LF ballhead sought- current offerings questions

[Colin Graham]

I'm starting to rethink my resistance to ballheads for LF work, especially the ones that allow independent 2D tilting. What are current options? Does Arca Swiss make a ball head than can be tilted along just one axis at a time?

I know FLM has several models, but can't find much user feedback about those. Anyone using one of the FLM 'FT' models with success? Their load ratings seem crazy, so not sure how to properly size one. I'm currently using a 5x7, about 10lbs max with my biggest lens, and no plans to format jump. Coming from a Ries double-tilt, a good panning base would also be really nice.


The Arca P0 looks interesting in that it's also a leveling base, even though it doesn't appear that you can isolate the tilt. Also, not sure how awkward the panning function and other knobs would be so close to the bottom of a field camera. They look simple, light-weight and low-profile, which is great. Anyone using one of these?


http://youtu.be/wP24yVv6on0

[Drew Wiley]

Ballheads for LF? De-evolution, going backwards.

[Colin Graham]

So you have not had much success with them then? And by all means, feel free to speak of actual experience instead of knee jerk biases.

[Ari]

Colin,
For more information, reviews and videos on FLM ball heads, see the website: www.flmcanada.com
There's plenty of information there.

There are plenty of threads here about ball heads vs. 3-way heads for LF use, and there are a few top-shelf ball heads that work very well for LF; they are worth a closer look.
If you think you might be interested in getting a ball head for your 5x7, you should definitely try it for yourself to see if it works for you. Nobody else can tell you what's right for you and your working methods.

[Colin Graham]

Hey, I'm just looking for folks with experience with any of these ballheads, or suggestions of ones they have used with success. If you think that's out of line or a hassle, just don't respond to the thread. I realize that only I can decide what is right for me, but user feedback is frequently helpful in making an informed decision, especially since I live in a remote rural area where I don't have access to big photo suppliers where I could actually try things out in person.

As I said, I'm just rethinking my own biases against ballheads at this point. Not looking for tips on deciding between the different types of heads. I currently use a Ries double-tilt which is great, but doesn't work as well on Gitzo. Not at all interested in three way head, I have used a G1570, which I didn't like very much.

Incidentally, some of these ballheads are rather new, I think the P0 was last updated in April '14, so there isn't much info about them in the archives. I think FLM recently updated some of their line as well, not sure. I know these myriad ballhead threads are a real annoyance, but the offerings do frequently change.

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Colin,

Ari sent me one of the FLM heads to review, which I'm still working on, and I spent a number of weeks with one. Arca used to have a B2 with separate controls for each axis, but I'm not familiar with their current line.

I did find the axis locking feature on the FLM head to be useful, especially with larger cameras at max extension. I used my 8x10 Kodak D2 with an extension rail. The main issue with a ball head and a very large camera is that when you unlock the head, you have to be holding the camera very securely with one hand, and you have to be able to move only in the direction needed. This can be really challenging with most ball heads. It's very important to make sure the camera is balanced properly on the head.

I compared the FLM to my standard ballhead, and Arca B1. Two things stand out. First, the main locking knob on the FLM has a very fine thread. That means it allows very precise and progressive locking of the head. You don't need to crank it all the way one way or the other. As such, there's less of a danger of loosening the head too much, allowing the camera to crash. Second, the locking axis is useful. My method was to point the camera down a bit in the direction of the notch in the tripod head. I'd then pan to my desired framing, and raise the camera to the desired height.

Overall, the FLM head impressed me. If I was in the market for a new ball head, I'd give them a very serious look, especially since Ari is such a helpful guy. The two features I mentioned are better than my admittedly older Arca.

[Colin Graham]

Awesome, that's great info-thanks a bunch Peter! Looking forward to reading the review when you are done with it. Seriously leaning towards a CB48 or 58, but the 121lb rating on the 58mm ball seems like overkill for 5x7.

[cowanw]

Agree with what Peter has said. I would add though the difference in movements; on the one hand, holding the camera and shifting it and, on the other hand, the extra leverage of a handle acting as a bit of a lever.
The Flm works very well. In the studio, the leverage of the handles of my 3 way head are nice.

[Peter De Smidt]

Colin, I would ignore the weight ratings. What 5x7 will you be using? I've not used a Ries head. What about it don't you like?

[Colin Graham]

Peter,

Ries heads are intended for use with the Ries legs design, with a head-mounting bolt that passes completely through the leg yoke, which has a knob that's accessible from below. Essentially, that's the only way to pan a Ries head without using some sort of supplemental panning base- by loosening this knob, panning, re-tightening. Works fine for the Ries and any surveyor-style tripod, and I really do like the setup very much for landscapes and such.

But I have a backup Gitzo tripod that's mostly for indoor use, since my surveyor tripod is usually dirty, wet, or just scuffs up the floors with the spikes. Usually I'll swap the Ries head out, but would prefer to use a head that's a better match for the Gitzo legs, since I with this arrangement I can only pan the double-tilt head by loosening and spinning the center column on the Gitzo.

Hope all that made sense. The 5x7 is a homemade (http://colinflanarygraham.com/darkshop/?p=1415) one. Not lightweight, but not particularly heavy either.

Was the 58mm version what you were using for 8x10? Thanks again for the info.

[Peter De Smidt]

Got it. It was an FLM CB-48FTII, which is a bit smaller than my Arca B1. For your use, I'd lean towards the bigger head.

[N Dhananjay]

I've used a Ries A series tripod with the A series head with my 8x10 and 8x20 and I am very fond of them. However, I have had very bad experiences checking equipment and carry on for the large 8x20 is not very feasible. So, I wanted something lighter for use with a smaller format that I could use when travelling by air. I recently got an FLM tripod and head from Ari. These are very well made tripods and heads. They are very steady and solid. I was dubious about ball heads because I need the individual axes locks. The tilt lock function on the FLM head works very well and actually makes it as straightforward to use as individual axes lock designs. These are very thoughtfully designed.

I should also mention that the workflow method, or the 'feel' of working with them, is slightly different. I think that is what Ari meant when he was suggesting trying it to see if it works for you. For what it is worth, I believe it only takes a bit of time to get used to the 'feel' and keep in mind that I have years with the Ries and barely any time with the FLM.

I should also give a shout out to Ari - a gentleman and a pleasure to deal with.

Cheers, DJ

[Colin Graham]

Thanks DJ, very helpful. The feedback from this thread is really confirming what I'd hoped would be true, so just about ready to order one.

That Arca Swiss P0 is still nagging though. Unusual designs like that always lead me down the garden path... I'm tying not to let myself get suckered in.

Didn't manufacturers and retailers used to specify what the intended format range of their tripods and heads were, and not just by weight? The FLM site is helpful, but doesn't list the diameter of their heads at the base and platform. You can sort of guess at these sizes by the diameter of the ball I suppose. But it would be nice to know the exact diameter at the base and the head, to see how well it matches up with tripod and camera size. The panning base flares out at the bottom and the plain/non-QR platforms look undersized on the larger heads, so it's difficult to tell what type of cameras they are intended for.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. Thanks again all for the help with this. It's been 10 years since I shopped for a tripod head, and much has changed.

[Peter De Smidt]

I don't think I have that measurement. The 48 looked fine on a Gitzo series 3. It looked a little smallish sitting on a series 5.

One thing to remember, especially if you have a field camera, is how stiff the bed of your camera is. A friend of mine has a Zone VI 8x10. He uses it with a Really Right Stuff Bh-55, a head in the same class as those we've been talking about. The head is plenty strong, but with a small quick release plate on the camera, he had sharpness problems. In looking the system over, it was due to flex in the 8x10's bed. His fix was to use a long Arca Swiss compatible mounting plate.

[Colin Graham]

Yeah, that's a really good point- I've gotten really accustomed to having the 4"x4" platform of the Ries head. The bed on my camera seems really rigid, but then again what wouldn't on that size of platform? Before I buy anything maybe I'll make a simple spacer disc to emulate the size of the FLM platform, to see if I have any flex or vibration issues. I'm not wild about QR plates, but might have to reconsider that bias as well.

I have a mill and suppose I could make an oversized adapter plate out of aluminum if needed, but would prefer not to have to do any mods on a $500+ head.

[cowanw]

This is what I use on my 8x10
http://www.jobu-design.com/Surefoot-NX4--70_p_28.html
then the longer and more old fashioned an arca compatible clamp you put on the head the better.

[Colin Graham]

Thank you Bill, good to know that there is an aftermarket plate already available that will fit.

[angusparker]

The RRS ball heads are well made although they don't isolate the movement in any plane. I use their smallest BH-25 with my 4x5 Chamonix. The FLM heads look really interesting if I was buying anew. Arca Swiss makes the D4 which is a completely geared head fairly light weight that I would say is good for 5x7 - another direction of course. Ries heads only really work with their tripod and are overkill for most applications except ULF given the weight penalty of the wooden tripod. My 2 cents.

[Peter De Smidt]

There are a whole bunch of Arca compatible plates available. A quick search on Ebay will bring up a tremendous amount of sizes. I just bought an 8" one for use on a macro rig. If your camera has two screw sockets, you can use two screws to secure an Arca style plate to the bottom. You'd never have to worry about the camera spinning on the head.

[Zndrson]

For those looking for a less expensive solution, I've been eying the Vanguard SBH-300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/745955-REG/Vanguard_SBH_300_SBH_300_Ballhead_W_2_Bubble.html). Under $100 retail and rated up to 70 lbs. Not sure, but I imagine it would work ok for 5x7. 8x10 would be much more difficult. I think it'd be perfect for 4x5. I'm currently getting by with a smaller ballhead but would like a larger ball for finer adjustments.

[Ari]

Didn't manufacturers and retailers used to specify what the intended format range of their tripods and heads were, and not just by weight? The FLM site is helpful, but doesn't list the diameter of their heads at the base and platform. You can sort of guess at these sizes by the diameter of the ball I suppose. But it would be nice to know the exact diameter at the base and the head, to see how well it matches up with tripod and camera size. The panning base flares out at the bottom and the plain/non-QR platforms look undersized on the larger heads, so it's difficult to tell what type of cameras they are intended for.


For that information, you can see our catalogue: http://www.flmcanada.com/flm-catalogue.html
Or see the chart at the bottom of this page: http://www.flmcanada.com/ball-heads.html

[Michael Graves]

The Photoclam Gold is an outstanding product. I've been using two of them for a couple of years now and have no desire to change. They're not that terribly expensive either.

[Colin Graham]

For that information, you can see our catalogue: http://www.flmcanada.com/flm-catalogue.html
Or see the chart at the bottom of this page: http://www.flmcanada.com/ball-heads.html

Thanks, I didn't notice that chart or the catalog on the site earlier, thanks for pointing them out. It looks like FLM uses the same size platform on most of their heads, about 45mm or so. Does that sound about right?

[Ari]

Thanks, I didn't notice that chart or the catalog on the site earlier, thanks for pointing them out. It looks like FLM uses the same size platform on most of their heads, about 45mm or so. Does that sound about right?

No, they all use different sizes, ranging from 55mm bases to 78mm bases. Yes, they are slightly flared for easier reading.
For me, the sweet spot is the 48mm-size ball head. It is light and compact, as are the 38mm and 43mm. The 58mm represents a significant jump in size and bulk, not so much in weight.
I can use the 48 with my Toyo 810M if I have to, but I prefer to use the 58 for the extra bit of insurance it gives with a camera that heavy.
I think with your 5x7, you would be quite happy with a 48mm-size ball head.

[Colin Graham]

I'm talking about the camera attachment platform, not the base. The platform with the cork surface. I did see the base diameter sizes on the chart, so thanks again for pointing that out.
I would still like to try to use this without a QR plate if possible, so if I knew the size of the CB-48FT's platform, I could test my camera's rigidity by making a mockup. If it's too small for my rig, I'll go the with one of the FLM head/QR adapter bundles that will accept the longer adapter plates mentioned earlier. In the picture of the 48mm ballhead, the plaftform looks slightly bigger, so I'll just try 50mm and see how that works for my 5x7.
And thanks for the recommendation on the appropriate model, that's enormously helpful.

http://www.flmcanada.com/uploads/5/7/9/8/5798107/8961685.jpg?165


No, they all use different sizes, ranging from 55mm bases to 78mm bases. Yes, they are slightly flared for easier reading.
For me, the sweet spot is the 48mm-size ball head. It is light and compact, as are the 38mm and 43mm. The 58mm represents a significant jump in size and bulk, not so much in weight.
I can use the 48 with my Toyo 810M if I have to, but I prefer to use the 58 for the extra bit of insurance it gives with a camera that heavy.
I think with your 5x7, you would be quite happy with a 48mm-size ball head.

[gnuyork]

I use the FLM and I think it's great.

[Ari]

I'm talking about the camera attachment platform, not the base. The platform with the cork surface. I did see the base diameter sizes on the chart, so thanks again for pointing that out.
I would still like to try to use this without a QR plate if possible, so if I knew the size of the CB-48FT's platform, I could test my camera's rigidity by making a mockup. If it's too small for my rig, I'll go the with one of the FLM head/QR adapter bundles that will accept the longer adapter plates mentioned earlier. In the picture of the 48, the plaftform looks slightly bigger, so I'll just try 50mm and see how that works for my 5x7.
And thanks for the recommendation on the appropriate model, that's enormously helpful.

http://www.flmcanada.com/uploads/5/7/9/8/5798107/8961685.jpg?165

Hi again,
Yes, you're right, the cork platform is the same size on all ball heads (45mm diameter), as is the stud screw (reversible 3/8" and 1/4"). And FYI, we use a cork/rubber hybrid: http://www.flmcanada.com/faqs
Our normal procedure is to remove the cork/rubber platform, and attach a QR clamp using mild thread glue. This offers the best stability for using a ball head. And, as others have pointed out, the larger the contact surface area between your camera and the QR plate, the more stability you'll have when attaching it to the clamp.
As for the size recommendation, the factory doesn't test with view cameras, so the recommendations come from my own experience. The 810M with lens and film holder can easily surpass 20lbs, so the CB-58 is the best choice for that.
I've used both the Kodak Master 8x10 and Kodak Commercial 8x10 with the CB-48 with great success, it feels very secure with that size ball head, so you should have no trouble using that on your 5x7.

Oh, and I added those charts yesterday, you're not seeing things. :) You requested information that was buried in the catalogue, I just made it more visible.

[Colin Graham]

Great, thanks Ari!

I'm being fairly obstinate about QR plates and clamps, but they've always just bugged me, so I'll just go through the motions to prove to myself that I do need one. I do have a pretty massive tripod plate on my camera, so who knows, might be able to get away with the 45mm platform. Thanks again for the help.

[Ari]

Ok, Colin, keep us posted as to your progress. Good luck!

[Daniel Stone]

Colin,

Here's an alternative option for a quick release system. It is NOT cheap price-wise, but neither is a broken camera on the ground ;)!

http://store.zacuto.com/tripod-adapter-plate/

http://store.zacuto.com/qr-dovetail/

[Peter De Smidt]

It all depends on the type of camera. With my Toyo 45, the camera is plenty rigid just screwed into a standard head. With my Kodak D2 8x10, it needs all the help it can get. Some cameras, such as Ebonies, have large metal plates on the bottom. I wouldn't worry about a camera like that either. A nice thing about heads like the FLM is that you can change out the mounting platform if needed.

[Colin Graham]

My main worry is I carry the camera slung on a tripod over long distances, and the stress on the camera/head connection is mitigated somewhat by the 4"x4" platform on my Ries head.
I'm fairly confident the connection on the non-QR FLM head would be fine for indoor shooting, but maybe not such a good idea for carrying it this way.
Right now I'm only planning on using the ball head on my indoor Gitzo, but if I like it I know I'll be tempted to retire the Ries head altogether. But this might be wildly inappropriate for a ball head.

[Peter De Smidt]

Does the bottom of the camera have a metal plate? If so, how big?

[Colin Graham]

10 x 15cm.

I just mocked-up a 45mm disc platform on an ancient Gitzo ball head and the camera bed is still quite rigid. I'll probably never feel comfortable carrying it slung while connected to such a small platform, but then again carrying it like that would probably work against any ball head's design strengths, so not sure if adding an adapter plate would improve the situation.

Just to be clear, I don't expect any head to work for all situations, but it's good to try and anticipate the limitations as well as the possibilities.

[Peter De Smidt]

That's a good sized plate. I wouldn't worry about it.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I tried hard to fall in love with a ball head with my 5X7 Deardorf, but in the end I could not make the relationship work and went back to my trusty Manfrotto 410 geared head. I tried a few nice ball heads but I just could not get used to using them.

That said, I thought the FLM head was wonderful and I have a good friend who uses one for his 8X10 (and maybe his 11X1 as well). Also, I have another good friend who has the Arca d4 and he swears it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It comes down to what is comfortable to work with and what fits into your budget.

[cowanw]

Austin's would be a good one, don't imagine the glue is a real problem and you won't loose to much if it isn't your style.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120449-FS-FLM-CB-43F-Ball-head-Works*-with-issues-Cheap!&p=1221866#post1221866

[Toyon]

Avoid Arca-Swiss ballheads. Terrible, dreadful, monstrously mis-engineered designs.

[Colin Graham]

Yeah, I saw that, but that's a 43mm, and it doesn't appear to have the 2d tilt control. And it looked to me like the 1/4" side of thread was showing, instead of the 3/8". Also the words glue, thread and pliers all used in the same paragraph made me nervous, ha. (No offense intended to the seller, who was very honest about it).

Still, $100 is a great bargain, and it was that very thread that started me down this path.


Austin's would be a good one, don't imagine the glue is a real problem and you won't loose to much if it isn't your style.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120449-FS-FLM-CB-43F-Ball-head-Works*-with-issues-Cheap!&p=1221866#post1221866

Eric, thanks for weighing in as well. How heavy is your V5, btw? I noticed the 'new' (ahem) Deardorff Special is listed at 7lbs, which is what my 5x7 weighs.


I tried hard to fall in love with a ball head with my 5X7 Deardorf, but in the end I could not make the relationship work and went back to my trusty Manfrotto 410 geared head. I tried a few nice ball heads but I just could not get used to using them.

That said, I thought the FLM head was wonderful and I have a good friend who uses one for his 8X10 (and maybe his 11X1 as well). Also, I have another good friend who has the Arca d4 and he swears it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It comes down to what is comfortable to work with and what fits into your budget.

[Peter De Smidt]

Avoid Arca-Swiss ballheads. Terrible, dreadful, monstrously mis-engineered designs.

I've had my B1 for 20 years, and it's worked very well. Just recently, the rotation of the ball is getting a little sticky. I tried cleaning it, but it's time for a $100 service. One service every 20 years for a device that's used regularly in a variety of conditions seems pretty good to me.

Colin, if you'd consider a non-ball head, a Gitzo 1570M would be a good choice. It's what I normally use with an 8x10. The negative versus a ball head is that there are protruding handles.

[Jim Andrada]

Having bought QR plate systems for video cameras, this one looks downright economical! And Zacuto makes good stuff - not a well known name to the still camera fraternity, but quite well known in the video world.

[Jim Becia]

Avoid Arca-Swiss ballheads. Terrible, dreadful, monstrously mis-engineered designs.

I have used an Arca Swiss B1 for over 20 years now and continue to use it for my Ebony 8x10 with not one problem. I can guarantee it gets used more than most ball heads out there and other looking like it has been beat up, it performs flawlessly. Like it much better than a Really Right Stuff ball head, but then that is just me. I have no problem using a ballhead with an 8x10, obviously some others dislike it.

[Leszek Vogt]

I'd go with an overkill. Whether that's Arca, FLM, Markins, Novoflex or RRS.

Les

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Ballheads for LF? De-evolution, going backwards.

Hogwash. My ballhead gets my camera level infinitely faster than my 3-way pan tilt head ever could. It is far more stable to boot. I love my Ballhead and I'd never go back. FWIW, I have a plain jane Feisol ballhead and it is wonderful.

[konakoa]

Colin, it was mentioned earlier in this thread (and for what it's worth) I'll put forward another suggestion for the Arca D4.

You said that you were looking for something with independent controls for each axis. Ball heads appealed to you for the smaller size as well. You also want to carry it over your shoulder. Two things you'd like about the D4 is that it's small and compact like a ball head yet operates like a pan and tilt head with gearing. Like a ball head there are no handles or protrusions to snag on objects. I can say firsthand the gearing is marvelous. It has two panning controls as well (not geared), one on the base and one where the camera attaches. The D4 holds my ten pound 5x7 camera with a 400mm 5.6 telephoto lens no problem. No blurriness in the negs.

I'd be a bit leery of carrying over ten pounds of camera on my shoulder with this head. The quick release is solid, but a lot of force would be placed on the internal gearing. It'd be much better to remove the camera. That's why the "quick" is in quick release, eh? :)

The D4 is horribly, horribly expensive. However if you're after small size and portability in a head with precision adjustments it is fabulous.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Konakoa,

What is the difference between the various d4 models. I see some are geared and some are manual, but I am not sure which would be the best one for LF. There is a few hundred dollars difference between some of the models.

[konakoa]

Eric, from what I've seen the 'manual' D4 is exactly the same only without the gearing. Loosen a clamp, move the head, re-tighten. Each axis is independent just like a pan-tilt head. Think of the manual version as a pan-tilt head without the long handles.

There are several versions with different quick release systems. I went for the geared D4 with the 'classic' knob quick release system. The knob lets me use RRS plates without fuss.

[Sal Santamaura]

...the 'manual' D4 is exactly the same only without the gearing. Loosen a clamp, move the head, re-tighten. Each axis is independent just like a pan-tilt head. Think of the manual version as a pan-tilt head without the long handles...Yup, and a fine head the d4m would be, significantly lighter and less expensive than but comparable to a Linhof 3663, except...


...There are several versions with different quick release systems. I went for the geared D4 with the 'classic' knob quick release system. The knob lets me use RRS plates without fuss.Some of us don't like screw knob clamps or the fiddly, loosening-prone Arca lever-release clamp, but do have and want to use Really Right Stuff (RRS) plates. Therefore, I'd like to mount a RRS lever-release clamp on a d4m. But Arca, in a fit of provincial arrogance, began using "permanent" thread locking epoxy on its clamps. Even if one were willing to purchase a d4m with Arca clamp and then throw the clamp away, it's not possible to remove that clamp without application of substantial heat, like from a torch. Not me!

Arca's "explanation" for this is that a very short M6 bolt is required to mount clamps on its heads. People were using longer M6 bolts and damaging the heads, which Arca then repaired. Instead of simply specifying the maximum permissible M6 mounting bolt length, Arca effectively "forbade" anyone from using any clamps not made by Arca. If and when Arca comes to its senses and offers and 'naked' d4m, or one that has its clamp attached with a bolt that's held in place using Loctite Blue or equivalent, I'll buy one. Until then, not a chance.

My approach to shedding some weight from the Linhof 3663 was to purchase an FLM CB-48FT. I removed the platform and mounted an RRS lever-release clamp on the stem. Here's my take on using that FLM head with view cameras.

While I always despised ball heads to support view cameras, I've found that the ability to use both levels simultaneously (via the adjustable mirror-cover) on my Ebony SV-57 makes positioning very easy. With the head's main lock minimum drag set appropriately (2.5 on its scale), it's a breeze to achieve level in both axes and lock everything down.

With a lighter camera where one cannot see both axes' levels at the same time, like my Phillips 4x5, the head's tilt lock comes into play. While the idea is innovative, I've found that at the head's lower main lock minimum drag setting necessary for this load (1.5 on its scale), even after locking the head's secondary tilt knob, there's some lateral creep when tilting the camera. It takes a couple of iterations to get things level. I've experimented with the head's tilt lock when my SV-57 is mounted and the higher drag setting cranked in. There's virtually no lateral creep in that situation. So, the feature seems to require a minimum amount of main lock drag to function well. I feel that the half pound weight reduction compared to my Linhof 3663 is worth the fiddling when shooting 4x5, but ultimately would love to move the RRS lever clamp to a d4m instead. :)

Bottom line: in my opinion, Colin should have no issue obtaining solid lock down and good independent axis control with an FLM ball head. I'd definitely recommend the CB-58FT for his 8x10, especially considering the way he carries it.

[biedron]

Here's another vote for the Arca-Swiss D4. If you can swing it, definitely opt for the geared version - super smooth, precise movement. Sal is correct about the permanent mounting of the release fixture, but I wanted the classic screw clamp, so that was not an issue. I would say that the D4 is perfect for 4x5 - perhaps a bit marginal (though useable) for 8x10.

Bob

[Colin Graham]

Bottom line: in my opinion, Colin should have no issue obtaining solid lock down and good independent axis control with an FLM ball head. I'd definitely recommend the CB-58FT for his 8x10, especially considering the way he carries it.

Thanks Sal. That's good to hear the FLM heads can be slung like that under load, so that's one less thing to worry about if I decide to retire the Ries and use the ball head for everything. Looking forward to getting the FLM when I have the funds. I use a 5x7, so I'm leaning towards the 48.



Colin, if you'd consider a non-ball head, a Gitzo 1570M would be a good choice. It's what I normally use with an 8x10. The negative versus a ball head is that there are protruding handles.

Peter, I did have a G1570 once for about a week- didn't much like it for the reasons you mention. But that giant camera platform was pretty nice.


Thanks again everyone for all the suggestions and advice.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Bottom line: in my opinion, Colin should have no issue obtaining solid lock down and good independent axis control with an FLM ball head. I'd definitely recommend the CB-58FT for his 8x10, especially considering the way he carries it.


Thanks Sal. That's good to hear the FLM heads can be slung like that under load, so that's one less thing to worry about if I decide to retire the Ries and use the ball head for everything. Looking forward to getting the FLM when I have the funds. I use a 5x7, so I'm leaning towards the 48...You're welcome Colin. Just to be clear and not mislead you, I thought the (now deleted) picture of your camera being carried on a tripod was an 8x10. That, and the way you carry it, are what lead me to suggest the 58, i.e. for maximum locking force. The 48 is great for my SV-57 and would probably support your 5x7 perfectly as well, but I never carry my cameras on the tripod like you do. Therefore, I can't guarantee that it wouldn't require a 58 to resist what must be incredible impulse forces on the ball joint as your footfalls translate to downward vectors on the camera with the tripod horizontal. You might try the 48, then need to return it for a 58. Not a prediction, just a caution.

[Colin Graham]

Thanks for the clarification. To be clear, the tripod and camera are slung at a single fulcrum point on the tripod legs, so that slight see-saw action absorbs a great deal of the stress on the camera and head. While the sling is fairly hands-free, I also tend support the head/camera connection with my hand, because it's just a natural resting place.

The photo seemed redundant and off-topic yesterday so I deleted it- after all, no head is really designed to do this. I was never really comfortable shouldering a tripod and camera since all the expensive bits are behind, out of site, and my shoulder would go numb after 100 yards. But this is a much better solution for me, and is a great way to carry smaller large-format gear for literally miles at a stretch, and saves an extraordinary amount of set-up time in the field. So this is my idea of a quick-release, hehe.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8602/16497411180_423c9eeda7.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/r8PxzN)

Please forgive the barrel distortion around the gut area.. ;-]

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Ok, this thread is going to cost me a bunch of money! I think I am going to save my pennies and get the Arca-Swiss d4 with the geared head and the screw lock. How much time until Christmas?

[Greg Miller]

I've used ball heads from Manfrotto, Gitzo, Arca Swis , and Really Right Stuff. I've used 4 Arca Swiss B1's that were manufactured in the 2000 - 2008 date range and they all sucked. They all had sticky movement that was extremely annoying. Of the ball heads that I have used the RRS BH-55 is far superior to all of them. So sturdy & silky smooth. I have 2 of those plus the smaller BH-40 (which is too small and cramped for my taste so I rarely use it). And as Sal mentioned the RRS locking levers are far superior to the screw locking devices. Unless something dramatic changes, I don't see myself ever buying a ball head other than the RRS BH-55.

[Sal Santamaura]

This is what I use on my 8x10
http://www.jobu-design.com/Surefoot-NX4--70_p_28.html
then the longer and more old fashioned an arca compatible clamp you put on the head the better.


Thank you Bill, good to know that there is an aftermarket plate already available that will fit.Some more input on your situation. First, now that I've reviewed your blog about how you built the camera's tripod plate, let me caution you against long, narrow "rails" like the one linked above. Since most of your tripod plate's area is composed of only 1/16-inch aluminum, there will likely be substantial torquing around such a thin contact area. Much better would be this plate from Kirk


http://www.kirkphoto.com/3_3_8in_Square_1_4in_Thread_Universal_fit_Camera_Plate.html#

that spreads the forces more evenly over your camera's aluminum area. Should you be inspired to go back into your shop and work more metal, the most elegant approach is replacing your camera's plate with one that incorporates an integral dovetail. That's what I had Adam at S.K. Grimes do for my Ebony SV-57 and SV Wholeplate cameras. Even with titanium tripod plates, using Really Right Stuff rails, considerable vibration could be induced when the titanium flexed under load. Attached are some images of the replacement camera plates. Note that, if you plan to use a screw clamp, it would be necessary to add a "spacer" to the dovetail section so the plate clears a clamp's knob. With lever-release clamps, I designed the new plates to be as low as possible.

[Peter De Smidt]

Sal makes some good points.

That three-way Linhof head in his photo is another excellent choice. We're really spoiled for choice when it comes to quality tripod heads.

[Ari]

Some more input on your situation. First, now that I've reviewed your blog about how you built the camera's tripod plate, let me caution you against long, narrow "rails" like the one linked above. Since most of your tripod plate's area is composed of only 1/16-inch aluminum, there will likely be substantial torquing around such a thin contact area. Much better would be this plate from Kirk


http://www.kirkphoto.com/3_3_8in_Square_1_4in_Thread_Universal_fit_Camera_Plate.html#

that spreads the forces more evenly over your camera's aluminum area. Should you be inspired to go back into your shop and work more metal, the most elegant approach is replacing your camera's plate with one that incorporates an integral dovetail. That's what I had Adam at S.K. Grimes do for my Ebony SV-57 and SV Wholeplate cameras. Even with titanium tripod plates, using Really Right Stuff rails, considerable vibration could be induced when the titanium flexed under load. Attached are some images of the replacement camera plates. Note that, if you plan to use a screw clamp, it would be necessary to add a "spacer" to the dovetail section so the plate clears a clamp's knob. With lever-release clamps, I designed the new plates to be as low as possible.

Something like this is what we should all be doing, seeing as many of us use cameras with a large, wide base.
I have something similar, though in two pieces, for my Toyo 810M. It's made so that the two pieces lock together.
Better to have something that can clamp onto a substantial area of the bed while using a good dovetail or other locking system.
Manfrotto made a 4"x4" plate attached to their hex lock, but I would suggest making the plate as large as possible.

[Colin Graham]

Yeah, I haven't felt overly-confident about trying to adapt a ball head to my hiking setup and routine, so I'll stick to the Ries head for outdoor work. Any weight saved by moving to a ball head would be negated by having to reinforce the tripod platform and camera connections. So any ball head I get will just stay on my indoor tripod. That was the original plan anyway, just find a head that was a better match for the Gitzo legs.


Since most of your tripod plate's area is composed of only 1/16-inch aluminum, there will likely be substantial torquing around such a thin contact area.


To be accurate, my camera's tripod socket is a 2"x2" chunk of 1/4" aluminum that's mortised into the camera bed. The 1/16" aluminum plate is just a scuff plate primarily, but it does help reinforce the connection and distribute some of the stress.

[Jim Becia]

Some more input on your situation. First, now that I've reviewed your blog about how you built the camera's tripod plate, let me caution you against long, narrow "rails" like the one linked above. Since most of your tripod plate's area is composed of only 1/16-inch aluminum, there will likely be substantial torquing around such a thin contact area. Much better would be this plate from Kirk


http://www.kirkphoto.com/3_3_8in_Square_1_4in_Thread_Universal_fit_Camera_Plate.html#

that spreads the forces more evenly over your camera's aluminum area. Should you be inspired to go back into your shop and work more metal, the most elegant approach is replacing your camera's plate with one that incorporates an integral dovetail. That's what I had Adam at S.K. Grimes do for my Ebony SV-57 and SV Wholeplate cameras. Even with titanium tripod plates, using Really Right Stuff rails, considerable vibration could be induced when the titanium flexed under load. Attached are some images of the replacement camera plates. Note that, if you plan to use a screw clamp, it would be necessary to add a "spacer" to the dovetail section so the plate clears a clamp's knob. With lever-release clamps, I designed the new plates to be as low as possible.


Sal,

Would you give us an idea on how much your Grimes plate cost? A rough ball park is fine. I have been using a rather narrow plate and while I haven't had any problems getting sharp images from my 8x10, I have always wanted something more substantial on the bottom that had more surface area like yours. Thanks. Jim

[Sal Santamaura]

Yeah, I haven't felt overly-confident about trying to adapt a ball head to my hiking setup and routine, so I'll stick to the Ries head for outdoor work. Any weight saved by moving to a ball head would be negated by having to reinforce the camera plate and connections. So any ball head I get will just stay on my indoor tripod...I disagree with this conclusion. The lightest Ries double-tilt head I can find any specifications for


http://www.badgergraphic.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/product&path=12_76&product_id=724

weighs 4.75 pounds. Even a Linhof 3663, the weight baseline I've tried to reduce from, is 1.76 pounds out of the box. Replacing its large, star-shaped camera screw with a stainless hex-head 1/4-20 screw (as I did after the earlier picture was taken) knocks off another couple of ounces. My custom Grimes plate on the SV-57 is only three ounces heavier than the standard titanium plate plus a RRS dovetail plate, both of which it replaces. And the RRS lever-release clamp screwed onto the 3663 is only three ounces. Net: just over 2 pounds. That's 2.75 pounds less than the Reis. I put all this atop a Gitzo GT3225S and have zero stability issues even with the 5x7 Ebony mounted. Attached is a crappy cell phone picture of that combination at the Grand Canyon.


...Since most of your tripod plate's area is composed of only 1/16-inch aluminum, there will likely be substantial torquing around such a thin contact area...


...To be fair, my camera's tripod socket is a 2"x2" chunk of 1/4" aluminum that's mortised into the camera bed. The 4"x6" x 1/16" aluminum plate is just a scuff plate primarily, but it does help reinforce the connection and distribute some of the stress.I did note in your blog post how you'd constructed the tripod socket assembly. That your Ries' large contact area works well to avoid flexing of the scuff portion is why I suggested that Kirk quick release plate. Which, by the way, even if it weighs another eight ounces, would still keep your new head system at least 2.25 pound lighter than the Ries, assuming a Linhof 3663. Drop that even more with an FLM 48. I remain convinced that a narrow dovetail rail would not fare so well with your 2 inch square solid connection and thinner large scuff plate.

[Colin Graham]

I have the much smaller J250, which is about 2 lbs. The new ones are listed at 2.5 lbs, but I'm pretty sure mine is lighter than that. The platform on mine is a different casting.

http://www.riestripod.com/?product=the-j250-head


I remain convinced that a narrow dovetail rail would not fare so well with your 2 inch square solid connection and thinner large scuff plate.

I do agree with this, very much so. Thanks again for the suggestions- much to consider!

[Sal Santamaura]

...Would you give us an idea on how much your Grimes plate cost? A rough ball park is fine...At the time I had those made, pre-retirement, my colleagues included mechanical designers with access to CAD equipement and the skills to use it. One of them worked with me to create a 3-d model of the plates, which required precise measurement of the camera bases' hole locations. Apparently, Ebony's titanium part supplier drills the countersunk holes manually, so they are not uniformly located. Not wanting to have wood problems with screws ending up close to but not exactly where the original ones were, we measured everything to within 0.1mm. Adam took the CNC file and machined aluminum from it. I specified hard anodizing, which Adam doesn't do and had to subcontract. Given all that background, and remembering this was almost six years ago, total to Grimes for both replacement plates (SV-57 and SV- Wholeplate) was around $500.

[Sal Santamaura]

I have the much smaller J250, which is about 2 lbs. The new ones are listed at 2.5 lbs, but I'm pretty sure mine is lighter than that. The platform on mine is a different casting...OK, then, so much for my search skills! :)

In that case, if you're interested in a ball head, the weight analysis I went through, even just using the Kirk plate with an FLM 48, shows a probable slight reduction or at worst a wash. Personal working preference would drive your decision.

[Jeff Keller]

Thanks for the link.



http://www.kirkphoto.com/3_3_8in_Square_1_4in_Thread_Universal_fit_Camera_Plate.html#[/INDENT]

[Peter De Smidt]

Btw., it's not that hard to machine aluminum to fit in an Arca quick release clamp. A carbide table saw blade works fine, especially with something like Fortal.

[jumanji]

How's about an Acratech? I heard good things about it. I'm wondering choosing it or the RRS BH 40, for 4x5.

[fishbulb]

How's about an Acratech? I heard good things about it. I'm wondering choosing it or the RRS BH 40, for 4x5.

I own several Acratech products and love them. For my Sinar F I use the Acratech Large Leveling Base (http://www.acratech.net/leveling-products/large-leveling-base). It has a broad platform that is the same diameter as the bottom of the Sinar's monorail clamp (2.9" / 75mm). While it doesn't have the range of motion of a true ballhead, it is effectively a small ballhead in nature. It has a large adjustment knob that is easy to tighten and loosen, and allows you to rotate the ball within the socket to point the camera the right direction, and then about 10 degrees of tilt. It's very lightweight at about half a pound.

In general I like Acratech because they products are incredibly well built and well designed. For lighter cameras I use the Acratech GP ballhead (http://www.acratech.net/ballheads/gp/gp), which I've had for five years and could not see myself parting with. I don't think the GP would be a good choice for my hefty Sinar, but it's fine for my lightweight Nagaoka 4x5. I have a half dozen of their quick release plates as well.

[JChrome]

I've used ball heads from Manfrotto, Gitzo, Arca Swis , and Really Right Stuff. I've used 4 Arca Swiss B1's that were manufactured in the 2000 - 2008 date range and they all sucked. They all had sticky movement that was extremely annoying. Of the ball heads that I have used the RRS BH-55 is far superior to all of them. So sturdy & silky smooth. I have 2 of those plus the smaller BH-40 (which is too small and cramped for my taste so I rarely use it). And as Sal mentioned the RRS locking levers are far superior to the screw locking devices. Unless something dramatic changes, I don't see myself ever buying a ball head other than the RRS BH-55.

Hey Greg -
I recently bought the BH-55 and have yet to use it. But I keep reading about these geared heads that I wonder if I should switch to one of those.

Have you used many geared heads over the years? What are you shooting with the BH-55? I would imagine geared heads and ball heads are a bit like apples and oranges due to what they do but I'm wondering if I should start out with a geared head or ballhead (I'm shooting with the Chamonix 4x5).

All the best
J

[Peter De Smidt]

Since you already have a BH-55, a first rate ball head, why not give it a try?

[Greg Miller]

Hey Greg -
I recently bought the BH-55 and have yet to use it. But I keep reading about these geared heads that I wonder if I should switch to one of those.

Have you used many geared heads over the years? What are you shooting with the BH-55? I would imagine geared heads and ball heads are a bit like apples and oranges due to what they do but I'm wondering if I should start out with a geared head or ballhead (I'm shooting with the Chamonix 4x5).

All the best
J

Geared heads are too slow and tedious for me. But these things always come down to personal taste and subject matter. I use a ball head for everything. With LF my process is to level the tripod and then level the ball head (which is easy to do with a BH-55 because the quick-release has a bubble level in it. I do not point the camera up or down. I use rise and fall instead which keeps the film and lens planes parallel to each other and perpendicular to the ground. At least until there is a reason to changes the planes. With the tripod level and the ball-head level, I am free to pan the head without losing level with the camera. None of the planes changes unless there is a reason to. If you point the camera up or down, now it is necessary to make at least one plane change just to get back to square. So a Ball head works perfectly well for me and avoid all the tedium that comes with a geared head or pan/tilt head.

If I shot architecture a lot I might change my mind, but this works very well for me.

If I were in your shoes, I would borrow a bunch of heads and try them out to see what you like.

[JChrome]

Geared heads are too slow and tedious for me. But these things always come down to personal taste and subject matter. I use a ball head for everything. With LF my process is to level the tripod and then level the ball head (which is easy to do with a BH-55 because the quick-release has a bubble level in it. I do not point the camera up or down. I use rise and fall instead which keeps the film and lens planes parallel to each other and perpendicular to the ground. At least until there is a reason to changes the planes. With the tripod level and the ball-head level, I am free to pan the head without losing level with the camera. None of the planes changes unless there is a reason to. If you point the camera up or down, now it is necessary to make at least one plane change just to get back to square. So a Ball head works perfectly well for me and avoid all the tedium that comes with a geared head or pan/tilt head.

If I shot architecture a lot I might change my mind, but this works very well for me.

If I were in your shoes, I would borrow a bunch of heads and try them out to see what you like.

Thanks Greg. A very thoughtful response. Much appreciated.

Since I am a newbie, I am a bit nervous about spending so much money on these items. This is the kind of technique that I like to see. I'll try it out and let you know what I think.