• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Heavy and light tripods with Sony a7R, a7II

Heavy and light tripods with Sony a7R, a7II

April 12, 2015 JimK 10 Comments

For the past few days, I’ve been doing tests of image sharpness with the Sony 70-200 f/4 OSS FE lens mounted on a Sony a7R and a a7II camera. I’ve been using a really sturdy tripod — the RRS TVC-43 — and head — the Arca Swiss C1 Cube — for the testing when I’ve not been handholding.

I wondered what would happen if I used a much lighter weight tripod and head. I dug up a Gitzo 6X carbon fiber travel tripod with a light RRS ball head. Here are the two tripods next to one another:

tripods

You can see that the legs of the travel tripod get pretty skinny towards the floor. You can also see that I extended the column nearly all the way. Yeah, I know that’s not a good idea, but I wanted to create a pretty flexible camera mounting device. You’ll note that the RRS monster tripod doesn’t even have a center column; RRS probably figures that, if you want a tripod this big, you’re not going to want to take any chances with a center column detracting from the stiffness that you paid all that money for.

I used my usual protocol:

  • RRS L-plate on camera base. This is not the usual way to mount the 70-200, which has its own collar mount, but it produces less image-blur from shutter shock with the a8R than the conventional mounting method using the collar, so I used it for both cameras.
  • Landscape orientation.
  • Lens zoomed to 200mm.
  • No filter.
  • The lighting: a single Fotodiox LED-200WA-56 daylight balanced variable-output flood.
  • ISO set to 1000, f-stop set to f/8.
  • Focusing using single shot autofocus. The focus point is a Siemens star on the target.
  • Drive set to single
  • EFCS on, in the case of the a7II
  • Manual exposure mode.
  • Self-timer set to 2 seconds
  • OSS set to off. On the a7II, this turns off IBIS.
  • Lamp to full, shutter to 1/1000 second, make 16 exposures with new focusing for each, turn the light down a stop, turn the shutter speed down a stop, make 16 exposures… until you get to 1/60 of a second.
  • OSS to on. On the a7II, this turns on IBIS.
  • Repeat exposure sequence.
  • Develop in Lightroom 5.7.1 with standard settings.
  • Crop, export as TIFFs, analyze for horizontal edge MTF50 in Imatest.
  • Export the results to Excel, crunch the stats, and graph.

Here’s what happens with the a7R on the heavy tripod:

a7Rheavytripod

The bold lines are the average (aka mean, aka mu) values. The lighter lines are the average value plus and minus the standard deviations (aka sigma). If the statistics are Gaussian, about two thirds of the expected results will lie between the two pair of lighter lines. Orange is OSS on, and blue is OSS off.

And here are the results on the light one:

a7Rlighttripod

You can see that the camera’s vibration affects the lighter tripod much more than the heavier one. Now let’s zoom in a bit:

Heavy tripod:a7RheavytripodcloseLight tripod:

a7Rlighttripodclose

You can see that leaving the OSS on on the heavy tripod doesn’t make much difference, but it produces materially worse results with the light tripod than leaving it off.

Here’s what the a7II — with EFCS on — looks like on the heavy tripod:

a7iiheavytripod

On the light tripod:

a7iilighttripod

The light tripod is a little worse with OSS on at moderate shutter speeds, but the difference is not dramatic at all. At 1/60, OSS on is actually a tad better.

Our test situation was a bit special. It was indoors. There was no wind. The footing was vinyl tile over concrete. Therefore, almost all the camera motion can be expected to be the result of the camera’s internal motions. Under those circumstances, a camera with large and violent internal motions like the a7R needs a much heavier tripod than one with not much internal motions that affect the exposure, like an a7II with EFCS enabled.

I probably could have guessed that, couldn’t I? Still, it’s nice to have it quantified.

 

 

 

The Last Word

← a7R and a7II camera motion blur compared 4 24mm lenses on the D810, part 1 →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    April 12, 2015 at 2:06 am

    Really useful set of posts, Jim. Shows how important the heft of the camera is, both on a tripod and hand held.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      April 12, 2015 at 7:38 am

      Jack, I think in the case of the tripod, it’s more stiffness than mass that’s making the difference, but I take your point.

      Reply
  2. Herb says

    April 12, 2015 at 7:42 am

    Makes me wish I had not sold my Reis. (large format, maple, used in the movie biz as well)

    Reply
    • Jim says

      April 12, 2015 at 7:45 am

      I gave away my wooden Zone VI tripod to Kim Weston a year or so ago. And I’m not sorry at all.

      Reply
  3. CarVac says

    April 12, 2015 at 10:20 am

    Why, with the A7ii, might the light tripod perform significantly better at the middle shutter speeds?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      April 12, 2015 at 11:38 am

      You mean better than the heavy tripod, right? I dunno; I’ll have to think on it. With EFCS, the biggest source of blur-inducing vibration is the second curtain acceleration. The differences are small. I made the light tripod series with a single focus operation, rather than one per shot, which I’ve recently found gives more consistent results. Maybe there were small focus errors in the heavy-tripod images? Hmm…

      Reply
  4. tex andrews says

    April 13, 2015 at 7:13 am

    Weeeyyeeelllll…..

    I’m not so sure about the “utility” of this test. Here’s why: essentially, you have tested the heavier/more massive tripod combo at its best (most stable configuration) against the lighter one at its worst possible configuration, and with 2 different heads to boot, one of which is the uber stable and expensive “Cube”. I’m not sure you have to run a test to project which one will “win”. So, for all the sophistication of the measurements, I’m not certain they are being put to the best use here.

    The point of lightweight tripods is to be able to carry/take them places it is impractical to manage with the larger and heavier tripod combo. It’s a compromise from the get-go. There is no reason to use one in any other situation. In fact, in a studio situation even the heavy tripod might be replaced by a stand.

    But that compromise can be ameliorated in the field, by not extending the center column all the way up (or at all), and by weighting the tripod with a camera bag, daypack, water or sand bag. And indeed the better lightweight ones come with a hook to help with that.

    So, I think to make this more of an apples to apples test regimen, both tripods should be tested column down, same head, and weighted.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      April 13, 2015 at 7:51 am

      Tex, this wasn’t a tripod test. It was to see what happened to image quality with an EFCS camera and a non-EFCS camera as tripod stiffness (and, inevitably, mass) varied greatly. In addition, I wanted to get a handle on the issue that I had found turning SteadyShot on an off on a heavy, stiff tripod-mounted camera to not make that much difference, and others have found that leaving SteadyShot on when the camera was on a tripod to ruin their images. My supposition was that their tripods were whippier than mine, and that was the cause of the discrepancy. I think the test showed that to be a likely hypothesis.

      On the EFCS (or not) front, I think I showed that you do need a reaaly solid tripod if you’re gonna use an a7R with a long lens, and, even then, there are shutter speed ranges to be avoided. The big surprise for me was that the whippy tripod did so well with EFCS on the a7II. That has implications for how I’ll pack in the future.

      I learned a lot from the test, even though I wouldn’t use the travel tripod in anger in such a configuration.

      Always nice to hear from you.

      Jim

      Reply
  5. tex andrews says

    April 13, 2015 at 6:25 pm

    Ahhh, my bad. See, that’s the subtlety of your mind at work—a test of EFCS/non EFCS attributes masquerading as a tripod test. Fooled me!

    Reply
  6. Tero says

    April 14, 2015 at 5:22 am

    Informative test as usual. On the front of weight vs. stiffness making the difference; I’ve made habit of always weighting down my travel tripod by putting my backpack (maybe 3-4 kilograms ) on the hook below center column. If you are ever to retest something with the light tripods it would be interesting to know if weighting down is just waste of time. Even though this was not a tripod test 😉

    Personally I’ve always thought that weight is what matters, but I saw a test some time ago where lighter CF tripod was better in regards to vibration than a heavier one made of aluminium .

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.