 468RC2 (not your version). I have always been happy with the tripod itself, but the ball head and RC2 quick release was always a pain.

The RC2 system was always suspect and I eventually switched to the RRS lever clamp, but this is not your issue.

When I lined up shots, I'd always have to allow for a certain amount of "droop in the ballhead. I lost patience with it when trying to centre a full moon in the viewfinder with a 700mm lens equivalent only to loose it from the viewfinder completely every time. I have since replaced it with a Markins M10, which does not "droop" AT ALL and relegated the 486 to monopod service with a Markins QR60 plate.

So for me, the new ballhead TOTALLY cured the problem.

OK, the 055 tripod is not the most expensive or heaviest out there, but for me its a good compromise between price and usability. The only change I've made to mine is to remove the centre column and fit a centre alloy "boss" onto which my ballhead is screwed.

Richard

Thanks. It is interesting to know that you can get a droop free ball head for only a little more money than I paid. If I'd known a year ago what I know now.......

To add to my previous post,

Like you, when shooting that full moon, I can still see visible shake in the system when I touch something. Thats still the case, even with the changes I've made.

My conclusion is that I should not touch the camera or the tripod at all before or during the actual exposure. Which is fine, except for Canons stupid mirror lock up procedure on my 30D which I have not patience with at all. I'll end up hitting the camera with a handy brick one day! It w'ont do any good, but I'll feel a lot better.

Richard

The Manfrotto heads up to 488 in my experience do droop post adjustment ... only a tad on the 488 but it is there. My 460 Hydrostatic didn't droop. Be careful with the adjustments. Don't over tighten once you have composition set. The adjustment so you can move it Ok but not tightened should give stability at the point of exposure. If you are adjusting the focus and got hands all over the lens then you may get movement when you click. I think the issue here is use of Live-View. As I say, the test is in the final shot. And you can use a cable release to be even more 'hands-off'. The Markins is a superior head but will show the same issues if you are handling the gear and trying to shoot at the same time. I would set everything up about the shot, relax, and then expose. For a long exposure, not something I am usually that interested in, I would use a remote. If you know anyone with an alternative head and/tripod be worth trying their stuff out.

Your report of problems with the hydostatic head is the first I've seen. When I was chewing over what to replace my 486 with, I considered a Manfrotto hydrostatic head and asked for feedback here at the time. I had no responses at all, so you are probably our guinea pig.

I assumed that it was Manfrotto's answer to the Markins/Kirk/RRS heads being sold.

Richard

tdodd wrote in post #5729590
Maybe it is not the head as such but the mounting plate. I did ask on here I while ago whether to go for an RC2 or RC4 plate and the general concensus was that RC2 would be fine. Was that recommendation misguided, I wonder - ?

Tim....

I had the 468MGRC2 on a Feisol and then a Gitzo2541L....before moving to a Markins M20 with RRS lever clamp.

The 468MG was rock solid, with little to no droop when tightening (particularly if you had tension set, which I think you did)

What I saw in the video was not droop, but some "give" in the set up. I suspect two areas. The first, which is pretty easy to see is the lens/camera connection, which sometimes has a slight wobble.

The prime suspect, IMO, is the RC2 connection. All RC2 plates have a rubber mat. I found that this still had some give in it even when really tightened down. I removed the rubber on both the camera and tripod ring plates, so I had metat-to-metal contact (I also used the anti-twist plates). This relieved a most of the play.

The real solution is Arca-Swiss QRs. You can, quite easily, convert the 468MG....which was also a set I took before going to the Markins. If, with RRS, you get the B2 LR II or B2-Pro (not II), you can use on the 468MG and later, easily use on the Markins, or, pretty much, any head.

Thanks, guys. I'd be interested in any more replies from anyone else. I suspect my stuff is operating to spec. I'm not likely to spend another £200+ for an incremental improvement. It's just that if the Markins was that bit better I wish I had spent the extra £40 at the start. Hopefully others will get some benefit from real world experiences posted here.

Maybe when all these manufacturer claims, and end user claims, were being made for head performance nobody expected 10X Live View to reveal their true colours.

EDIT:
JRS, I missed your post while writing this reply. What you say does make a lot of sense. I have been considering a change of plate system. It would be nice to know that the head itself is not the problem, but just some stupid bit of rubber. I agree, I'm not suffering from droop, but that elastic slack and general bounciness sounds a lot like the rubber pad might be the villain. I'll look further into going Arca-Swiss etc.. Prices for a small lump of metal are pretty Loony Tunes though. Oh well.

Just don't touch it when exposing, is it rock solid when not touched?

tdodd wrote in post #5730279
Thanks, guys. I'd be interested in any more replies from anyone else. I suspect my stuff is operating to spec. I'm not likely to spend another £200+ for an incremental improvement. It's just that if the Markins was that bit better I wish I had spent the extra £40 at the start. Hopefully others will get some benefit from real world experiences posted here.

Maybe when all these manufacturer claims, and end user claims, were being made for head performance nobody expected 10X Live View to reveal their true colours.

EDIT:
JRS, I missed your post while writing this reply. What you say does make a lot of sense. I have been considering a change of plate system. It would be nice to know that the head itself is not the problem, but just some stupid bit of rubber. I agree, I'm not suffering from droop, but that elastic slack and general bounciness sounds a lot like the rubber pad might be the villain. I'll look further into going Arca-Swiss etc.. Prices for a small lump of metal are pretty Loony Tunes though. Oh well.

Tim...

Yes...there should be nothing wrong with the 468MG. I found it to be a great head.

The reason I went to the Markins (M-10, not M-20, which I erred on in prior post) was that it was MUCH smoother under "tension" than the 468MG. I found I was "riding the tension knob" with the 468MG, where with the M-10, I could "set it and forget it".

I sold the 468MG to a friend, after convinving him it was an upgrade to the 488 he was using. He is still a friend In fact, I have to get ready to have lunch with him...so I am off....

With 10X magnification in Live View, I can see the smallest hint of movement caused by a light breeze (may 10mph breeze, probably less) just gently swinging the neck strap 1/4" or so.

I tried looking into this further as well. I lowered the legs to their shortest length and tried just lightly pressing on one leg. I saw movement at the camera. I tried pressing lightly on the base of the head, beneath the ball itself. I saw similar movement. I tried pressing on the spindle coming from the ball up to the QR plate, and also the plate itself. I saw the amount of movement increase. I pressed lightly on the camera body and the movement was even more pronounced. Finally I pressed on the end of the lens, and got the biggest movements of all. So basically the entire system is not solid, and the more joints you include and the more leverage exerted - the further you move away from ground zero - the more the movement increases. In other words, I don't think there is a satisfactory solution if I want lightweight gear. If I actually want a solid platform it's a whole new territory of studio gear that I'll need to look at, because everything I have now is a compromise.

Having said that, here's what looks to me like a proper head, with a proper sized ball. I don't know what it is though. Anyone?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

As already mentioned, it is the final image that counts. With that said, you are correct in that there are many many flexion points in the legset setup. No matter what legs and ballhead, you will get movement while you are framing your shot, focusing, or touching any of the components. The important issue is the amount of movement at the time the shutter is released. How quickly does the legset stabilize?

As you have shown, movement will be magnified significantly with long focal lengths. The shorter FL will show less movement for a given legset. You can test this out with your same setup but change the FL to 100 or 200 or 300 as compared to 400.

It is likely that the 055MF3 and 468MGRC2 is at its limit with a 400 FL. Most tripod and ballhead companies state their ratings in terms of weight. Gitzo on the other hand rate their legs according to FL. For example, a 2 series Gitzo is rated for a maxium of 300mm. I think this is more accurate. I can see more vibration at 300 than at 200. When I add an extender to my 300, vibration is more obvious. So, I'm much more careful when I need to shoot longer FL.

For a couple of years, I had the 055MF3 and 468MG. I think it is a good setup for the money. As John mentioned a weak point is the RC2. I improved my setup by switching to an RRS clamp and plates. I also found the rubber O ring around the center column to be a source of movement. I removed it. I think with some experimenting, you will find the strengths and limitations of your setup. Once you establish its parameters, you should be able to use it more effectively.

When it comes to long FL, proper long lens techniques, mirror lockup, and cable release are invaluable.

Thanks, Jim. I've been researching elsewhere too, and pretty much come to the conclusion that I cannot expect a motion free setup at this price level and weight. So I do have to reset my expectations. That's a disappointment but I can fully accept it. Time to track down a cheap source of Arca-Swiss platforms/plates to the UK.

Thanks everyone for your replies.