Do I need a leveling tripod head?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

wotan1

wotan1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I have a Gitzo Systematic 3 series tripod.

I shoot mostly wildlife and landscape, I never do panoramas and I don't shoot video.

While my tripod has a level bubble it takes a lot of fiddling to get the base level and I rarely bother.

I usually shoot using a Wimberly gimbal head on long lenses and have a RRS BH-55 for general tripod work.

I generally use level gauges in the camera to square up my camera when shooting,, or I adjust in post.

What if any benefit to me would it be to add a leveling base to the tripod?

If I need one what is a good choice?
 
Member's gallery
Personally, I prefer to have the base of whatever head or gimbal, level, or pretty close to it. I got tired of fiddling with legs lengths and got an Acratech levelling base. You just need to set up within 15 degrees of level and with adjust the levelling base.
Some other brands cater for 20 odd degrees but even 15 is pretty obviously on the skew.

www.acratech.net

Acratech Leveling Bases - Fast Tripod Leveling

Use between your tripod and your tripod head to produce accurate and properly aligned images for panoramas, landscape or architectural photography.
www.acratech.net www.acratech.net
 
Member's gallery
I have switched to “video” style tripods that use a ball for leveling, I prefer 75mm. Fast and accurate enough for most work. For 360x180 panos I use for virtual tours I add a leveler, the Manfrotto 338.
 
Member's gallery
Myself, I just fiddle only enough to get things approximately level. Maybe I have a knack for it or something but it only takes me a minute. If I have a little bit of a tilted horizon with a gimbal I haven’t worried about it. One button fixes it in post. I had a leveling base once before and it was just as fiddly when I was trying to reach perfection. So I gave up on perfection and have been happier since. Just Just my experience.
 
Member's gallery
I have never used a gimbal, but for my ball head I have never used or needed a leveling base. I don't even use the option level in the viewfinder or the small bubble level built into my RRS ball head. I find it is easy to get things level just by looking through the viewfinder.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
I have a Gitzo Systematic 3 series tripod.

I shoot mostly wildlife and landscape, I never do panoramas and I don't shoot video.

While my tripod has a level bubble it takes a lot of fiddling to get the base level and I rarely bother.

I usually shoot using a Wimberly gimbal head on long lenses and have a RRS BH-55 for general tripod work.

I generally use level gauges in the camera to square up my camera when shooting,, or I adjust in post.

What if any benefit to me would it be to add a leveling base to the tripod?

If I need one what is a good choice?
Click to expand...
This being the case then I'd say no.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
I have a Gitzo Systematic 3 series tripod.

I shoot mostly wildlife and landscape, I never do panoramas and I don't shoot video.

While my tripod has a level bubble it takes a lot of fiddling to get the base level and I rarely bother.

I usually shoot using a Wimberly gimbal head on long lenses and have a RRS BH-55 for general tripod work.

I generally use level gauges in the camera to square up my camera when shooting,, or I adjust in post.

What if any benefit to me would it be to add a leveling base to the tripod?

If I need one what is a good choice?
Click to expand...

As long as I shot "only stills" I was like you, doing it pretty much the same way. When I began shooting video I became aware of the advantage of level horizons while shooting - as opposed to correcting while editing. That's when I got a leveling base.

I'm curious, if you "rarely bother" with exact leveling, do most of your "squaring up" using the camera levels or "in post" and "don't do panoramas & video", what's got you considering a leveling base ?
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
I have a Gitzo Systematic 3 series tripod.

I shoot mostly wildlife and landscape, I never do panoramas and I don't shoot video.

While my tripod has a level bubble it takes a lot of fiddling to get the base level and I rarely bother.

I usually shoot using a Wimberly gimbal head on long lenses and have a RRS BH-55 for general tripod work.

I generally use level gauges in the camera to square up my camera when shooting,, or I adjust in post.

What if any benefit to me would it be to add a leveling base to the tripod?

If I need one what is a good choice?
Click to expand...

I shoot everything except wildlife. Multiple heads, the BH55 and PG-02 doing most of the heavy lifting for stills and Cartoni Focus 8 for video.

I don't know how I'd operate without a leveling base. My most used lens in the field is probably the 14-24, and leveling is crucial for any kind of photography or the perspective gets really out if wack. I set up the legs to same lengths, adjust the level, then if needed micro-adjust the head.

The BH55 and PG-02 are on an RRS TA-3 and the Cartoni like most video heads (75mm bowl) has it built in. The beauty for me is that I can go between them in 2 minutes on the same RRS tripod (which has a 75mm bowl). In other words, the TA-3 converts the tripod from 75mm to flat-base.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
I have a Gitzo Systematic 3 series tripod.

I shoot mostly wildlife and landscape, I never do panoramas and I don't shoot video.

While my tripod has a level bubble it takes a lot of fiddling to get the base level and I rarely bother.

I usually shoot using a Wimberly gimbal head on long lenses and have a RRS BH-55 for general tripod work.

I generally use level gauges in the camera to square up my camera when shooting,, or I adjust in post.

What if any benefit to me would it be to add a leveling base to the tripod?

If I need one what is a good choice?
Click to expand...
Generally no, not with ball or gimbal heads. The only time I use a leveling base is when I’m traveling with my Flexshooter Pro hybrid head (to save weight), and want to use it for landscapes. The Flexhshooter is great for action shots, but not very good for doing landscapes and panos. To make it more versatile, I added a leveling base, which is easy and lightweight itself.
 
What I worry over is not the horizontal leveling, there seems to be a lot of visual cues to nudge it clockwise or anticlockwise in post, but the vertical I am oftentimes surprised when I turn on the leveler in the camera how far off my eye is. Maybe it doesn't matter that much if the image doesn't have any parallel lines in it, but I'd rather get it right if there was time. I don't have a leveling head, but it sure is fussy to adjust without one. It's almost easier to just hold the camera atop a monopod and watch the in-camera levelers. So yeah it would be cool.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
What if any benefit to me would it be to add a leveling base to the tripod?
Click to expand...
If you shoot much moving wildlife like flying birds or running mammals with a gimbal head, a level tripod helps quite a bit. When the gimbal base is level a pan is a true pan and follows the horizon without sloping up or down as you pan. That's very helpful when panning to track birds or any wildlife in motion so your horizons and environment doesn't start to slant as you pan. A leveling base can make it much easier to get that gimbal leveled instead of fiddling with individual tripod legs to get the tripod top leveled especially when working on hillsides or uneven terrain.

For static or even slowly moving subjects shot with a gimbal you can just loosen the rotating lens collar and make corrections to level things out but in fast action situations it's nice when a pan stays true to the horizon without having to constantly correct with the rotating lens collar. A leveled tripod head can help a lot with that.

Personally I like having a leveling head for panos but also when shooting wildlife action with a gimbal head.
 
Member's gallery
There is a lot of "stuff" out there that one could possibly buy. Better to get out and actually use your current gear. You will soon discover if you "need" something.....then you can research it. Time in the field is the best way to learn if you need more "stuff" or better technique or ???

FWIW - I've never used a leveling base - even when doing architecture. I use the bubble on the tripod and the guides and leveling indicators in my viewfinder when lining up a shot. For wildlife, I frame a bit loosely and have room to level up in post if necessary.
 
Member's gallery
Another user of the Acratech levelling base here. I do not trust myself to judge purely by eye, and levelling by fidling around with the legs is tedious. It is light and not too expensive when spread over the number of years I have used it.
 
Member's gallery
RockvilleBob said:
I have switched to “video” style tripods that use a ball for leveling, I prefer 75mm. Fast and accurate enough for most work. For 360x180 panos I use for virtual tours I add a leveler, the Manfrotto 338.
Click to expand...

The RRS TVC is a "stills" tripod (no spreaders, single sticks, very light CF) with a 75mm bowl that accommodates both a video head and a leveling base. Probably not the right tripod for a rigged Alexa, but perfect for my Z9.
 
Member's gallery
If you can successfully shot birds in flight while hand holding the camera, then no need for panning with a tripod head and no need for a self-leveling mechanism. I read the advice of a pro wildlife photographer to twist my body first and then while shooting a sequence to be unwinding my body as I panned with the camera. This coupled with a high fps rate works well enough.
 
Member's gallery
I suppose if I were a dedicated landscape shooter I’d be interested in one but as one who uses lenses with tripod collars, I see absolutely no need for one myself.
 
Member's gallery
I raised this issue because I never used a leveling base and I wondered if it would be helpful for me.

Turns out my photo buddy has a Gitzo leveling base. He is going to lend it to me to try out and I will report back on what I conclude. Since I have a Gitzo tripod it is likely to be compatible.
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
If you can successfully shot birds in flight while hand holding the camera, then no need for panning with a tripod head and no need for a self-leveling mechanism. I read the advice of a pro wildlife photographer to twist my body first and then while shooting a sequence to be unwinding my body as I panned with the camera. This coupled with a high fps rate works well enough.
Click to expand...
I have followed Steve Perry's recommendations and prefer to work with a tripod and gimbal when feasible. The Z 800mm PF is much easier to handle that way and I have had success in tracking birds that way using the Z9 with the bird subject detection active. There are other times where either a 600 or 400mm lens could be used handheld. I would find it difficult to hand hold the 800 for more than brief periods.
 
Member's gallery
I borrowed my friend's Gitzo brand leveling head. I am going to try it out for a while to see if I like using one of those on a shoot.

The process of leveling was pretty easy and I could see the advantage of using one of them to level things off.

I am going to try it out and see if I like it, in which case I will either buy it from him or get an Acratech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top