Can ball head weight ratings be trusted?

[Kodachrome25]

I think I own something like 6 ball heads, one pan and tilt head and one fluid head pan head. The last time I had an issue with the tension on a ball head was while using my Arca Swiss B1 head in 1992, still have it and is my main head for 4x5. I was at an air show as part of a book project using a Nikon F4e with a 600mm F4. I had just got the head, did not adjust the tension right and the whole camera flopped forward real quick while I was making another adjustment. The camera and lens were fine but my pointer finger not so much. I had my finger resting on one of those pull bolts on a Gitzo tripod that allows the legs to splay out, the little bolt was driven right into the meat of my finger at the joint, I ended up with a few stitches.

Never had a single problem after that.

[John Layton]

To me, using a ball head with anything but the lightest of, and otherwise typically handheld cameras makes (almost) no sense. This has nothing to do with the degree of "lockability" or (adjustable) damping effectiveness, but more with the infinite axes of movement which a ball head affords, and which, IMHO, compromises any true sense of fine and decisive directional control.

More accurately, the only situation in which using a ball head makes practical sense to me is when I'm using an otherwise typically handheld (or "hand-holdable") camera, and even then only that with an eye level finder, where the "infinite axes" offered by a ball head allows me to closely emulate my own hand movements were I not using a tripod at all. My only departure from this is when I’m needing my LF setup to be as light and compact as possible, in which case I find my Feisol CF “Tall Traveller” with Photo-Clam ball head to be appropriately suitable for use with my Gowland Pocket-View 4x5 - provided that I am willing to accept a litany of compromises of actual use of this equipment once it is actually set up at a given location.

But to further answer this post, I find that most tripod/ball head/pan head ratings, in general, seem to only be reasonable (and then only at best) in cases where the total mass of the entire system (tripod/head/camera/lens) is truly centered (like this ever happens?), when environmental conditions are completely stable (no wind, etc.), when the total weight of the camera/lens/holder does not significantly exceed that of whatever supports it (and when its fore and aft mass is reasonably contained), and when the design/construction/choice of materials offer some vibration dampening qualities while not compromising overall stability. This means reasonably large effective (and even) clamping diameters of whatever rotates/locks (and good “slip-grip” qualities thereof), plus reasonably large, solid, and even footprints of contact - tripod to ground, tripod to head, and head to camera, plus judicious uses of anything pliable (rubberized cork, rubber, plastics, etc.), plus attention to properties of resonance…of the total system and of its individual components. Inattention to any of these aspects can present a weak link in an otherwise effective chain of support, and can render an otherwise great system either severely compromised or even essentially useless. Very sad (downright maddening actually) in cases where manufacturers just don’t seem to understand this (I won’t name names…and others’ mileage may vary).

So…given the above, plus the likelihood of other often unforeseen variables beyond my control - my own rule of thumb for interpreting weight ratings (of ball heads, pan heads, and tripods for that matter) is to basically divide them by factors of between two and four, depending on how I intend to use this equipment, and upon its qualities of design and manufacture.

[Sal Santamaura]

There are situations where a view camera on a ball head is the optimum approach with respect to minimizing weight. However, one must take measures to overcome the inherently maddening lack of independent axis motion control.

For my Compact II, shown in the attached image with a mounted 450mm f/8 Fujinon CM-W lens while set up at the Grand Canyon three weeks ago, I've settled on a Burzynski ball head. It fits right into a Gitzo's yoke, in lieu of the tripod's top plate, thereby keeping weight and the ball low. Atop the head I've mounted a Really Right Stuff (RRS) PC-LR lever-release panning clamp. Under the camera is a Kirk PZ-39 four inch square flat plate. That RRS clamp automatically adjusts to the plate's dovetail width.

After setting up the tripod, a RRS bubble is used to establish the clamp's plane, either horizontal or, in this case, tilted slightly forward. Upon clamping the camera in place, one is then able to pan without upsetting the chosen plane. This is the optimum configuration I've been able to establish for adequately supporting an 8x10 outfit. It eliminates the tendency toward vibration that less capable heads (both ball and three-way) exhibit while still minimizing what one must carry.

At ten pounds, the OP's Kodak weighs more than my Compact II. Since the Burzynski is no longer manufactured, the only ball head I'd consider trying, assuming a willingness to deal with greater kit weight, is an FLM FT 58. Its tilt lock might be sufficient to afford independent axis control and its locking force (based on my experience with the 48mm ball version) could be sufficient for the 2D-5x7. The only way to know is to try it.

[Ari]

There are situations where a view camera on a ball head is the optimum approach with respect to minimizing weight. However, one must take measures to overcome the inherently maddening lack of independent axis motion control.

For my Compact II, shown in the attached image with a mounted 450mm f/8 Fujinon CM-W lens while set up at the Grand Canyon three weeks ago, I've settled on a Burzynski ball head. It fits right into a Gitzo's yoke, in lieu of the tripod's top plate, thereby keeping weight and the ball low. Atop the head I've mounted a Really Right Stuff (RRS) PC-LR lever-release panning clamp. Under the camera is a Kirk PZ-39 four inch square flat plate. That RRS clamp automatically adjusts to the plate's dovetail width.

After setting up the tripod, a RRS bubble is used to establish the clamp's plane, either horizontal or, in this case, tilted slightly forward. Upon clamping the camera in place, one is then able to pan without upsetting the chosen plane. This is the optimum configuration I've been able to establish for adequately supporting an 8x10 outfit. It eliminates the tendency toward vibration that less capable heads (both ball and three-way) exhibit while still minimizing what one must carry.

At ten pounds, the OP's Kodak weighs more than my Compact II. Since the Burzynski is no longer manufactured, the only ball head I'd consider trying, assuming a willingness to deal with greater kit weight, is an FLM FT 58. Its tilt lock might be sufficient to afford independent axis control and its locking force (based on my experience with the 48mm ball version) could be sufficient for the 2D-5x7. The only way to know is to try it.

When I had a Toyo 810M, it sat atop an FLM CB-58FTR all the time, occasionally supplanted by a smaller CB-48FTR when I wanted a more compact head.
The larger 58 head didn't have to huff and puff to get the job done, but both heads performed flawlessly with the 16-pound Toyo.
The tilt lock is quite effective in getting the camera levelled quickly and keeping the camera on-axis while tilting the ball from top to bottom.

[Drew Wiley]

Getting minimum carry weight and maximum stability at the same time is easy. Just forget the whole tripod head concept, and bolt you camera right to the platform top of a tripod designed that way to begin with. That's how surveyors did it for decades, and that's how I normally do it. But your solution, Sal, sounds
like something from the Young Frankenstein movie to me. Last thing one earth I'd want a 450 extension is the combination of a ballhead and a quick release plate.
I shoot a 450 routinely on my Phillips, and even a 600 sometimes. The 450 is also one of my favorite lenses on the Sinar Norma. Not much forgiveness with these
constant winds around here.

[Sal Santamaura]

...But your solution, Sal, sounds like something from the Young Frankenstein movie to me. Last thing one earth I'd want a 450 extension is the combination of a ballhead and a quick release plate.
I shoot a 450 routinely on my Phillips, and even a 600 sometimes. The 450 is also one of my favorite lenses on the Sinar Norma. Not much forgiveness with these
constant winds around here.

Nothing "frankenstein" about it. The plate provides 16 square inches of contact area with my Compact II's base. The clamp exerts 50 pounds of force on the dovetail. The Burzynski head locks down tight as a drum. This configuration provides all the resistance to vibration, even under very windy conditions, I can imagine needing. That applies just as well when my Fujinon 600C is in use.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm under the impression that certain laws of physics haven't been repealed yet. I'm glad your system is working for you, Sal. I'll stick to my own, and for good
reason.

[Pamelageewhizz]

The woman I had spoken to on the phone claimed that a couple guys there shot Kodak 2d 8x10. Sounded fishy but as I said I try to buy us made goods when possible. She made all sorts of promises on how the drag function worked so well... ya
Very fortunate the camera did not suffer any real damage. May have gotten a couple new nicks or scuffs but it's hard to tell on a wooden camera that's 100 years old or so. This was my first go at ball heads. I was having a difficult time even finding any tripod with good reviews that claimed to hold more than the weight of the camera. I shoot for 4 to 5 times more. Didn't work this time.
What angered me the most tho was their charging me 15% for the damage caused by their product. Plus I had to pay the shipping and insurance to get it back to them. Would have been ok with it had they simply refunded all my money. Would definitely never refer anyone to them.

[Drew Wiley]

I wouldn't put much faith on casual reviews. You'd be amazed at how superficial even some pro writer gear reviews can be. By contrast, there is a lot of cumulative real-world experience on this forum. We might have our differing opinions and preferences, but this is largely based on actual experience, not
marketing BS or the anticipation of something free if you publish only good statements about it.