I have an interesting challenge… A 5 lbs pentax 67 6×7 camera. It has a large horizontal shutter. I don’t shoot long lenses with it. I do use the MLU. Some folks go as far as recommending that you never use 1/15 with this camera.

Some folks suggest they get the sharpest results by leaning on the body/prism while gently releasing the shutter with their hands (I squeeze the shutter when I do that). It’s been said that hanging a weight over the prism is much better at dampening shutter vibes than hanging a bag on the center column. I’d guess there are speeds where a remote release would be better than pressing down on the body.. Though some folks say remote releases just don’t work as well as pressing down with this camera.

It’s much harder to test that stuff on film, but I really should do some tests. I’ve wondered if I could attach a laser pointer to the camera and then video record that dot on the wall (with a reference scale) using another camera (close to the dot). A frame by frame analysis should allow some correlation of the timing. Of course just viewing the video in slow-mo could provide a quick impression with a lot less effort. It would also be interesting to compare the free-standing tripod on different surfaces, and with rubber vs. spikes…

I’m sure the optimal approach depends on the tripod. I’m about to upgrade to a gitzo systematic.

With the 67, there is some audible feedback. And it seems that audible system noise is dampened when you add your mass to the camera with downward pressure…. Of course dampened does not assure sharpness.

Right now, I’m trying to decide which systematic to get… Whether to go with the 3541XLS, as you did, or go with the 3530LS…

Bearing in mind that I am not an engineer, it occurs to me that some of the results might be affected under certain circumstances by some small residual resonance in your tripod/camera setup in spite of the tripod’s inherent stiffness. I wonder if using a simple beanbag might enhance your test results, especially when the column is extended but also with all sections of the tripod in use. It might alsohelp in windy conditions in the field. The problem is that under certain circumstances, even the best system can be subject to some degree of resonance.

I have found draping a homemade beanbag over the lens/camera above their centre of gravity can provide some valuable extra stability that is reflected a critical improvement in a photograph taken under extreme conditions.

My own bag consists of nothing more than an old sock filled with rice packed firmly but not tightly so that there is some flexibilty when draping it. Its construction was purely empirical, not scientific but I have just weighed it and it comes in at 415 gm. At any rate, it fits conveniently into even my smallest camera bag and does not add too much weight.

An advantage of always having a beanbag to hand is that it can in itself provide a stable, damped platform when no tripod is available. On more than one occasion I have even wedged the bag into the joint between a tree trunk and branch with the camera on top. Not exactly high-tech but effective neverthless!

Just for the record, my tripod is not as advanced as yours, though still a quite good general purpose unit: Manfrotto 190XDB with 804RC2 pan and tilt head.

BTW, my location is Hong Kong.

I couldn’t find anything in regards to the settings of your 70-200 VR lens during the tests. Your earlier outdoor picture of the setup clearly shows the VR set to “ON”. This is not correct for tripod use. It will “look” for vibration to correct that isn’t there and end up introducing the “anti-vibration” as vibration…did that make sense What was it set to during all the stability tests?

Ah, good point. Yes, it was off during the tests. The outdoor setup shot was just that (a staged setup shot) and since I wasn’t actually using it, I didn’t think to turn the VR off. Some larger lenses have VR that is intended for use on a tripod, but as you point out, not the 70-200. —Jeffrey