leveling and panning a tripod & ball head question

[darrenwilson]

I have been searching online for a new tripod and head the last few weeks and am stumped about one question. I'm looking for a tripod that I can shoot some panoramas with and then stitch together in PS CS4. My tripod I currently have "kind of" works, but I've been looking for an excuse to upgrade. So here's my quandary...

Most tripod heads I've seen have either a ball head or the three-way pan/tilt handles sitting ON TOP of the 360 degree panning axis. If you are using the ball head or handles to level the camera with the horizon, then the panning axis should be ABOVE that, so that you can pan on level with the horizon. With the panning axis below the leveling device, as soon as you start panning, you lose a level horizon.

Am I just crazy, or has anyone else thought of this? The ONLY head I have found that makes sense to me (and confirms my theory) is this one. The panning element sits ABOVE the ballhead and will pan on a level horizon. The downside is that it's $575.

Am I missing the boat on this?
Does anyone know of any other heads made like this (in a reasonable price range)?

Thanks

[kenw]

use the legs to level the panning base, leave the ballhead alone and pan away. It's how my ancient Manfrotto/Bogen works.

[darrenwilson]

Right, I could level the camera using the legs, but then I wouldn't need a ballhead. So I don't need one?

[jeffkohn]

You're correct. Leveling the camera above the rotation point doesn't work. There are several options for addressing this.

1) The PCL pano clamp from Really Right Stuff that you linked to.
2) A leveling base such as this one which mounts inbetween the tripod and the ballhead.
3) Arca-Swiss makes an "upside-down" ballhead that solves the problem, the net result being similar to the RRC PCL clamp.
4) The low-tech way is to just adjust the height of the individual legs to get the plate/base of the tripod as level as possible, but in reality this doesn't work that well.

Having a leveling base underneath the ballhead is superior to a panning clamp above the ballhead. With the panning clamp above the ballhead, as soon as you tilt the camera up/down for composition you end up shooting an arc instead of a straight row of images.

[dartlrt]

You might want to checkout this link http://www.sportsshooter.com/message...html?tid=34021 Jeff has images attached towards the bottom of the thread.

[darrenwilson]

Ken, Jeff, thanks for the responses.

Let me follow up with a related question: Is it REALLY imperative that the camera is absolutely level?

Most landscapes aren't 100% level themselves. Would it be better to use the tripod to steady the camera and provide a fixed rotation point, but to "fudge" a little on the whole level horizon thing? Would it be better to make the landscape appear level in the camera, even though it isn't in real life?

Here's an example. At first, when I leveled the camera/tripod absolutely, I really wouldn't have a good shot. I had to shoot each frame and adjust for the horizon to make it appear level in camera.



You guys have a lot more experience than I do, what advice can you offer?

[jeffkohn]

Does it have to be perfectly level? No, not necessarily. But I always want to get as much right as possible when shooting, to save myself from headaches later. The more level you get things while shooting, the more cleanly the images will line up when stitching.

It doesn't really have much to do with how the final image is leveled/rotated, as you can always adjust that later. But if you don't shoot with your rotational base level, you end up having to crop away much more of the stitched result; this makes composing more difficult, because sometimes you end up having to crop away something that was important, sometimes even ruining the whole image.

To be honest you might get better results shooting hand-held than from an uneven tripod (assuming you're shutter speed is fast enough).

[jeffkohn]

Does it have to be perfectly level? No, not necessarily. But I always want to get as much right as possible when shooting, to save myself from headaches later. The more level you get things while shooting, the more cleanly the images will line up when stitching.

It doesn't really have much to do with how the final image is leveled/rotated, as you can always adjust that later. But if you don't shoot with your rotational base level, you end up having to crop away much more of the stitched result; this makes composing more difficult, because sometimes you end up having to crop away something that was important, sometimes even ruining the whole image.

To be honest you might get better results shooting hand-held than from an uneven tripod (assuming your shutter speed is fast enough).

[kenw]

I tend to agree, it is usually easier to "get it right" in the camera; besides, rotating a panoramic shot after stitching can be a booger on the computer's power, to say nothing of the crop issues that Jeff mentions. Rotating the separate pics before stitching will cause no end of grief in trying to get them to stitch altho the softare you use can minimize that issue.

Most of my shots usually have some artificial vertical element that I use later to get the vertical, if not then an estimate is often close enough. It isn't an exact science and unless you are doing a 360 where the ends really do need to align visually, a careful "eyeball" level is often more than adequate. Practice and care can make a huge difference.

But do you even need a ballhead for landscape panoramics? Probably not, I believe ballheads are more often used for nature and more closeup work, altho most of us with a ballhead tend to use it for darn near everything anyway.

[darrenwilson]

Thanks so much for the detailed and helpful replies.

So the answer is "no" I probably won't be buying a new tripod this month. Based on your responses I will go out a few times armed with your advice and see if I can improve the results with the equipment I've already got.

Sometimes the low-tech way is the best way. Takes more work/patience/attention, though. I'll see where that gets me.

I'll share my results here when the weather clears. Thanks again.

[jeffkohn]

But do you even need a ballhead for landscape panoramics? Probably not, I believe ballheads are more often used for nature and more closeup work, altho most of us with a ballhead tend to use it for darn near everything anyway.

I actually find it puzzling that ballheads have become so universally popular. I guess because they're compact and also pretty quick and easy to use, as long as you don't need a lot of precision. But for a lot of types of photography, I don't think ballheads are a good choice - for me that would include landscapes, architecture, even macro. Anytime when you need to really carefully line up your composition, ballheads kinda suck because you don't have separate control of each axis. Also making very small adjustments can be difficult. I much prefer geared heads for this reason.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

.... Also making very small adjustments can be difficult. ....

this is where a ballhead with tension adjustment helps somewhat. Ballheads are much much faster to set up for those of us who need it to be fast, and by totally releasing the ball it becomes as flexible as a monopod: aircraft flybys, fast moving wildlife, etc.

[Carl Stone]

Strong consideration needs to be given toward how much setup time is important to you and your situation. Leveling by leg adjustment can be very time consuming compared to using leveling base under the head. Below is a link to an article that covers some of this, and you might find it useful.

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm

[SnapItUp]

If you have issues with foreground objects shifting, then this head is a good solution. Bogen / Manfrotto 303Plus It still needs a leveling base for ease of leveling but this head allows you to shift the camera so that it rotates about the nodal point to prevent that parallax shift.

[sknarberg]

To make good panoramas you need a good head as the Manfrotto 300N rotation base which upgrades with a lot of different stuff. If you want to see my panos visit www.steenknarberg.com and look somewhat down the page on the left. Cheers, Steen