Can ball head weight ratings be trusted?

[scheinfluger_77]

I am using a Vanguard SBH-250 ball head on my Gitzo tripod to mount a Kodak 2D-5x7. The camera weighs about 10 lbs and the ball head is rated at 44 lbs. While this sounds like more than enough, I wondered how good the lock down was when tipping the camera at extreme angles. As I suspected the head locks down well enough, but the required force to move the camera against the lock is minimal. Meaning in my mind the torque exerted by a tipped 10 lb. camera is considerably more than 10 lbs. Thoughts?

[mdarnton]

I always suspect that a weight rating is what something will take before it snaps, not a utility rating.

[koh303]

You are right, why bother with informative titles when you can lure in unsuspecting victims and waste their time.

[Oren Grad]

I've edited the thread title. It's fun to play, but please keep in mind that a key purpose of the Forum is to serve as a reference. Please be considerate of other members and use thread titles that clearly describe the topic.

[Luis-F-S]

I don't use a ball head, never trusted them or quick release plates for anything larger than medium format. Now I don't use them period! Mostly use Ries heads now for anything larger than 135. I do have Gitzo heads on the big Gitzo tripods, but all the wooden ones are Ries! L

[Ari]

The better ball head makers will test their equipment properly and give accurate results.
I know that at FLM the load ratings for ball heads are for both vertically- and laterally-applied forces, and I would also bet that Arca-Swiss and Novoflex are equally thorough.
FLM also has an industrial division, and it's a small company, so they're not in a position to make inaccurate claims on their equipment.

[Dan Fromm]

I am using a Vanguard SBH-250 ball head on my Gitzo tripod to mount a Kodak 2D-5x7. The camera weighs about 10 lbs and the ball head is rated at 44 lbs. While this sounds like more than enough, I wondered how good the lock down was when tipping the camera at extreme angles. As I suspected the head locks down well enough, but the required force to move the camera against the lock is minimal. Meaning in my mind the torque exerted by a tipped 10 lb. camera is considerably more than 10 lbs. Thoughts?

Tension setting?

Another reason to use a three-axis head instead of a ball head?

[Sirius Glass]

About tension springs on ball heads as well as the care an feeding of a ball head mount:
http://www.precisioncameraworks.com/...ball_core.html

http://www.giottosusa.com/images/bal...om-catalog.gif"


The most common way to use it is to position the zero at your minimum friction point (set by the friction thumb screw) and hence be able to instantly set varying tensions based on needed movements or camera weight. For example, turning the Multifunction Knob until you reach the 2 or 3 might set a desired friction for a given movement with a 35mm camera and light lens, while turning the knob to 4 or 5 would give you the desired friction for using a heavier medium-format camera.

I hope this helps the OP and the thread.

[Sirius Glass]

Is there a recommended ball head that has a hand grip for maneuvering it?

[Alan Gales]

Mostly use Ries heads now for anything larger than 135. L

What? A Leica looks great on an A100! :cool:

[Alan Gales]

I am using a Vanguard SBH-250 ball head on my Gitzo tripod to mount a Kodak 2D-5x7. The camera weighs about 10 lbs and the ball head is rated at 44 lbs. While this sounds like more than enough, I wondered how good the lock down was when tipping the camera at extreme angles. As I suspected the head locks down well enough, but the required force to move the camera against the lock is minimal. Meaning in my mind the torque exerted by a tipped 10 lb. camera is considerably more than 10 lbs. Thoughts?

Put your heaviest lens on the camera and try it at home and see.

I had a big Linhof ball head once. You could probably have mounted a dump truck on it and tilted it to an extreme angle.

[Bob Salomon]

Is there a recommended ball head that has a hand grip for maneuvering it?

Novoflex Magicball and Magicball 50.

[Sirius Glass]

Something a little less pricy?

[Alan Gales]

Something a little less pricy?

Buy used. :)

[Alan Gales]

Something a little less pricy?


http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-322RC2-Joystick-Head-Short/dp/B000JLK5PK

Holds 11 pounds or 5.5 pounds in vertical position.

[Bob Salomon]

http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-322RC2-Joystick-Head-Short/dp/B000JLK5PK

Holds 11 pounds or 5.5 pounds in vertical position.

Not for a view camera.

[neil poulsen]

My experience is that, prior to seeing any strength problems, one will see vibration problems. I would think that whatever tripod/head combination you have, if the camera is within their specs weight-wise, it will hold. But, can you effectively photograph with that support?

The specifications I've come to suspect are weights of the heads. Using my triple beam balance, I've weighed two tripod heads whose weights were stated incorrectly by the specs.

[Alan Gales]

Not for a view camera.

You are quite correct.

Sirius mostly shoots a Hasselblad and occasionally a Speed or Crown Graphic. I don't know what he wants to use it with.

[Sirius Glass]

You are quite correct.

Sirius mostly shoots a Hasselblad and occasionally a Speed or Crown Graphic. I don't know what he wants to use it with.

You are correct. I would use the ball head for all three. The Hasselblad would be using the 500mm directly mounted on the tripod, with that much weight to swing taking wildlife photographs I have to be able to trust that the camera will not flop over. Accordingly I need to know that the Graflex Model D and the Speed Graphic are save and secure.

[Alan Gales]

You are correct. I would use the ball head for all three. The Hasselblad would be using the 500mm directly mounted on the tripod, with that much weight to swing taking wildlife photographs I have to be able to trust that the camera will not flop over. Accordingly I need to know that the Graflex Model D and the Speed Graphic are save and secure.

Looks like Bob gave you the best answer then. Hopefully, you can find a "steal" on Ebay like I found on my A100 Ries tripod. Good luck to you!

[munz6869]

I have two Arca Swiss Z1 monoballs that are weight rated for something ludicrous, but I have never had an issue with them - even with a 300mm f/5.6 lens mounted on my Wista wooden field camera - the camera starts to bend before the ballhead moves. They are very solid when locked.

Marc!

[Pamelageewhizz]

I had gotten a tripod with a ball head from Really Right Stuff, a manufacturer in San Luis Obispo here in CA, a family owned company. Heinously expensive but US. I had called them because I too questioned using a ball head with my 8x10 Kodak 2D. They claimed the drag function would work great for LF, makes the head movements slower. A total waste of time and money. Came close to losing the camera numerous times. Other times it locked up on me. Even 2 strong young men tried to get it to loosen up to no avail. Returned it and the company charged me for "damage" that was actually caused by the head flopping over with the camera on it.
I recently purchased an old Ries with a rock solid Otto head. Tilts, pans, etc, not a ball head. Got it from the son of the owner of the last large photography shop in Sacramento that recently closed. Good deal on it. I'd never go with a ball head again.

[DennisD]

.... A total waste of time and money....
....Came close to losing the camera numerous times....
....Returned it and the company charged me for "damage" that was actually caused by the head flopping over with the camera on it....
....I recently purchased an old Ries with a rock solid Otto head. Tilts, pans, etc, not a ball head.

It's too bad you had that problem, but you obviously learned from the experience. I'm surprised you did not damage your camera in the bargain.

You did well to change to a traditional style head.

I know there are many people happily using ball heads with their view cameras.
However, IMHO a view camera on a ball head is recipe for disaster - especially for larger formats 5x7 and up.

A large camera on a loose or semi-loose ball becomes unwieldy.
Forget about weight ratings, if the the tension is not properly adjusted or fails to hold, the resulting flop can be potentially damaging.

For medium format or smaller, lighter weight formats, a ball head Is practical provided it's carefully adjusted. I've had an occasional flop with such cameras and always felt lucky there was no damage.

I'm familiar with the RRS ball heads. I use one myself. It's well made, but the ball tension adjustment can be changed too easily or accidentally because it does not have a positive lock. That's where the problems begin.

The RRS salesperson should NOT have suggested even their largest head for use with an 8x10. However, I doubt any of those sales people know very much about LF.
If one insists on a ball head for LF use, there are better options from other manufacturers.



.

[Bob Salomon]

I had gotten a tripod with a ball head from Really Right Stuff, a manufacturer in San Luis Obispo here in CA, a family owned company. Heinously expensive but US. I had called them because I too questioned using a ball head with my 8x10 Kodak 2D. They claimed the drag function would work great for LF, makes the head movements slower. A total waste of time and money. Came close to losing the camera numerous times. Other times it locked up on me. Even 2 strong young men tried to get it to loosen up to no avail. Returned it and the company charged me for "damage" that was actually caused by the head flopping over with the camera on it.
I recently purchased an old Ries with a rock solid Otto head. Tilts, pans, etc, not a ball head. Got it from the son of the owner of the last large photography shop in Sacramento that recently closed. Good deal on it. I'd never go with a ball head again.

Linhof makes view cameras, Arca makes view cameras, Linhof makes both ball and leveling heads, Arca makes ball and a geared head. Why not check out their heads since both manufacturers obviously have long experience in making heads for cameras, including view cameras?

[Jim Michael]

The Kaiser head listed in a for sale ad some time ago (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?66026-Tripods-amp-ball-head&highlight=ball+head) had a handy feature, a friction adjustment separate from the locking knob that permitted adjustment without the whole thing becoming unstable.

[Bob Salomon]

The Kaiser head listed in a for sale ad some time ago (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?66026-Tripods-amp-ball-head&highlight=ball+head) had a handy feature, a friction adjustment separate from the locking knob that permitted adjustment without the whole thing becoming unstable.

All pro quality ball heads have separate tension control.

[scheinfluger_77]

I am enjoying the discussion. I do have the 3-way head with the soccer field sized mounting plate for this tripod and it works fine, but it is almost 3 lbs. and the camera mount knob and the grips on the 3-way are woefully inadequate size wise. My hands are only average size but I can't hardly get a good enough grip on camera mount to put any decent torque on it. And the grips on the other handles are tiny, and tough to get ahold of.

I do have a 35-year old Vivitar tripod with a three way that still locks down like the day it was new. The problem is the proprietary tripod mount. If I can figure a way to adapt that head to a standard tripod head mount I will do that.

[DennisD]

All pro quality ball heads have separate tension control.

A note about "tension controls": these are only useful if they maintain their tension under all conditions, I.e. When the main ball tightening knob is tight or loose. With the RRS head (bh55) when the main knob is tightened, the tension knob loosens noticeably and turns rather freely. In that condition, the tension knob can accidentally be moved from its setting. It has no lockdown capability.

On several occasions I've accidentally rubbed against the tension knob while making other adjustments. This causes the knob to move to a slightly lighter tension, (but enough not to hold the camera securely). As a result, the camera moves. unexpectedly when the main ball Knob is relaxed. Something to beware of.

I don't know what other ball heads offer in terms of securing the tension adjustment, but the RRS ball head line needs improvement in this respect.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

Manfrotto (Bogen in U.S ? ) have such a beast. The model with the locking grip on the side is better.

[Drew Wiley]

Static weight weight ratings mean ZERO. This could simply be marketing BS; or even from reputable companies they tell you little about actual stability. I personally consider ball heads to be the root of all evil when it comes to view camera stability, especially if you're looking for something lightweight overall. It will be counterproductive. Sometimes big ones are successfully employed in the studio because flash exposure allows very fast shutter speeds. In the field you can get vibrations from wind etc, amplified by that little neck on a ballhead. Simple torque vector physics. The wider the camera bed, and the longer the bellows extension in relation to lens weight, the less stability you'll have. The dumbbell effect: wobble. When in doubt, arrange a mockup with your own camera and tripod before purchasing. That's the only way you can be certain if something will work or not. But for lighter more compact view cameras, a high-quality ballhead might be OK.

[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.