Arca-Swiss Cube

[Babu]

I'd like to hear from anyone who has used an Arca-Swiss C1 cube head.
I've seen one being used for architectural, product and landscape photography. It seemed to be in its element for these types of jobs as it allows very precise adjustments.
However, I'm wondering how it would fare being used with something like a 70-200mm or a 100-400mm lens for fairly close sport or wildlife photography. Would I be better sticking to my Z1 ballhead for these and the Wimberley II for 500mm and over?

[Analog6]

There is a big discussion on its use at GetDPI (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5059). You are aware the current price at B&H is $US1,924.00?

[Babu]

Thanks for the link Analog6.
There are lots of interesting comments including those made by the landscape shooter!
However, I'm still on the lookout for comments from other types of shooters.
Yes I am aware of the price minus the leather bag and am a fairly regular B&H customer.

[Othrelos]

you might also want to consider the Manfrotto 405 - it's doesn't have exposed gearing which is a thing I consider a risk factor with the arca swiss cube. The way I see it is that exposed gearing can cause problems in dusty/sandy environments. I have been using the 405 head from manfrotto for just over a year and I actually bought a second one it's that good. And the 405 makes use of the RC4 quick release platform which spreads the weight of the camera over a much larger area than other QC platforms do and I see that as beneficial to stability. the stated maximum weight capacity of the 405 is somewhat conservative IMO my 405 can easily handle my Ebony 8X10 fully loaded with a heavy 280mm f/4 lens.

[arthurking83]

FWIW RC4 is a consumer level product. For a more professional QR product the RC5 and RC0 are more suitable.

either way Manfrotto products are not very highly regarded in the real professional industry. That they do a job of holding your camera upright is not in question, it's a matter of how well they do it for a given amount of money.

Arca Swiss is a far better product for professional use.

I doubt very much that a Manfrotto 405 is going to be anywhere near as stable as a Arca Cube. From my brief play with both the 405 and a 400, I can't see any value in the 405 other than it does a job(didn't seem like good value for money tho). The 400 geared head looked very solid(but external gearing again!) operated very smoothly and precise and just very solid in it's ability to move in fine amounts and then lock down.

In the end I just went with the ballhead(but the NatGeo version with the rubber covering for weather protection) and was happy with it while it was new, but as I find with all Manfrotto stuff(I have enough)... they wear out too quickly(wonky and wobbly).

I've never seen or touched a Arca Cube, but I remember that the chap that runs Luminous Landscape raved about his. Expensive, but worth it.

anyhow.. we each have various points of view on various gear, my experience with Manfrotto is not as positive as others opinions will appear to be.

[mal from cessnock]

Nice one Arthur :D

[Babu]

Thanks Othrelos
I appreciate your concerns about exposed gearing in dusty/sandy environments. However, I'm not that rapt in the manfrotto gear I currently own and several forums I currently read put the Arca Swiss Cube ahead of anything that Bogen/Manfrotto produce.

[Babu]

Great response, Arthur.
Like you, I've never seen or touched an Arca Swiss Cube and I have read the Luminous Landscapes guy's glowing comments.
I just want to find out whether the Cube can be sucessfully used when following moving wildlife or sportsmen.
I've used beanbags or fixed mountings and ballheads on safari vehicles, monopods, fence rails, forked sticks......
Can anyone, based on experience, enlighten me regarding the Cube's usefulness or otherwise when following a moving subject
that requires more than just panning?

[mal from cessnock]

I just watched a YouTube video on the Arca Swiss Cube - a great demonstration by a German fellow.

It is clear is not built for this use Babu. It is a precise, slow to adjust head designed for architectural, medical and scientific photography.

My advise for your application is a Wimberley 2 - couldn't go past it for fast, smooth, accurate, broad sweeping movements of your lens :) When I bought mine (last year) it was AU$950 - I notice on their website now they are under AU$600 - I'm spewing and can't work out why the massive price drop. I'm talking their main head, not their sidekick which is probably worth a look at too!

Hope this helps.

[Big Pix]

it can only move left to right and not up and down as I understand the head....... you need to twist the knobs

I use http://acratech.net/product.php?productid=10&cat=1&page=1 as the head moves up down left right, the leveling base I also use. This combo is not perfect but very close. I also use this setup as a every day ball head combo. Sits on a Manfrotto 055 tripod

[Othrelos]

"enlighten me regarding the Cube's usefulness or otherwise when following a moving subject "

For this application the cube would be a very poor choice, Unlike others here I have actually used an Arca swiss cube. IMO the cube is very good for Macro, Landscape/architecture and still life work but for action photography, forget it. For this you cannot beat a gimbal head. Ball heads do not allow you to balance your camera/lens the way gimbal heads do, and for this reason they are less common with photographers such as myself who use lenses 400mm and longer.

Arthur, you are standing on slippery ground when you define the RC0 and RC5 QR platforms from manfrotto as the only "professional" QC platforms. I have seen numerous highly qualified, professional photographers using RC2 platforms.

"I doubt very much that a Manfrotto 405 is going to be anywhere near as stable as a Arca Cube. From my brief play with both the 405 and a 400, I can't see any value in the 405 other than it does a job"

It is very stable however the tripod legs you attach the 405 to had better be up to the task. Manfrotto do not make a single set of legs that are really capable of handling this particular head so I use a gitzo GT2531EX. The 405 is a very solid tripod head, I consider it to be a reasonable alternative to the arca cube. And 405 can be used for panning shots when you disengage the gears - a useful feature.

[Analog6]

Gimbal heads (a la the Wimberly and the one I have - a cheap knock off by Fancier) do go up and down within their 'swing'. I used mine extensively with the Canon 100-400 I had, and use it now for the H2 with the big lenses on. You can swivel side to side and up and down at the same time, and the action is very smooth. I use it on either my Manfrotto 055 or 190B, and I have even used it on the monopod, but it is not as useful there.

[arthurking83]

That a professional uses a product for their purpose, is not an implication that the product itself is is of a professional standard. The premise of each of those ideas are mutually exclusive.

That is: you don't have to be a pro to use pro gear, and you don't have to use pro gear to be a pro! Use the product that best suits your needs. That's how simple the world really is.
The notion that that some professionals are using the RC2 QR system and this has me on some unstable ground!!! .... well, it seems a bit ludicrous to be honest.

BUT!! price in a manufacturer's product range generally hints to the quality of the product, and it's suitability in a professional environment.
A professional is many types of people, not a singular stereotype bound by some law of product placement. A professional product will(or should) simply be fit for use in more situations than a non professional product will be.
There are some (many!) situations where the suitability of the RC4 or RC2 plates would be inappropriate due to their lack of durability and strength of duty. The RC5 is basically a more heavy duty system, fit for more situations. The RC0 system follows suit. And I have no doubt that someone will know of a situation where the RC5 and RC0 plates are not suitable in a professional environment(they would need to explain this to Manfrotto themselves for the purpose of bettering those two products).

As is stands I didn't actually state that the
... the RC0 and RC5 QR platforms from Manfrotto are the only "professional" QC platforms .. I merely said that those two products are more suitable for professional use.

Had my intention been to state that any of the platforms were Manfrotto's ONLY professional product, I wouldn't have placed the RC0 in a statement like that ...A statement like that would have less wordy and quicker to type.
Manfrotto list their professional photography head platforms on their website and the only QR system found is the RC5(and for good reason I suspect).

I myself am not a professional, but I do prefer to use products that cater to a very wide variety of uses. For many of my purposes the RC4 plate system is simply not one that I would trust to hold my gear(in some situations, not all!).
99.99% of the time, I'd trust a $29 el cheapo no name variwobble off ebay for getting a shot. But!!.. in some situations I need much more stability, and the strength of the RC4 system was unacceptable(compared to the RC5, that is).

I found that in playing around with the various product on offer(at a physical store), I believe that the RC0 was a very solid platform, that the RC4 is a suped up looking RC2, and that the most durable and best performing(for my use and intended use in the future!!) was the RC5.
To be honest, I kick myself now for having chosen Manfrotto at all, and should have gone with the Arca Swiss system(or QR plates and accessories).. but the RC5 was an extremely purposeful product by comparison to the RC2/4 system, and I can't ever imagine exceeding it's ability to hold onto my gear.
(FWIW, as it stands the ballhead is really the only limit I still face in some situations, and had funds been available back when I got my ballhead(yep! Manfrotto of course :().. I would have definitely forked out the $1K plus for the 400 geared head, but not the $700 plus for the 405.

The 405 looked too 'spindly', or to be more accurate.. cantilevered... to be as rock solid as the 400 series head. The (physical) design of each type is the clue as to how each would perform in any given situation.
The cantilevered design of the 405 would be inherently more prone to vibration than would the monolithic design of the 400 geared head(and obviously the Arca Cube).
ie, the 405 would be more prone to vibrations and hence will not be as stable as the 400(or Arca Cube). simple physics dictate this.
Just because one has never crossed that threshold, doesn't mean that the threshold doesn't (or will) never exist.
I just hate purchasing stuff that I eventually find is not fit for purpose.

[Othrelos]

"the 405 would be more prone to vibrations and hence will not be as stable as the 400(or Arca Cube). simple physics dictate this.
Just because one has never crossed that threshold, doesn't mean that the threshold doesn't (or will) never exist.
I just hate purchasing stuff that I eventually find is not fit for purpose."

If you think the physics involved are simple perhaps you aren't looking at things closely enough. Physicists are discovering unexpected levels of super-symmetry in the LHC and HIC atom smashers. The things that are predicted by the perceived "norms" that physics should conform to are often dashed by physics in the real world. theory and conjecture is all well and good, but I prefer to have empirical data. If all you have used are manfrotto ball heads than your presumption that the 405 isn't up to snuff is excusable and I think you are confusing the 405 with it's smaller sibling the 410. Though I can't say I'm impressed by manftotto ball heads, their hydrostatic heads are the only half-decent thing in their line up...I don't like gitzo's heads either but i'm just a snob using a B55 from RRS - however even the B55 ball head is ill suited to handling an 8X10 view camera (or even a 4X5 for that matter), because as soon as you unlock it you have to reposition a very bulky, heavy camera and make sure it is perfectly level. The 405 makes using 8X10 so much easier and faster because you are adjusting the cameras angle one axis at a time.

here is an image of the 405 for those interested:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-camera-field-accessories/62846d1274600149-manfrotto-405-review-_apk5864-jpg

[mal from cessnock]

Nice gear Othrelos, I love it. Certainly looks like something I would enjoy.

Othrelos, post some images, what's your main photographic interest?

Pentax, how does it compare with Nikon and Canon? (haven't had much contact with the P)

BTW nice pic of your gear :) Well executed.

[mal from cessnock]

Hey, when do I become a regular member?

[Kym]

Hey, when do I become a regular member?

A bit OT, but, automatic titles ...

New Member < 50 posts and < 30 days
Member >= 50 posts
Ausphotography Regular >= 500
Ausphotography Veteran >= 2000
Ausphotography Addict >= 4000

Anyone 'member' and above can edit their user title.

[Kym]

If you think the physics involved are simple perhaps you aren't looking at things closely enough. Physicists are discovering unexpected levels of super-symmetry in the LHC and HIC atom smashers. ... bla bla bla

For all practical purposes, when dealing with camera/lens support, basic Newtonian physics / mechanics applies.

[Othrelos]

For all practical purposes, when dealing with camera/lens support, basic Newtonian physics / mechanics applies.

Fair enough, recently in preparation for my purchase of a pentax 645D I have been testing my lenses for the Pentax 645 system including the A*600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] and my tripod head of choice was the manfrotto 405 attached to a Manfrotto 028B tripod. The Pentax 645 A*600mm f/5.6 weighs 4.8Kg the Pentax 645NII weighs 1380g. The maximum load capacity of the 405 is 7.5Kg the weight of this set up is 6.1Kg. As an exercise in testing the stability of this set up I placed a glass of water on the top of the camera, with a shutter speed of 1/8th without mirror lock up I fired the shutter. The only perturbations in the water occurred when the mirror returned, And subsequent examination of the T-max 100 film I had loaded in the 645NII under a 10X Schneider loupe showed that there was no vibration blur proving my point that the 405 is worth it's high cost.

I do have access to far heavier lenses e.g Pentax M*800mm f/6.7 ED IF however, I do not have the appropriate 67>645 adapter to allow use of this lens on a 645 camera so this lens will remain untested at this point. for those interested the Pentax M*800mm f/6.7 ED weighs 6.4 Kg The pentax 67 weighs 1700g fully loaded.

[arthurking83]

...... theory and conjecture is all well and good, but I prefer to have empirical data. If all you have used are manfrotto ball heads than your presumption that the 405 isn't up to snuff is excusable and I think you are confusing the 405 with it's smaller sibling the 410. .....

nup!... definitely the 405 and not the 410, but the one I wanted was the 400.

As yourself, I prefer empirical data to theoretical versions, but empirical data usually is amassed as a consequence for proving(of disproving) the hypothetical.

When Manfrotto update their design philosophies with this greater understanding of subatomic particle physics as the basis, I'll probably begin the long process of rebuilding respect for their products.
As it stands, I don't have the resources to waste my limited funds on proving my theories, but I do have allowances for product purchases based on those theories.
I hate to gamble, so I'm going to stick with my beliefs as the basis for proving that my theory is either correct or not.

As it stands, I'm not a big fan of their ballheads, on a very few occasions, my gear overburdens the quality of their hydrostatic ballheads by a large margin, and I usually have to find alternate methods to produce acceptable images as a consequence. The issue is not a pressing one, as the instances are few and far between, so I make do until I can update the ballhead at least.
But the issue is not so simple as I have invested much in the QR system too, and need to take that into consideration as well.

A cantilevered design(405) is simply not going to offer the same level of rigidity as a monoblock design(400).
That the 405 works for you is great, and gives me some hope that it may work for me too(but I doubt it), and so I think in going with my theoretical beliefs, the 50% higher price tag on the 400(over the 405) may eventually be worth it in the long run.
I have no idea on what the 410 even looks like, neither did I know of it's existence.
I will test the two products before I decide tho.

The two products I looked at and compared were the 405 and the 400. (The 400 has a similar design philosophy to the Arca Cube)
The two products were on offer on the floor of a well known and reputable photographic store in Melbourne.

Once I have the empirical data(if ever??) I'll reply with it.

[Othrelos]

"A cantilevered design(405) is simply not going to offer the same level of rigidity as a monoblock design(400)."

Fair call, but since I have a B.A in architecture I will point out that they use cantilevered designs for bridges, cranes, buildings, aircraft and motorcycle chassis. There is nothing wrong with the design philosophy that manfrotto have applied in the design of the 405 head the gearing is precise and it doesn't exhibit any detectable "creep" or slippage in the mechanism I have a friend who works in industrial design and he was rather impressed with the Manfrotto 405. As you said in a post above perhaps more monolithic structure might suit you better but the main advantage of the cantilever design is using strategically placed fulcrums to balance and enhance the overall rigidity of the structure and in obtaining this goal I will say that Manfrotto has been quite successful. The Arca swiss cube only weighs 900grams and the Manfrotto 405 itself weighs a hefty 1.6Kg - I would wager that the heavier head is the more effective at dissipating and absorbing any vibrations it will be, and with the larger area of the RC4 platform which gives the camera a physically larger area of contact which further spreads out and dampens vibrations. There is a Korean knock off version of the Arca swiss cube called the multiflex that might be cheaper and still provide the quality you need, However I consider the Arca cube to be a bit of overkill unless you are using Large format with High resolution digital medium format backs. For 35mm and smaller self contained medium format digital systems the manfrotto 405 will be perfectly adequate even for longer telephoto lenses. I will also add that the B55 from RRS was not able to pass the glass of water test I subjected the Manfrotto 405 to. As I see it the mass of the camera has to also be more or less matched by the tripod head, and the legs have to be substantial enough to support both. You can have the best set of tripod legs in the world, but if you have for example a manfrotto 488 on the tripod you can kiss any hopes you have of obtaining decent stability goodbye.

Also I do have to ask what photographic equipment are you using that makes the arca swiss so appealing to you?

[I @ M]

"A cantilevered design(405) is simply not going to offer the same level of rigidity as a monoblock design(400)."

Fair call, but since I have a B.A in architecture I will point out that they use cantilevered designs for bridges, cranes, buildings, aircraft and motorcycle chassis.

Seeing as bridges, cranes, buildings, aircraft and motorcycle chassis all have a deliberately engineered and built in level of flex, deformation or just plain bending under load, do you think that is good basis for something like a tripod head that needs rigidity?

[Othrelos]

It depends entirely on which direction the bend is occurring, and a well executed cantilevered design absorbs the energy without causing any vibrations of it's own. Due to the strong high grade die-cast aluminium alloy construction of the 405 I haven't observed any flexing when using my Pentax 645NII and A*600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] lens even though that set up was approaching it's 7.5kg load capacity, In my experience most tripod heads show signs of impending (or outright) failure with loads at or over 75% of their loading capacity.

[arthurking83]

I think my main issue with Manfrotto gear(well ballheads at least) the aluminimum used is not a very durable type. Too soft in (strategic) places, such as where the lock down screws mate against the surface causing indentations.
These indentations then make it hard to lock down the position without causing a small amount of reframing.
I've found that the ball itself is generally unaffected by this soft aluminium issue, but the pan head design needs a look at by Manfrotto.
The ball itself(and I'm referring to the hydrostatic head) is simply not rigid enough to hold framing perfectly as the ball is being locked down. It can be done, but with care.

If the question on the appeal of the Arca Swiss was directed at me :confused013 .. (answer) I have no interest in the Arca Swiss(I prefer to see most gear in shops before I commit), but the limited appeal is the geared nature and monoblock design(as with the Manfrotto 400).

I'd like a geared head mainly to do macro images beyond 1:1 .. possibly up to 10:1(as I currently see feasible and affordable in the future) but even some landscape work(with long lenses), where I'm always frustrated by the lack of rigidity of the MGRC5(type) ballhead I have.

My first priority for a camera mount system at the moment, is a better ballhead to the MGRC5(and with the added decision to be made on whether I keep the RC5 plate system of change to Arca Swiss plates).
Part of the QR issue for me is the need for a focusing rail as well.. all up I think I worked out that the QR plates and rail is going to cost me over $500! (bah! .. wayy too much, but it may have to be done.. dunno yet)

[Othrelos]

Well if you are interested in high magnification macro photography then a ball head is the wrong tool for the job. Only the most expensive ball heads do not exhibit lens "droop" which is when you lock the ball there is a slight shift in framing - this affects all ball heads to some extent, the higher the tolerances the parts are machined to generally the less impact this drooping effect has. And as the manufacturing tolerances go up so does the price. The RRS B55 is a superb ball head, it doesn't exhibit the drooping effect but, it can be difficult to find here in Oz and it is rather expensive. But In any event I still wouldn't recommend the B55 for anything past 1:1 macro work. I use several long macro lenses: the Canon 180mm f/3.5L, the Cosina/voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 In Nikon F mount, Pentax FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF]Macro and Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO EX DG [IF] also Pentax k mount. With the exception of the voigtlander all these lenses have tripod collars and I use them all with the Manfrotto 405, When you adjust the gearing mechanism of the 405 it maintains your framing; there is no slipping or drooping from it stays where you want it and it locks in rock solid. Even with a heavy and unbalanced camera/lens combination like the Nikon D3s and the voigtlander 125mm - which I will point out is not an internally focusing lens therefore it's front barrel extends considerably when it is focusing closely which causes the whole camera to become very front heavy. The 405 handles this combination with aplomb and it's larger RC4 QC platform assists in improving stability. The pentax canon and sigma macro lenses are all internally focusing, their tripod collars are quite adequate - though the collar on the pentax FA* lens is superior to the one on the sigma and canon lenses and the resolution from the pentax 200mm macro is easily the best in it's class.

[arthurking83]

....... Only the most expensive ball heads do not exhibit lens "droop" which is when you lock the ball there is a slight shift in framing - ......

You see, I believe that you're now standing on slippery ground with that statement, and I have had encouraging preliminary results with cheaper ballheads that prove otherwise(hopefully will prove otherwise over the long term).

I will soon be in a position to display empirical data that supports this(my) proposition that the cost of the product doesn't always reflect the quality of it, and hence it's ability to produce the desired results.

Once the 1200 f/11 arrives and I modify the tripod foot to ensure proper stability(and better usability) I think this lens will provide for a good test bench to help me understand the mystery of quantum physics behind tripod theory.
The 8mm f/2.8 is perfectly acceptable on any old cheapo tripod by comparison(and I mean any old cheapo such as those give aways/$20 ebay rubberbands), as the short focal length provides a level of protection when using unacceptable support gear.
I've pulled apart the newly acquired 300mm f/2 EDIF as one of the internal elements has come loose, and I also wanted to update it with a CPU to meter better with my D3x(which is coming soon too) and that's why my future need for a geared head(mainly for this lens).
Anyhow, (I hoping that) in approximately a months time, I will have the necessary gear to produce these empirical results which (by the way) are based on theoretical understanding of physics ... with the added bonus that heavier support gear isn't always necessary to produce a useful result. Once again the major sticking point is my decision to go with the RC5 QR system and having all these plates, when all the good stuff comes with Arca Swiss QR system.

The ballhead was purchased many years ago, and it's intended function never encompassed macro, let alone larger than life macro(which I believe is actually called micro anyhow!) The side track into macro photography came later for me.
At the time of purchase the ballhead seemed more than adequate for my support needs, with what I thought was a decent level of future proofness in it. But over time(wear) it has become less so and there is why I have lost faith in these 'professional' Manfrotto products.
As I am a non professional but for some reason with high wear use rates, I would never recommend a Manfrotto product to a professional photographer, who by definition would require even higher durability from their products.
Maybe I got a dud :confused013

Ok, it seems we may have strayed beyond the OP's original intent for this thread, so I'm ceasing to further that OT element, and if there is any justification for it another thread could be instigated to further any support related discussion.

And I'm going to get back to installing the CPU in my 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8s P ED IF lens again, and get to bed, the kids have completely knocked my out today ... with this and that and that which was supposed to be done with this, and so on, and this high pitched screaming of the Dremel is giving me a head ache(you need to machine out some of the mounting plate to give room for the CPU and some associated wiring).

[I @ M]

And I'm going to get back to installing the CPU in my 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8s P ED IF lens again,

But is it going to work with the new ( soon to be released and tested by only a secret few ) TC-3.75x EX APO DG EF11 teleconverter that purportedly only loses only a bit under a 1/2 stop of light and therefore allows handholding the combination with an approximate keeper rate of 22% negating the need for expensive and clumsy tripod and ball monobloc plastic panhead combinations.

[Othrelos]

"You see, I believe that you're now standing on slippery ground with that statement, and I have had encouraging preliminary results with cheaper ballheads that prove otherwise(hopefully will prove otherwise over the long term).

I will soon be in a position to display empirical data that supports this(my) proposition that the cost of the product doesn't always reflect the quality of it, and hence it's ability to produce the desired results."

No slippery ground involved here, I have tested a fair amount of tripod heads in my time and there is a correlation between the price of the product and it's quality and long term durability (there are always exceptions though). Certainly there are some manufacturers that put out far lousier products than others, ball heads from Linhof are excellent in quality and craftsmanship and they are very, very good. Manfrotto's hydrostatic ball heads are fine for general purpose photography with lenses up to a 300mm f/2.8 - any lenses longer than that and a ballhead will become more of a liability. But for specialised pursuits - Macro/Micro photography, or photographers who use unusually long lenses, the requirements of the support platforms for your lenses become much more critical. If you are using a ball head with a 1200 -1700 lens then as far as I can see you are going to waste a lot of money and time. Any professional photographer worth his salt would strongly recommend a gimbal head for the use of such a lens it's true, they aren't cheap but most specialised equipment isn't in all that high demand high volume category - basic economics.