Why use ball heads with pan at the base?

[engl]

I've been looking at some different ways of making my tripod setup lighter and smaller, including getting a ball head.

I've noticed that nearly all ball heads put the panning at the base of the head. Is there any advantages to this setup? It seems to me that unless you have your tripod perfectly leveled, you would be required to re-level the camera after panning.

Heads like the Arca Swiss P0/P1 put the panning part on top of the ball. Since I mostly shoot with the back vertical, I could level the camera using the ball, then pan freely without having to re-level the camera. No need to level the tripod itself, which can be a pain on uneven ground.

Are there any disadvantages to the P0/P1 setup that I'm missing? It does not seem to be mentioned much around here.

[Noah A]

I have an arca ballhead with the panning mechanism at the base of the head, and it's mostly useless. I occasionally use it to put the ballhead control where I like it (to the left, so I can use my right hand to steady the camera). But once the camera is leveled, as you suggest, if you pan you'll need to re-level.

The ballhead is nice but I kind of wish I had gone with a pan/tilt head, which seems to make more sense for large format. The heads you mention do seem to be an improvement over a standard ballhead.

[Brian C. Miller]

My ball head has panning on the base, and I use it a bit, but not much. I would rather have it at the top. The advantage is when the base is mostly level, then I can swing the camera around without worrying about it flopping all over the place.

[Bob Kerner]

I have a 15 year old Arc, the mid sized head and the pan is on the base. I use it maybe 8% of the time. Not terribly useful but I'm happier with than without it.

I have two tripod systems. One is a giant Sachter video system with a leveling bowl head and, in my opinion, every tripod should have this since it nearly eliminates the need to fuss with individual legs. Problem is, it's not meant to walk around with. My "photography" tripod does not have the leveling head (doesn't even have a bubble level) and it makes it more difficult to get leveled up, as you said in the OP.

I've used a ball head for photography exclusively for years and it works we for me with small cameras but I'm not liking it with the LF gear simply b/c of the leveling issue. If I weren't such a cheapskate about buying multiple tripod heads, I'd look for something with a leveling bowl and/or a 3-way pan tilt with bubble levels.

On the other hand, you could skip the head altogether, spend a few moments leveling the legs and just screw your camera directly to the tripod base. A lot cheaper that way!

[bobwysiwyg]

.. but I kind of wish I had gone with a pan/tilt head, which seems to make more sense for large format.


As a relative newbie to LF, I made the same mistake. I can get by with the ballhead, but will be keeping my eye out for a panhead, much seems more logical to me anyway.

[Donald Miller]

Quote: "I have two tripod systems. One is a giant Sachter video system with a leveling bowl head and, in my opinion, every tripod should have this since it nearly eliminates the need to fuss with individual legs. Problem is, it's not meant to walk around with. My "photography" tripod does not have the leveling head (doesn't even have a bubble level) and it makes it more difficult to get leveled up, as you said in the OP."



http://nodalninja.com/products/ezlevelers.html

[Jim Noel]

The answer is to level the tripod first rather than depending on the head to level the camera. Then the pan in the base is a joy to use.

[Collas]

I use a Kirk ball head on top of an Acratech Levelling Base. It works well.

http://www.acratech.net/product.php?productid=14&cat=2&page=1

If I had the money, I'd be interested in trying the Arca Swiss Cube, but it ain't going to happen.

Nick

[jp]

As brian said, the possible usefulness is to swing the camera around without it potentially flopping over.

I think the real purpose is to sell it to dslr panorama fans. I have a cheap ballhead with the panning in the base, and it's accurately marked with degrees of rotation. That is probably for no other purpose than panorama work.

[Justin Cormack]

I have the Arca-Swiss P1 with the panning part at the top of the ball and recommend it. I am not sure I understand why anyone puts the panning tray on the bottom. You often want to pan a little to fine tune the composition. Obviously you can absolutely level with the legs, but it is much easier to make the fine adjustments with a ball head than with three legs... It is a pretty light head, but very sturdy.

[engl]

As for ball head versus pan/tilt, I prefer my Manfrotto pan/tilt to the ball head I own, but both have the issue of requiring re-leveling after panning with a non-leveled tripod. The problem with tilt/pan is the bulk and weight (at least among heads in my price range that I know of).

As for using a leveling base under a ball head, that does seem like an option, but it adds weight, cost, and probably means a slightly less stable setup. That Arcatech leveling base weighs 240g, compared to 280g for a P0 head. Leveling base under another tripod head should without doubt be the most flexible setup though.

I actually started thinking I could do without a tripod head, but soon realized I'd be spending a lot of time leveling the tripod, and then re-leveling it again if I wanted to pan. My second idea was the Arcatech leveling base, which would speed up leveling, but still requiring re-level after panning, and panning on uneven ground might require adjusting the legs. I then found the P0 which seems ideal for me, 280g, small, strong, only need to level the head, after which I can pan without re-leveling (and I very rarely desire to have the camera tilted up/down). I just wanted to make this thread to see if I was overlooking any advantage to having the pan at the base.

[Scott Davis]

I have the Arca-Swiss P1 with the panning part at the top of the ball and recommend it. I am not sure I understand why anyone puts the panning tray on the bottom. You often want to pan a little to fine tune the composition. Obviously you can absolutely level with the legs, but it is much easier to make the fine adjustments with a ball head than with three legs... It is a pretty light head, but very sturdy.

How big a camera are you putting on it?

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The better quick-release ballheads can be really useful, not just for quick setup and framing with a 4x5 folder but especially used with other formats. So long as I'm paying upwards of several hundred dollars for a piece of equipment, I want to be able to use it with in as many different situations as possible. So I probably wouldn't consider buy a ballhead without a smooth separate panning function because I also occasionally need to use one with a Wimberley Sidekick.

[Bruce Watson]

Clearly I'm the odd man out (again). But I'd rather work with my equipment than fight against it. And it sounds to me like y'all are fighting against your ball heads. I don't know why.

Personally, I like the base pan on my ball head (A-S B1). But that's because I'm using it for what it is, and not trying to force it to be something it's not.

In my workflow, the first thing I do is set up the tripod. I make no attempt to accurately level it -- just make a firm connection to the ground with the head in about the right location and the height about right. Then I slot the camera's quick release plate into the head and lock the camera to the ball head. Then I loosen the pan lock and turn the camera around so the front faces me. Then I pick a lens and attach it to the camera. Turn the camera back around. Stick my head in the bag, do a rough focus, then a rough frame -- pointing the camera in the right direction to get what I want in the frame. Then I snug down the pan and the ball head controls.

Next, I pull my head out of the bag and level and plumb the film plane as needed. Not before, but after I've snugged down the pan lock. So the level of the ball head is immaterial. I'm not going to move the pan adjustment again.

You see where I'm heading with this? The pan adjustment on a ball head is there to help you rough in framing. It's not there to be a fine tuning thing. It's not supposed to require that you level the tripod before you use it.

If you want to level the head (as opposed to leveling the camera), you can do that through buying more equipment (see links in the appends above). But you don't gain a better photograph, nor do you gain a better workflow IMHO. You add weight, complexity, and expense to your kit, and time and bother to your setup. And gain... what exactly? Remember, you've got camera movements -- you fine tune your framing with rise/fall and shift, remember?

I'd understand your complaint if this was about stitching with a DSLR. But this is about LF. And LF ain't like DSLR. A fact for which I'm very grateful.

[Justin Cormack]

How big a camera are you putting on it?

Its a light 5x7 field camera, about 2.5kg.

[Brian Ellis]

I would have thought that if someone was doing a type of photography that requires such precision as to require them to re-level the tripod after a pan (e.g. architecture) they wouldn't be using a ball head at all, they'd use a three-way head or better yet, a geared head.

[Noah A]

I use the same technique that Bruce mentioned--however I occasionally want to make a slight side-to-side change to the composition after leveling and locking the camera in place. In practice I do a rough leveling of the camera, then pan to the exact composition I want, then do a more careful leveling.

Leveling the tripod using the legs on uneven ground would take forever and seems silly to me. And the last thing I want to do is make things more complicated with a second leveling component under the ballhead.

Brian--I don't shoot architecture per se, but I do shoot in urban environments with lots of verticals that I would like to remain vertical. So yes, you're right--I would have been better off with a three-way or geared head.

[rdenney]

The main reason for the pan capability on a ball head is so that you can aim the slot in the appropriate direction when you need to turn the camera on its side. Not something you do with a 4x5 camera? Me neither. But then, I've learned my lesson trying to make a ballhead work with a 4x5 camera.

My Sinar is quite tall and top-heavy. With a ball head, I could never get both axes level at the same time--trying to adjust one would inevitably allow the other one to slip out of level. I tried to find a way to put a bullseye level on the top of the ball head so I could level it, but everything I considered just added another layer to the fight. So, I got wise and bought another set of Bogen 3036 legs just for the Sinar, and put a Sinar tilt-head on it. It just moves in one axis (other than panning) and one can adjust the sideways tilt of the rail in the clamp for the other axis. Ten times as fast and no fiddling. It's just as compact and it's lighter, too.

For my Pentax 6x7, however, the ball head is sublime. There are times when I need a vertical format, and then I need to flip the ball over on its side. That's when the pan control is nice--it allows me to aim the slot in the direction needed.

If I was using a smaller bed camera, I would be using my Bogen 410 geared head.

Rick "who always adjusts the legs of the tripod to plumb the center column" Denney

[engl]

I guess I should have made a better title for my post, I was only interested in the discussion of ball head base pan (the most common way) versus ball head top pan (like the Arca Swiss P0/P1 and Z1 dp). Putting the pan at the base seems backwards to me.

I'm now pretty convinced that the P0 would be the ideal tripod head for the way I mostly shoot, with the back vertical. There are more flexible ways of getting what I want (level once using head only, panning without re-leveling after that) discussed in this thread, but they are 3-10x times the weight and cost. I'd use it together with a 1.5kg field camera, not a 6kg monorail monster.

[rdenney]

I guess I should have made a better title for my post, I was only interested in the discussion of ball head base pan (the most common way) versus ball head top pan (like the Arca Swiss P0/P1 and Z1 dp). Putting the pan at the base seems backwards to me.

I'm now pretty convinced that the P0 would be the ideal tripod head for the way I mostly shoot, with the back vertical. There are more flexible ways of getting what I want (level once using head only, panning without re-leveling after that) discussed in this thread, but they are 3-10x times the weight and cost. I'd use it together with a 1.5kg field camera, not a 6kg monorail monster.

Given the effort it takes to level the camera using a ball head, I can see why you would not want to have to relevel it after panning. It truly is annoyingly fiddlesome, and the main reason many prefer not to use ball heads with view cameras. I tried my A-S Monoball with my Speed Graphic, and it was just as annoying as it was with my Sinar. It is not a pain to align my Pentax 6x7 on the Monoball, and the reason is that I level that camera by looking through the viewfinder and aligning the subject, not by looking at levels on the camera. Thus, I'm adjusting both axes in one action, rather than having to fiddle with it to get each axis adjusted separately. That makes a huge difference in application, it seems to me. Thus, I conclude, for me at least, ball heads are at their best with reflex cameras.

And it does no good to level the legs and center column with a ball-head. Even if the base panning is leveled, it is so hard to get the top leveled that the camera will still probably lose level when you turn it. If you can really get the top leveled, then top panning will certainly be better.

I find it better not to have to struggle to level the camera by using an equally compact and even lighter Sinar tilt-head. That head does, however, require a level center column to use since it only tilts in one axis. (That is similar to the Ries head, near as I can tell.)

Rick "who has already tried all the workarounds with ball heads" Denney

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with those who've said that the base panning feature is mostly of use with non-lf cameras, although I occasionally use it to get the locking knob on my Arca head is a good place, or to position the notch if I'm shooting down, even with LF. Having the panning base on top of the ball would be helpful for those who shoot stitched panoramas, especially with non-lf cameras, although in that case why not use a geared head or pan/tilt with a panning base mounted on top? That'd be much easier to level, and that's what I do when shooting stitched images.

[el french]

I have my ballhead mounted upside down.:D

[engl]

I have been thinking more about this and been researching the market more. I'm as convinced as ever that the top is the right place to put the pan, but I'm starting to have some doubt about the P0 head.

Earlier it was listed in the official store as weighing 280g with QR, which was remarkable. Now it has been adjusted to 305g for the no-QR version, 350g with their SlideFix (or is it MonoballFix? different sources, different info), and 405g for a standard Arca-compatible QR. As far as I'm concerned, it weighs 405g, I'm not giving up my current Arca plates, gear compatibility and access to aftermarket plates in order to change to a system with much narrower plates.

Still a nice product I'm sure, but there are other 400-500g options which might be more flexible. One is the Acratech GP-s ballhead, which can function as a normal ballhead, or be inverted to work as level+pan.

Another interesting product is the Sunwayfoto DDH-01, fairly light panning Arca-compatible QR clamp. This can replace the QR clamp on many ballheads, such as the Acratech Ultimate or some PhotoClam head, to make a light dual-pan head. That could be used as a quick leveling base + pan (what I need most of the time with 4x5), or a plain ball head.