How to take off a head from a tripod

[RTX 3070 I7 11800h]

Hello, I have this tripod https://www.amazon.com.au/Manfrotto-MKCOMPACTACN-BK-Compact-Action-Tripod/dp/B00L6F16L0/ref=asc_df_B00L6F16L0/?tag=googleshopdsk-22&linkCode=df0&hvadid=341791754774&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7324186889360774162&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9071391&hvtargid=pla-383896234951&psc=1 the 61 inch and I want to take off the head so I can put on a fluid head. But how?

[Bombastinator]

23 minutes ago, RTX 2070 Max-Q said:

Hello, I have this tripod https://www.amazon.com.au/Manfrotto-MKCOMPACTACN-BK-Compact-Action-Tripod/dp/B00L6F16L0/ref=asc_df_B00L6F16L0/?tag=googleshopdsk-22&linkCode=df0&hvadid=341791754774&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7324186889360774162&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9071391&hvtargid=pla-383896234951&psc=1 the 61 inch and I want to take off the head so I can put on a fluid head. But how?

One thing that can be really odd about tripods is they have very unusual screw mounts.  The first screw design was British and quite old.  It holds better than basically all other screw designs but is more complex to manufacture.  There are some fairly proecise and odd angles that are difficult to machine.  Basically the only thing that still uses it is camera tripods.  I’ve heard the name of the standard pronounced “fips” but I don’t know how it’s spelled.  The screw won’t fit well on just about anything but the bottom of a camera though. 

[RTX 3070 I7 11800h]

30 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

One thing that can be really odd about tripods is they have very unusual screw mounts.  The first screw design was British and quite old.  It holds better than basically all other screw designs but is more complex to manufacture.  There are some fairly proecise and odd angles that are difficult to machine.  Basically the only thing that still uses it is camera tripods.  I’ve heard the name of the standard pronounced “fips” but I don’t know how it’s spelled.  The screw won’t fit well on just about anything but the bottom of a camera though. 

so I cant take off the head.

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, RTX 2070 Max-Q said:

so I cant take off the head.

This is a bit confusing because a tripod is basically a head and legs.  “Taking off the head” and “ replacing the legs” would be more or less the same thing.

 

when you say “fluid head” you want it for smooth motion, correct?  There may be a confusion between a “camera” tripod and a “video” tripod.

[RTX 3070 I7 11800h]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

This is a bit confusing because a tripod is basically a head and legs.  “Taking off the head” and “ replacing the legs” would be more or less the same thing.

 

when you say “fluid head” you want it for smooth motion, correct?  There may be a confusion between a “camera” tripod and a “video” tripod.

I should Buy I new tripod I made a post here https://linustechtips.com/topic/1338806-best-sort-of-compact-video-tripod/?tab=comments#comment-14738433

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, RTX 2070 Max-Q said:

I should Buy I new tripod I made a post here https://linustechtips.com/topic/1338806-best-sort-of-compact-video-tripod/?tab=comments#comment-14738433

Here’s the thing: if you’ve got a camera that uses a “fips” screw, it’s meant for still images.  Video cameras don’t always have it though.  The convergence of still cameras and video cameras means you may have a still camera with a “fips” mount, that you are wanting a video head for that may not come with a “fips” mount.   You want a particular brand of tripod because it is well reviewed, but while it may be well reviewed for one type of use that doesn’t mean it’s useful for the other at all. 
 

Video cameras used to be a whole lot heavier and a lot of video tripods are much heavier than still camera mounts. The solution to this one wouldn’t be to take apart a tripod. There really isn’t enough to take apart.  Adaptors are made though. What you have a pic of looks like a still camera tripod not a video tripod.  There won’t BE a smooth motion head for a still camera tripod because still cameras specifically don’t  WANT to move. 

[RTX 3070 I7 11800h]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Here’s the thing: if you’ve got a camera that uses a “fips” screw, it’s meant for still images.  Video cameras don’t always have it though.  The convergence of still cameras and video cameras means you may have a still camera with a “fips” mount, that you are wanting a video head for that may not come with a “fips” mount.   You want a particular brand of tripod because it is well reviewed, but while it may be well reviewed for one type of use that doesn’t mean it’s useful for the other at all. 
 

Video cameras used to be a whole lot heavier and a lot of video tripods are much heavier than still camera mounts. The solution to this one wouldn’t be to take apart a tripod. There really isn’t enough to take apart.  Adaptors are made though. What you have a pic of looks like a still camera tripod not a video tripod.  There won’t BE a smooth motion head for a still camera tripod because still cameras specifically don’t  WANT to move. 

you are trying to say

Edit: I want magnus vt300

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, RTX 2070 Max-Q said:

you are trying to say

Edit: I want magnus vt300

I’m not familiar with brand names for tripods. I’m grotesquely out of date for that.  A fluid head isn’t a still camera head though, it’s a video head.

[RTX 3070 I7 11800h]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I’m not familiar with brand names for tripods. I’m grotesquely out of date for that.  A fluid head isn’t a still camera head though, it’s a video head.

I want to put my canon m50 on a video head Ofc. Why would I make this post.

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, RTX 2070 Max-Q said:

I want to put my canon m50 on a video head Ofc. Why would I make this post.

Figured it would have to be something like that.  That’s marketed as a still camera.  Could very likely have a fips screw on the bottom.  The solution for this problem long ago was to use “quick mounts”. A clip on attachment. You screw the “camera” (be it still or video) to the quick mount and then use the quick mount to attach to the tripod with the head you want.  It’s possible that a video head may be hard to do for a compact tripod because movement creates torque and a still camera tripod may not have the tort ion all strength to not twist when force is applied.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Bombastinator

[RTX 3070 I7 11800h]

18 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Figured it would have to be something like that.  That’s marketed as a still camera.  Could very likely have a fips screw on the bottom.  The solution for this problem long ago was to use “quick mounts”. A clip on attachment. You screw the “camera” (be it still or video) to the quick mount and then use the quick mount to attach to the tripod with the head you want.  It’s possible that a video head may be hard to do for a compact tripod because movement creates torque and a still camera tripod may not have the tort ion all strength to not twist when force is applied.

uses a quarter inch

[Bombastinator]

Just now, RTX 2070 Max-Q said:

uses a quarter inch

There’s quarter inch fips and quarter inch standard unfortunately. What makes fips fips isn’t the diameter it’s the cut of the threads.  Fips threads look a bit “wilted” compared to standard threads.  The cut on the bottom of the thread is slightly different than the cut on top.

[Blue4130]

16 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

There’s quarter inch fips and quarter inch standard unfortunately. What makes fips fips isn’t the diameter it’s the cut of the threads.  Fips threads look a bit “wilted” compared to standard threads.  The cut on the bottom of the thread is slightly different than the cut on top.

What are you going on about? Cameras use standard 1/4x20 threads. They have for a long, long time. 

[Blue4130]

On 5/17/2021 at 1:37 PM, RTX 2070 Max-Q said:

Hello, I have this tripod https://www.amazon.com.au/Manfrotto-MKCOMPACTACN-BK-Compact-Action-Tripod/dp/B00L6F16L0/ref=asc_df_B00L6F16L0/?tag=googleshopdsk-22&linkCode=df0&hvadid=341791754774&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7324186889360774162&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9071391&hvtargid=pla-383896234951&psc=1 the 61 inch and I want to take off the head so I can put on a fluid head. But how?

It's difficult to tell from these photos, but if possible, the head would just unscrew. That is how the majority of tripods work. 

[RTX 3070 I7 11800h]

4 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

What are you going on about? Cameras use standard 1/4x20 threads. They have for a long, long time. 

I was trying to say that.

 

4 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

It's difficult to tell from these photos, but if possible, the head would just unscrew. That is how the majority of tripods work. 

No you cant reviews say.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, RTX 2070 Max-Q said:

I was trying to say that.

 

No you cant reviews say.

But which kind of camera? This is the issue with fips is It uses “English measurement” there is 1/4 20 standard and 1/4 20 fips.  And looking at the hole you can’t tell the difference.  Even looking at the screw it’s really hard to tell the difference. A 1/4 standard and 1/4 20 fips almost but not quite fit together.  Camera mounts were the last stand of fips. It has been used since view camera days and was still common in the mid 90’s.  Video cameras didn’t adopt it though.  I haven’t dealt with cameras for some years.  I suppose it is possible that fips died out completely, but the camera in question is a a cannon designed for stills.  If there was a camera that still had a fips mount that would be it.  It’s something to look out for.  Still camera tripods have no use for motion heads of any kind.  They’re STILL cameras. They also don’t suffer the same tortional forces as tripods with motion heads. 
 

look at video camera tripods in general.  They tend to have 3 or more rods per leg, and they tend to have supporting brackets near the bottom of the leg system.  That’s to deal with torsion. More expensive and less compact.  The only way to get tripods that are built fundamentally differently is to have stronger materials, and while things like carbon fiber are stiffer they’re not vastly stiffer.  Or not enough vastly stiffer.  A lot lighter yes, but not a lot smaller.  Also, they’re  expensive so moldy old extruded aluminum is still going to be the major material. People have been designing with that stuff for a really really long time.   Modern video cameras are a lot lighter than old ones so less support is needed, but they also still need to turn, so they’re s STILL more stress on a video tripod than a still camera tripod.  Tripods with standard threads may be easier to find. It’s not impossible fips died out.  If it did there’s going have to be something like a lock nut because standard thread didn’t hold as well as fips. This is part of what kept fips around.  The additional cost of the thread was offset by lack of need of a lock nut.  Dude went to a still camera store and bought a still camera tripod with a head designed for still cameras.  I mentioned fips because it might be only one of the things that makes still cameras and video camera different.  

[For Science!]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

But which kind of camera? This is the issue with fips is It uses “English measurement” there is 1/4 20 standard and 1/4 20 fips.  And looking at the hole you can’t tell the difference.  Even looking at the screw it’s really hard to tell the difference. A 1/4 standard and 1/4 20 fips almost but not quite fit together.  Camera mounts were the last stand of fips. It has been used since view camera days and was still common in the mid 90’s.  Video cameras didn’t adopt it though.  I haven’t dealt with cameras for some years.  I suppose it is possible that fips died out completely, but the camera in question is a a cannon designed for stills.  If there was a camera that still had a fips mount that would be it.  It’s something to look out for.  Still camera tripods have no use for motion heads of any kind.  They’re STILL cameras. They also don’t suffer the same tortional forces as tripods with motion heads. 
 

look at video camera tripods in general.  They tend to have 3 or more rods per leg, and they tend to have supporting brackets near the bottom of the leg system.  That’s to deal with torsion. More expensive and less compact.  The only way to get tripods that are built fundamentally differently is to have stronger materials, and while things like carbon fiber are stiffer they’re not vastly stiffer.  Or not enough vastly stiffer.  A lot lighter yes, but not a lot smaller.  Also, they’re  expensive so moldy old extruded aluminum is still going to be the major material. People have been designing with that stuff for a really really long time.   Modern video cameras are a lot lighter than old ones so less support is needed, but they also still need to turn, so they’re s STILL more stress on a video tripod than a still camera tripod.  Tripods with standard threads may be easier to find. It’s not impossible fips died out.  If it did there’s going have to be something like a lock nut because standard thread didn’t hold as well as fips. This is part of what kept fips around.  The additional cost of the thread was offset by lack of need of a lock nut.  Dude went to a still camera store and bought a still camera tripod with a head designed for still cameras.  I mentioned fips because it might be only one of the things that makes still cameras and video camera different.  

The tripod camera connection has an ISO standard 1222:2010 https://www.iso.org/standard/55918.html and is defined at 1/4-20 UNC or in some cases 3/8-16 UNC. Tripod-camera mounts have been largely standardized towards the Arca-Swiss format and is not camera brand specific (i.e. Canon cameras do not need a special plate or screw vs Nikon or Sony). I could only find FIP mentioned in the context of piping and plumbing, so this may not be relevant for cameras, at least for the last 20 years or so.

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, For Science! said:

The tripod camera connection has an ISO standard 1222:2010 https://www.iso.org/standard/55918.html and is defined at 1/4-20 UNC or in some cases 3/8-16 UNC. Tripod-camera mounts have been largely standardized towards the Arca-Swiss format and is not camera brand specific (i.e. Canon cameras do not need a special plate or screw vs Nikon or Sony). I could only find FIP mentioned in the context of piping and plumbing, so this may not be relevant for cameras, at least for the last 20 years or so.

Looking at the link, there were 3 changes. 1987, 2003, and 2010.  I could see that possibly being a transition from fips. The link mentions dates but not what the standards actually were. My camera experience is pre 2003.

[For Science!]

13 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Looking at the link, there were 3 changes. 1987, 2003, and 2010.  I could see that possibly being a transition from fips. The link mentions dates but not what the standards actually were. My camera experience is pre 2003.

Prior to UNC, some associations recommended BSW as the standard, perhaps you are thinking of this. However BSW and UNC are close enough that you can actually use a UNC screw into a BSW standard mount.

 

And just for the record, even in the 1987 standard (and also in the 1973 edition), the threading was already specified as 1/4-20 UNC and 3/8-16 UNC.
https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/5836/d4306c68270e476eaea3fba711a65dea/ISO-1222-1987.pdf

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, For Science! said:

Prior to UNC, some associations recommended BSW as the standard, perhaps you are thinking of this. However BSW and UNC are close enough that you can actually use a UNC screw into a BSW standard mount.

 

And just for the record, even in the 1987 standard (and also in the 1973 edition), the threading was already specified as 1/4-20 UNC and 3/8-16 UNC.
https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/5836/d4306c68270e476eaea3fba711a65dea/ISO-1222-1987.pdf

Looking at page 2 where there are diagrams that doesn’t look like Fips to me.  I can tell you in the 90’s it was still a big issue though.  One could easily run into cameras or tripods that just wouldn’t work well together.  Standard and fips would fit together, just not real well.  Tended to not screw in all the way. People in photography though like things to fit perfectly. 

[Blue4130]

52 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Looking at page 2 where there are diagrams that doesn’t look like Fips to me.  I can tell you in the 90’s it was still a big issue though.  One could easily run into cameras or tripods that just wouldn’t work well together.  Standard and fips would fit together, just not real well.  Tended to not screw in all the way. People in photography though like things to fit perfectly. 

From all of my googling, fips is never mentioned other than plumbing. Not one of my dozens of cameras use anything other than one of two sizes. 3/8thx16 or 1/4x20, and my cameras span from 1930 to 2015.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

From all of my googling, fips is never mentioned other than plumbing. Not one of my dozens of cameras use anything other than one of two sizes. 3/8thx16 or 1/4x20, and my cameras span from 1930 to 2015.

Well that’s a problem.  I’ll give you what else I got.  I don’t know how it’s spelled. I may have something critical wrong.  Thinking about it hard the name “whitworth” also pops into my mind.  That could be something else though. I’m thinking automotive.  Old British cars.  I still think fips or something that sounds like fips though.  I got the information verbally first when I ran into the problem and asked someone, and again in a videography class.  Tripods were apparently an issue.  Students wanted small light tripods they could tote easily but the problem was the tripods that fit video cameras weren’t like that for reasons described.  The smallest that could be gotten was still over 2 feet long folded and obnoxiously heavy. 

I found further evidence when dealing with view cameras.  Hundred year old view camera tripods still worked with modern view cameras because of the screw situation.  This is what I remember about the standard: The name was the name of the guy who did the standardization system, and it’s ooold.  One of the first standards, so something industrial revolution.  It predates most screws.  The  problem with it was making the screws used too many machining motions. Basically they were too good.  This also made them too expensive though.  They did not become very popular.  They hold unusually well.  They basically don’t back out.  This can make stuff extra complicated sometimes because stuff that might otherwise need a lock washer or a contra rotating nut or something sometimes doesn’t.  Which is why they were still used.  View camera people who have their camera move during a shot tend to use very foul language.  There’s a sort of “cup” to the flat of the screw thread. it’s very shallow, but because it this the threads are not symmetrical.  not the pitch, not the thread size, the thread shape.  The pitch and thread size are the same as other “English units” which can make it extra annoying.
 

There probably are some small light video tripods that can stand tall now.  It’s been a while.  There will be physics limitations.  I don’t see how they could be made cheap too though unless they’re really small unfolded.

[For Science!]

11 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Well that’s a problem.  I’ll give you what else I got.  I don’t know how it’s spelled. I may have something critical wrong.  Thinking about it hard the name “whitworth” also pops into my mind.  That could be something else though. I’m thinking automotive.  Old British cars.  I still think fips or something that sounds like fips though.  I got the information verbally first when I ran into the problem and asked someone, and again in a videography class.  Tripods were apparently an issue.  Students wanted small light tripods they could tote easily but the problem was the tripods that fit video cameras weren’t like that for reasons described.  The smallest that could be gotten was still over 2 feet long folded and obnoxiously heavy. 

I found further evidence when dealing with view cameras.  Hundred year old view camera tripods still worked with modern view cameras because of the screw situation.  This is what I remember about the standard: The name was the name of the guy who did the standardization system, and it’s ooold.  One of the first standards, so something industrial revolution.  It predates most screws.  The  problem with it was making the screws used too many machining motions. Basically they were too good.  This also made them too expensive though.  They did not become very popular.  They hold unusually well.  They basically don’t back out.  This can make stuff extra complicated sometimes because stuff that might otherwise need a lock washer or a contra rotating nut or something sometimes doesn’t.  Which is why they were still used.  View camera people who have their camera move during a shot tend to use very foul language.  There’s a sort of “cup” to the flat of the screw thread. it’s very shallow, but because it this the threads are not symmetrical.  not the pitch, not the thread size, the thread shape.  The pitch and thread size are the same as other “English units” which can make it extra annoying.
 

There probably are some small light video tripods that can stand tall now.  It’s been a while.  There will be physics limitations.  I don’t see how they could be made cheap too though unless they’re really small unfolded.

You went on a right tangent there, but yes, as I mentioned above prior to UNC some photography associations made recommendations with BSW screws, which stand for British Standard Whitworth. But nothing again, nothing on fips

[Bombastinator]

15 minutes ago, For Science! said:

You went on a right tangent there, but yes, as I mentioned above prior to UNC some photography associations made recommendations with BSW screws, which stand for British Standard Whitworth. But nothing again, nothing on fips

It was a dump of everything I remember on the subject.  View camera people hating having their cameras move isn’t relavent except as it applies to why someone would be frothing about using a weird old standard.  So why am I remembering “fips”?  Perhaps a variation on whitworth?  Whitworth got used in a lot of older British stuff.  I remember the name having more to do with classic cars though.  Including older minis? Might be what threw me.  A stronger association with one than the other. Does the cupped thread thing describe whitworth?

Edited May 18, 2021 by Bombastinator

[For Science!]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Does the cupped thread thing describe whitworth?

It does not. I think there is just some confusion here on your side with some plumbing terminology, and we should just leave it there.