Arca-Swiss Cube

[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 .. (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

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.