Which ball head? Really right BH40 or BH30

[Peter Lauridsen]

Hello folks,

I'm trying to decide on the two mentioned heads. I use a chamonixN2 with lens between 90mm and 300mm.
The camera weights 3 and a half pounds plus lens and film holder, I have to be under 8 lbs.

So the Really right ball heads are my question. The 30 has a weight limit of 15 and the 40 of 18.
100 dollar difference in price.

I can't take a look at them as there is no store, so I'm relying on reviews etc.

I'm leaning toward the 30 as I like to travel as light as possible.

Thoughts?
Thanks

[Drew Wiley]

Best ball head for a view camera? NONE. Lots of past thread explaining why. In fact, if light weight is a priority, why use any kind of tripod head? I don't.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have a similar sized head to the 30. You should be fine.

[Leigh]

Ball heads are designed for video cameras, NOT for LF cameras.

It's difficult enough to get one axis set up at a time with LF on a regular tripod head.
Trying to do two axes simultaneously is an invitation to insanity or suicide.

- Leigh

[Bob Salomon]

Ball heads are designed for video cameras, NOT for LF cameras.

It's difficult enough to get one axis set up at a time with LF on a regular tripod head.
Trying to do two axes simultaneously is an invitation to insanity or suicide.

- Leigh

Not really, video heads, some spring loaded, some hydraulic and most only two way are for video and movie cameras, some special ones are also used to position radar and satellite receivers although these usually also have a leveling function.

It’s funny, some major view camera manufacturers, like Arca and Linhof also make lots of ball heads!

[pepeguitarra]

Unless you have an Arca Swiss ball head, in which you control the tension of the ball, you are open for many surprises when trying to tilt the camera to point up or down, or to move it to one side or the other. A three way head is more appropriate for LF format, even for light weight cameras like the Intrepid or Chamonix. Some lenses are a bit heavy and can tilt the camera very easy if you are busy doing something else and forget to tighten the ball.

[Bob Salomon]

Unless you have an Arca Swiss ball head, in which you control the tension of the ball, you are open for many surprises when trying to tilt the camera to point up or down, or to move it to one side or the other. A three way head is more appropriate for LF format, even for light weight cameras like the Intrepid or Chamonix. Some lenses are a bit heavy and can tilt the camera very easy if you are busy doing something else and forget to tighten the ball.

Lots of ball heads have tension control, including Linhof, Novoflex, Kirk, RRS, Giottos, Surai, Benro, in fact, virtually all ball head manufacturers offer one or more ball heads with tension control!

[Leigh]

Lots of ball heads have tension control, including Linhof, Novoflex, Kirk, RRS, Giottos, Surai, Benro, in fact, virtually all ball head manufacturers offer one or more ball heads with tension control!Bob,

Tension control has nothing to do with ease of use when positioning an LF camera.

Vendors promote ball heads because they sell thousands of video cameras for every LF camera they sell. Therefore manufacturers make ball heads, and retailers have to sell what's available.

That does NOT make ball heads the appropriate solution for all imaging applications.

- Leigh

[Peter De Smidt]

Using a light 4x5 with a good ball head for landscape photography isn't that bad. Lot's of people do it successfully. If I'm traveling light, I use one.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

Tension control has nothing to do with ease of use when positioning an LF camera.

Vendors promote ball heads because they sell thousands of video cameras for every LF camera they sell. Therefore manufacturers make ball heads, and retailers have to sell what's available.

That does NOT make ball heads the appropriate solution for all imaging applications.

- Leigh

Leigh, neither Linhof or Arca make video cameras, they make view cameras.

You might check sales statistics and import statistics on yearly video camera sales for the consumer market.
Thanks to smart phones and digital still cameras their sales may not be what you think.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I use both an Acratech and a Photoclam that are similar sized to the BH30 with a Chamonix 4x5 and upto a 450mm Fujinon C. The system works well and the photos are sharp. But I tend to agree with those who say ball heads aren't ideal for composing, especially with cameras heavier than the Chamonix. I'd love a nice geared head that was as compact and light as the BH30.

[Jeff Keller]

I couldn't help but smile seeing the comments that a ball head is too fiddly. I recently saw a YouTube video of the Chamonix N2 where the reviewer mounted the camera on an Arca Swiss ball head and complained about how fiddly the camera was. It really comes down to what you're comfortable with. He has a lot of nice things to say about the camera ... but it doesn't work like his Arca Swiss F.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPJlHlahufw

I started off using an Acratech ball head for large format. If weight is an issue I wouldn't hesitate to use it. I have other heads I use when weight isn't an issue.

[Keith Pitman]

Those who disparage using ball heads with large format cameras either never used one or never tried to use one or never learned to use one. If you learn how to use the head and the tension control, they make terrific heads.

[Ben Horne]

Bob,

Tension control has nothing to do with ease of use when positioning an LF camera.

Vendors promote ball heads because they sell thousands of video cameras for every LF camera they sell. Therefore manufacturers make ball heads, and retailers have to sell what's available.

That does NOT make ball heads the appropriate solution for all imaging applications.

- Leigh

I think you are confusing ballheads with fluid video heads for video. Video shooters usually want the ability to pan the camera from side to side or up and down in a very fluid motion. Ballheads aren't designed for that, but fluid video heads are. A video camera can be used on a ballhead for static shots, but the moment you want to pan the camera, the motion is not controlled and you might as well be hand holding the camera.

I think it all really depends on what the original poster is intending to shoot. Ballheads can be great for landscape shots, but perhaps architectural or studio shooters would prefer a pan/tilt head.

[Ben Horne]

Best ball head for a view camera? NONE. Lots of past thread explaining why. In fact, if light weight is a priority, why use any kind of tripod head? I don't.

How do you aim the camera? Let's say I want to photograph some leaves on the ground.

[pendennis]

A good 3-axis head, for me, is ideal. I have a number of Bogen/Manfrotto 3047's, and a 3039 (3047 on steroids). They're the best I've used. I can adjust any axis, leaving the others locked in place. Some of the Gitzo 3-axis heads are also great; just that the Bogen's came in a bit less expensive, all things considered.

I own, and have used ball heads by Manfrotto (3038), and some others, including Arca. I know how to use them, but I consider any ball head inferior for still cameras.

[Bernice Loui]

There is no one camera support head ideal for all needs. It really depends on the camera, it's weight, precision-accuracy required, images to be made and more.

Think a ball head is OK for light weight field 4x5 and smaller view cameras as they can be maneuvered with reasonable effort. My own experience with ball heads in general including the Arca Swiss adjustable friction and axis fixing feature, they remain difficult to position in various ways. Stopped using all ball heads on all cameras including small digital cameras for this reason.

The attraction to a ball head is the belief-idea of being able to position the camera into any position as needed with ease. In reality, trying to position the camera into the required position is more difficult than projected even when the ball head has adjustable friction to assist in camera positing. For ball heads with the single movement axis feature, the fixed axis could easily end up in the wrong angle causing a conflict in the required adjustment angle. IMO, ball heads in general regardless of size tends to be lower rigidity and stability compared to other camera support systems.

Overall fave, master of none, does most OK would be the Sinar Pan-Tilt on a Cine-Video leveling ball with a Sinar rail camera. These are VERY stable once locked and easy to position, easy to control as only one camera aligned axis moves with one axis lock released. If camera precision and accuracy is required, the Sinar-Pan tilt does not meet this need. To address this need this home shop brewed 2 axis widget made with two optical table goniometric stages (solid brass, Krytox lubricant, rated to support 30 pounds each) was created. The base has a large high precision ball bearing which allows very low friction and precision rotation of the camera. It is similar to the Arca Swiss "cube" except made with optical table quality components.

189086



Bernice

[Leigh]

If camera precision and accuracy is required, the Sinar-Pan tilt does not meet this need. To address this need this home shop brewed 2 axis widget made with two optical table goniometric stages (solid brass, Krytox lubricant, rated to support 30 pounds each) was created. The base has a large high precision ball bearing which allows very low friction and precision rotation of the camera. It is similar to the Arca Swiss "cube" except made with optical table quality components.
Very nice, Bernice.

- Leigh

[Bob Salomon]

There is no one camera support head ideal for all needs. It really depends on the camera, it's weight, precision-accuracy required, images to be made and more.

Think a ball head is OK for light weight field 4x5 and smaller view cameras as they can be maneuvered with reasonable effort. My own experience with ball heads in general including the Arca Swiss adjustable friction and axis fixing feature, they remain difficult to position in various ways. Stopped using all ball heads on all cameras including small digital cameras for this reason.

The attraction to a ball head is the belief-idea of being able to position the camera into any position as needed with ease. In reality, trying to position the camera into the required position is more difficult than projected even when the ball head has adjustable friction to assist in camera positing. For ball heads with the single movement axis feature, the fixed axis could easily end up in the wrong angle causing a conflict in the required adjustment angle. IMO, ball heads in general regardless of size tends to be lower rigidity and stability compared to other camera support systems.

Overall fave, master of none, does most OK would be the Sinar Pan-Tilt on a Cine-Video leveling ball with a Sinar rail camera. These are VERY stable once locked and easy to position, easy to control as only one camera aligned axis moves with one axis lock released. If camera precision and accuracy is required, the Sinar-Pan tilt does not meet this need. To address this need this home shop brewed 2 axis widget made with two optical table goniometric stages (solid brass, Krytox lubricant, rated to support 30 pounds each) was created. The base has a large high precision ball bearing which allows very low friction and precision rotation of the camera. It is similar to the Arca Swiss "cube" except made with optical table quality components.

189086



Bernice

Or a 3 way leveling head like a Berlebach or a Linhof.

[Peter De Smidt]

The original poster needs light weight....He's choosing between two ball heads. How does talking about much heavier systems help?

[Bernice Loui]

Suggest using a conventional-traditional 3 way pan-tilt head sized as needed. These can be found with ease as there were a LOT of them made from a host of brands. A light weight 4x5 field camera is likely to be less than 5 pounds full up with lens and all. This is not that much more than a DSLR or medium format camera with a larger lens. There is a tripod-camera support system requirement for rigidity and stability (heavier and all that IS better, but), but it is just not that great with a lightweight field camera.

It might be ideal to try the 4x5 on a reasonable ball head then decide if a better ball head is the way. Essentially, take a test drive before deciding on the final choice of tripod head.

Tripods and tripod heads tend to get travel-user abuse and getting something pretty-precious will be reduced to a foto utility item in short time. Keeping this simple could be the the better trade off.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Ball heads remind me of "bobble heads" - little dolls with spring-loaded bouncy heads you see on people's dashboards. With respect to a lightwt 4x5 field camera with modest bellows extension, the problem is nowhere near as bad as with bigger or heavier view cameras. But the common sense aspect of this is still inherently related to basic torque-vector physics. You're centering all the potential wobble on a little stem. Why???? Dead-weight ratings don't even begin to tell the story. Being out in the trenches does. Can you imagine a surveyor ever mounting an old transit or modern theodolite atop a little stem? It would be absurd. Nobody in their right mind would hire a surveyor who would take that kind of hokey risk. Yes, a good ball head will have a significantly stiffened stem compared to a cheap one. But it's still a counterproductive concept. You ideally want the center of gravity as low as possible, and as much contact with a platform surface as possible, without a weak link in between. Of course, marketing has nothing to do with basic common-sense physics; so myths remain, and evidently remain profitable.

[Pieter]

Ballheads are a delight to use with MF or 35mm SLRs. They enable you to quickly and easily position the camera. I wouldn't use anything else for those SLRs. With LF, you end up wrestling the beast to get it in position, then have to deal with really tightening the head down so nothing creeps if the camera is at steep angle.

[Drew Wiley]

To each his own. I find ballheads to be ridiculous in general. I do use a decent Gitzo pan/tilt head for modest medium format usage, never anymore for large format, and never with really long MF lenses. A true geared head is more realistic than a ballhead, but anything truly solid would be both heavy and very expensive. In the lab I actually have a big Sinar P setup attached to a micrometer-driven machined-bronze WWII ship gun sighting mount. I got it for free. But something like that would probably cost eight thousand dollars today, if anyone was even willing to make it. But if you want the cat's meow in a compact block, try military surplus instead of the camera store.

[Peter De Smidt]

We haven't heard any of this before. ;)

[David Lindquist]

Maybe we can stipulate that those who want to use a ball head with their view camera may do so and those who don't want to don't have to.:) Full disclosure: I probably have more tripod heads than any normal person needs, as it happens none are ball heads.

David

[Drew Wiley]

That's a valid request, David. But the reasons "why" might not always be immediately apparent to some; so perhaps discussing a broader range of options has its benefits too. The original poster has a modest weight camera that could probably be successfully used on a decent ballhead. But scale things up just a little bit, and that formula might fail, because it is indeed all about torque vector. Double your bellows extension and it equates to twice as much force on the stem of the ball. Being unable to center that weight and having it all forward, with perhaps a large-shutter lens out on the end, upsets things even more. Going to 8x10 format even in the same camera design, and you ordinarily double the width of the camera bed, and dramatically increase torque stress that direction. Mere weight ratings don't tell you any of that. Go back to my analogy of surveyors. Their devices don't impose anywhere near the torque factor of most view cameras; yet they never use any kind of intermediate support, and there's a very good reason why. It's the same reason why surveyor tripods all have large platform tops, just like an ideal view camera tripod should. As someone who actually sold survey equipment, and did mapmaking in my youth with traditional transits, I could explain this in considerable detail, but somebody would probably complain. I'm not after converts, but just suggesting a genuinely lightweight option which happens to provide the most stability of all. And yes, just as Peter implies, there are plenty of past threads on the same topic.

[Peter De Smidt]

Which we've discussed a huge number of times. Does it need to be discussed again? I mean, wouldn't it save time to cut and paste the following to _every_ tripod/support question:

Drew: no head. tripod heads are for slackers who don't care about sharpness.
Bernice: optical bench goniometer. Other heads are for slackers who don't care about precision.
Bernice: If you do feel like slacking, then a Sinar pan/tilt.
Bob: a three-way leveling head from linhof or Berlebach. Genau!
Any F64 traditionalist: Get a Ries head...or we'll confiscate your spot meter.
Anyone who likes strength, light weight, and quick adjustment: Get a good ball head. Learn how to use it.
Someone who has too much money: Arca Swiss cube. It goes with my watch!

[Peter Lauridsen]

Which we've discussed a huge number of times. Does it need to be discussed again? I mean, wouldn't it save time to cut and paste the following to _every_ tripod/support question:

Drew: no head. tripod heads are for slackers who don't care about sharpness.
Bernice: optical bench goniometer. Other heads are for slackers who don't care about precision.
Bernice: If you do feel like slacking, then a Sinar pan/tilt.
Bob: a three-way leveling head from linhof or Berlebach. Genau!
Any F64 traditionalist: Get a Ries head...or we'll confiscate your spot meter.
Anyone who likes strength, light weight, and quick adjustment: Get a good ball head. Learn how to use it.
Someone who has too much money: Arca Swiss cube. It goes with my watch!

This I like!

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, I realize that I've loudly preached and screeched about this so many times on this forum that I deserve to be called the Headless Hoarse Man. But the science behind it is exactly why simplified low-profile heads are themselves preferred by many, like the low-profile Ries head, or the Sinar option. I just get tired of hearing people complain about "variations between lenses" and how they got a bad one, when they really had no idea of how to properly stabilize a camera in the first place. There are a couple other forums where I hear this all the time about the Pentax 6X7 300 lenses. I use both styles of em, and they're heavy, obviously hang forward, and need even stronger stabilization than my 8x10. So I use both the lens collar and the thread on the camera body itself, unite them to a single block of maple, and bolt that directly to my big Ries platform. End of story. Total cost about three dollars, and no ball head on earth is more secure. So Peter, please add one more option to your list: spend a whole lot of money, lug around a bunch of redundant extra weight, and maybe never learn there's a way simpler, more reliable way to do it. And yes, there's a valid reason for me recommending Ries wooden tripods too, though I do use other types when necessary. But as long as I'm getting hoarse once again, or at least preaching common horse sense, I just can't get out of my mind a sight a number of years ago of some rich guy standing in the in the middle of a meadow in Yosemite all afternoon with about ten grand of brand new gear, assuming that if all that stuff were expensive enough he was going to bag a classic Ansel shot - brand new Sinar P, expensive brand new Sinaron apo lens, expensive tripod, and an expensive ballhead, with that damned 8x10 jiggling at every tiny change in the breeze, and him standing in the snow waiting and waiting for that camera to stop wobbling. He probably gave up at dark, and sold off all that gear half price the next weekend.

[Alan Gales]

You might want to check out FLM ballheads too. With some of them you can change each axis separately if that interests you. Ari is the North American distributer and also a member here. I've met Ari and he is a great guy. He will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

http://www.flmcanada.com/contact.html

I've never used the FLM heads myself. I really like my Ries double tilt heads. They are not lightweight though.

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, I realize that I've loudly preached and screeched about this so many times on this forum that I deserve to be called the Headless Hoarse Man. But the science behind it is exactly why simplified low-profile heads are themselves preferred by many, like the low-profile Ries head, or the Sinar option. I just get tired of hearing people complain about "variations between lenses" and how they got a bad one, when they really had no idea of how to properly stabilize a camera in the first place. There are a couple other forums where I hear this all the time about the Pentax 6X7 300 lenses. I use both styles of em, and they're heavy, obviously hang forward, and need even stronger stabilization than my 8x10. So I use both the lens collar and the thread on the camera body itself, unite them to a single block of maple, and bolt that directly to my big Ries platform. End of story. Total cost about three dollars, and no ball head on earth is more secure. So Peter, please add one more option to your list: spend a whole lot of money, lug around a bunch of redundant extra weight, and maybe never learn there's a way simpler, more reliable way to do it. And yes, there's a valid reason for me recommending Ries wooden tripods too, though I do use other types when necessary. But as long as I'm getting hoarse once again, or at least preaching common horse sense, I just can't get out of my mind a sight a number of years ago of some rich guy standing in the in the middle of a meadow in Yosemite all afternoon with about ten grand of brand new gear, assuming that if all that stuff were expensive enough he was going to bag a classic Ansel shot - brand new Sinar P, expensive brand new Sinaron apo lens, expensive tripod, and an expensive ballhead, with that damned 8x10 jiggling at every tiny change in the breeze, and him standing in the snow waiting and waiting for that camera to stop wobbling. He probably gave up at dark, and sold off all that gear half price the next weekend.

Maybe this is why Linhof makes this leveling head for their monorails, as well as any other camera with the optional QR plate.

http://linhof.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Linhof_003667.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, that design makes sense, but like most superbly-made Linhof gear, I bet it was expensive.

[Peter De Smidt]

I hear you, Drew. I used to assist for a guy that used a Manfrotto squeese-lever ball head with a Canon 80-200 f/2.8 lens. I'd watch the front of the lens bob up and down about 1/8" every time he took a picture. I tried to tell him. He got mad. Weeks later he said, "I don't understand why I get soft pictures every time I go slower than 1/400th of a second." So, don't use a head that won't do the job. But that's not an argument against all heads. I've been in situations where I wouldn't have been able to get the photo without using a head. I've used an Arca B1 for 20 years with medium format and field 4x5s. I haven't noticed any problems, and, yes, sometimes I don't use a head either. Recently, I added a smaller Photoclam head from Kerry. It holds my Toyo just fine. It's a good idea to test any system with a laser. Strap the laser point to the camera. Lock everything down. Now tap lightly on various parts of the system. Watch how much the dot bounces. Compare to not using a head....

[Bob Salomon]

Yeah, that design makes sense, but like most superbly-made Linhof gear, I bet it was expensive.

It’s a current product, so is, not was.

[rfesk]

I accept Drew Wiley's arguments about ball heads. However, the BH40 has a very low profile and of the two mentioned is the one I would definitely recommend as far as ball heads go.

I use an Acratech (I got a good deal on one) but I don't stress it with long focal length lenses. In addition I removed the center column of my
Gitzo and installed a flat plate.

[gnuyork]

Ball heads are designed for video cameras, NOT for LF cameras.

It's difficult enough to get one axis set up at a time with LF on a regular tripod head.
Trying to do two axes simultaneously is an invitation to insanity or suicide.

- Leigh

Not saying you're wrong here, but as a professional videographer, I've never, ever seen a ball head used on video cameras in my 20+ years in the field. I do however see plenty of ball head users 35mm DSLRs. That being said I do have a ball head that has a tilt lock feature (FLM), and yes I have used in on my DSLR shooting video. It's even (according to the marketing), useful for large format photography because of the tilt lock. I have used it with my 4x5 camera and it's fine. No issues. Like Drew, I used to go sans head. I have the Berlebach and it has some limited adjustments without having a head attached.

[Pieter]

Video cameras are usually mounted to fluid pan-tilt heads.

[gnuyork]

Video cameras are usually mounted to fluid pan-tilt heads.

Exactly

[aaronnate]

Since everyone's opinion is the correct one on this thread (some more correct than others. Just ask them, they will tell you)

Here is mine
Use what you have and practice with it until you are able to use it consistently well. If you want a ball head, get it. Just check the weight rating and and make sure it will handle your camera with the largest lens you plan to use.

Here is what I use and I would not switch. Mainly because I am getting old and grumpy.
I happily use an old Bogen ball head that the number is worn off . It is the big one with the hexagonal QR plate. I use it with MF up to my Kodak 5x7 2D inbetween there is a couple 4x5 monorails and a field camera. I have a bubble level I use on the bed/rail of my LF cameras that easily helps me get things squared up and I don't see any wobble, unless I bump it, which happens on occaison. My longest lens is 300mm in LF and 150 in MF though. Plus, I use cable releases and MLU, in MF.

I am often finding stuff on the ground that I want to shoot and a ball head is so much quicker to use to get the angles I want than the pan tilt I use for 8x10.

[Jim Noel]

Best ball head for a view camera? NONE. Lots of past thread explaining why. In fact, if light weight is a priority, why use any kind of tripod head? I don't.

I'm with Drew - NO BALL HEAD FOR LARGE FORMAT!

[Leszek Vogt]

Which we've discussed a huge number of times. Does it need to be discussed again? I mean, wouldn't it save time to cut and paste the following to _every_ tripod/support question:

Drew: no head. tripod heads are for slackers who don't care about sharpness.
Bernice: optical bench goniometer. Other heads are for slackers who don't care about precision.
Bernice: If you do feel like slacking, then a Sinar pan/tilt.
Bob: a three-way leveling head from linhof or Berlebach. Genau!
Any F64 traditionalist: Get a Ries head...or we'll confiscate your spot meter.
Anyone who likes strength, light weight, and quick adjustment: Get a good ball head. Learn how to use it.
Someone who has too much money: Arca Swiss cube. It goes with my watch!

Dang, Peter. You've manage to flip the apple cart couple of times. Thanks. Indeed, this pony is no more.....

Les

[Drew Wiley]

"Weight rating" has little to do with it. Torque vectors do. It's specifically how that weight is distributed or extenuated that counts. What works well with a particular camera configuration at a certain weight might prove inept with a different kind of balance of equal weight. Therefore opinions are no substitute for actually trying out a product before you purchase it. Any reputable dealer should permit you a mock-up test.

[Jim Becia]

Hello folks,

I'm trying to decide on the two mentioned heads. I use a chamonixN2 with lens between 90mm and 300mm.
The camera weights 3 and a half pounds plus lens and film holder, I have to be under 8 lbs.

So the Really right ball heads are my question. The 30 has a weight limit of 15 and the 40 of 18.
100 dollar difference in price.

I can't take a look at them as there is no store, so I'm relying on reviews etc.

I'm leaning toward the 30 as I like to travel as light as possible.

Thoughts?
Thanks

Peter, I have the BH40 and have used it with my Chamonix 8x10 with no problem. For your 4x5, I agree with Peter that the 30 would suffice. As to the rest of the debate about using a ballhead with LF, if you’re comfortable with it, I see no reason not to.

[esearing]

For years I used a giottos MH3000 which is a heavy duty ballhead. Recently switched to Manfrotto XPRO-3 head with quick release and find it much easier to level and adjust one axes at a time. The 405 and 410 heads are nice too.

[GG12]

Have tried a number of different solutions, and over time, have drifted from the ballhead BH-40 to the Arca D4 geared head. Yes, its a bit heavier, but the precision is worthwhile. But sometimes a ballhead is just easier to pack or use. I'd recommend the 40 over the 30, the extra size isn't that much and it is more secure. As to load weights, typically I divide the stated capacities by 3 to get a working sense of secure and with some safety factor.