PDA

View Full Version : Ball head or Pan & tilt head???



stradibarrius
12-Nov-2011, 08:07
I was curious if there was a strong preference for either a pan & tilt or a ball head?
I am new to LF and have a Cambo SC that weights about 7lbs., I think.
With my MF and 35mm gear I have always used a ball head. When I carry the 4x5 on the tripod the ball head I have does not hold the camera, even when I crank down tight on the tension adjusters.

It seems that with the big mass on top a pan and tilt would be easier???

Richard Wasserman
12-Nov-2011, 08:19
I am a fan of 3-way heads, my favorite is a Manfrotto 410 geared head. I tried an Arca Swiss ball head, but never got comfortable with it—too hard to adjust one plane without disturbing the other. Of course others will chime in that ball heads are the best...

Joanna Carter
12-Nov-2011, 08:23
Another vote for the Manfrotto 410. As Richard says, it is a geared head, not a pan and tilt head, and that means it is exceptionally easy to make very fine adjustments in only one plane at a time.

Ari
12-Nov-2011, 08:42
I've found that 3-way heads are great for monorail cameras, ball heads are not.
I've gotten away with using a ball head on a field camera, but I always found it too time-consuming to level properly.

David R Munson
12-Nov-2011, 09:04
For careful work, I don't see how people end up using ball heads. Even with a good tension control like you have on good ball head, careful axis-specific adjustments (like most of us want when doing the sort of work one is apt to do with a view camera) becomes problematic. I have a fairly cheap but decent Sirui ball head that serves me well when I want a ball head, but otherwise I have an old (~30 years?) Gitzo 3-way head that is stellar. So much easier to use effectively doing most of my work, there's no debate which head to use when I go out with the view camera.

Fred L
12-Nov-2011, 09:05
3 or two ways (Ries J250 or Manfrotto 410) > ballheads for me re:LF cameras. 35 and MF are happy on my Gitzo 1576 ballhead

moTmeN
12-Nov-2011, 09:48
3 or two ways (Ries J250 or Manfrotto 410) > ballheads for me re:LF cameras. 35 and MF are happy on my Gitzo 1576 ballhead

Another vote for 3 way head. I had a Manfrotto ballhead for all-purpose equipment (for small format with 500/4 lens, and Cambo SC monorail) which had an affordable result. After I successfully broke the ball(!), I've decided to invest some money on proper heads, so I bought a big ballhead (Foba superball), and gave a chance to a 3 way head (Manfrotto 229) for landscape and macro work. After the first shots with 3 way head my ballhead is only used for animal (mostly bird) photography (with DSLR). For other, slower subject I use the 3 way.

Ivan J. Eberle
12-Nov-2011, 10:48
I like my Novoflex ballhead well enough for a folding 4x5 Meridian, but it would probably be awkward with a monorail. It's a matter of the cantilevered weight over the ball and the amount of tension needed to resist it. The Novo is too light on the resistance tensioning.
But I still have a really big Manfrotto Super Heavy Duty Ballhead (268) from 20 years ago that was the bee's knees used with a Sinar Norma. I earlier used it with a 300mm f/2.8 on an SLR for a great many years to wonderful effect. It's overkill for most things, I'm sure it would be at least adequate to 8x10 and maybe larger. I've used it with a 2000mm mirror lens that it handled with aplomb.

rdenney
12-Nov-2011, 13:50
I have an Arca-Swiss Monoball (the model before the B1). It's excellent...

...for everything except large format, particularly when using a monorail camera.

When I travel with a camera, it's often my Pentax 6x7, and the ballhead works nicely with that camera. It's also compact to travel with, and quite robust. But it's a special Hell to try and level a Sinar F on a ball head, such that the camera can be turned without having to do it all over again.

I have used large Bogen three-way heads and they have always been worthy of their weight and bulk--that's all I ever used with the Calumet and Cambo view cameras I used for years. It's all I ever used for commercial work, most of which I did with a Mamiya TLR.

I have also tried the 410, but I found that it wiggles a bit more than the big clamping heads, and the quick-release plate isn't big enough for a monorail camera. I suspect it would be fine for a field camera with a nice, flat bottom surface on which to mount that plate. For the Sinar, there is the tilt-head and then there is everything else, and now that I have that, nothing else will do for that camera. But it only works for cameras that can roll about the rail mounting, because it provides pitch and yaw movement only.

Rick "who really ought to sell his Bogen heads" Denney

goodfood
12-Nov-2011, 14:07
I have 410 gear head. When I use on my heavy Linhof tripod with large disc (77mm) the disc catch the turning notch when tilt upward about 30 degree. So be aware.

Leigh
12-Nov-2011, 21:30
I use a Majestic tripod with geared head for all formats through 8x10.
Solid as a rock. Rated to support 35 pounds, but it would probably support my car.

Never have found a use for ball heads, except to let a camera flop around.

- Leigh

stradibarrius
13-Nov-2011, 06:51
It seems that most everyones experience agrees with mine. In the 35mm world ball heads are the rage but I have always thought they were just so-so. Maybe It is because I do not have a $300 model??? I have ordered a Manfrotto 808RC4 3 way so I will see if I like it better.

bobwysiwyg
13-Nov-2011, 07:20
Never have found a use for ball heads, except to let a camera flop around.

- Leigh

+1

Ken Lee
13-Nov-2011, 07:48
I have 410 gear head. When I use on my heavy Linhof tripod with large disc (77mm) the disc catch the turning notch when tilt upward about 30 degree. So be aware.

I have the same tripod head. You can put the camera on backwards, and then you will have unlimited upward tilt.

Ken Lee
13-Nov-2011, 07:51
Does anyone have a Manfrotto 405 or 400 ? They are the more robust versions of the 410 head.

See their comparison table here (http://www.manfrotto.us/product_list/8374.31708.76913.0.0/Geared). They are also more expensive.

I ask, because after 10 years my 410 is getting stiff to adjust, and I wonder if a more robust head would make it easier to adjust my Sinar P when I have heavy lenses on it.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Manfrotto400.jpg
400

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Manfrotto405.jpg
405

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Manfrotto410.jpg
410

stradibarrius
13-Nov-2011, 08:01
WOW there is a real jump in price between the models!

rdenney
13-Nov-2011, 12:24
Never have found a use for ball heads, except to let a camera flop around.

It does have one use: A ball head that is the size of a coffee mug will hold a large camera, and will also fit in a medium-sized checked bag, along with shoes, clothes, and other stuff needed for the trip, plus the composite-leg tripod. Your Majestic tripod will need its own bag and will cost you extra to fly with, not to mention the tip to the native bearers.

Unlike my three-way heads, the ball head does not have big handles sticking out in all directions.

I also got tired of the Bogen hex plates that do not fit compactly on any camera, and that have to be tightened to frightening torque to crush the padding enough to keep the camera from being wiggly. Arca plates can be found for nearly any camera that mount securely without any gooey interface material. It took me some years to finally come to that conclusion, but now that I have, I see the advantages of those Arca-style plates and L-brackets. I can thus use that ball head for all of my small and medium-format cameras, particularly while traveling and needing a compact, flexible, and strong design.

For a monorail view camera? No, for reasons already stated. But that does not make them useless.

Rick "not given to sweeping judgments" Denney

Ken Lee
13-Nov-2011, 15:03
With the Manfrotto system, is there a way to level the tripod itself - below the 3-way head ?

Leigh
13-Nov-2011, 16:27
With the Manfrotto system, is there a way to level the tripod itself - below the 3-way head ?
My Manfroto tripod has a bullseye level on top, below the adjustable head.

It says 055XPROB on the leg. I assume that's the model number. I'm not familiar with any other Manfroto products.

You can add a bullseye level to any tripod. McMaster-Carr has a broad selection of sizes and sensitivities.
http://www.mcmaster.com

- Leigh

Bob Salomon
13-Nov-2011, 17:12
With the Manfrotto system, is there a way to level the tripod itself - below the 3-way head ?

You can add a leveling head beneath the Manfrotto head. Novoflex makes the new M BAL head and linhof also makes a leveling head that will level out your head.

Ken Lee
13-Nov-2011, 17:59
Thanks Bob - The M BAL looks very nice. Is there a level on it ?

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/mbal.jpg

Leigh
13-Nov-2011, 19:37
You can level the column of any tripod just by adjusting the legs. You don't need a 'leveling head" to do that.

- Leigh

Ole Tjugen
13-Nov-2011, 23:25
I prefer ballheads.

Around here there isn't enough flat ground that you can be sure the tripod is close to level, and if it is I'll always move it a couple of cm and it will be way out of level again. Levelling the camera is moch easier with a ballhead . loosen one clamp, level, tighten. Most of my cameras have at least one bullseye level.

My best head is a BIG Uniloc head; I move it from tripod to tripod.

Bob Salomon
14-Nov-2011, 03:24
Thanks Bob - The M BAL looks very nice. Is there a level on it ?

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/mbal.jpg

No, the level would go onto whatever is being leveled.

Brian Ellis
14-Nov-2011, 09:22
It seems that most everyones experience agrees with mine. In the 35mm world ball heads are the rage but I have always thought they were just so-so. Maybe It is because I do not have a $300 model??? I have ordered a Manfrotto 808RC4 3 way so I will see if I like it better.

I think they're the rage partly because they're quicker and easier to use. And since smaller format cameras generally don't have movements the photographer can't get everything perfectly aligned anyhow so why not use whatever is easiest and fastest?

I use a ball head with my digital camera but never liked them for large format. I first used a 3-way pan-tilt head for that and when I started doing more architecture I switched to the Bogen Manfrotto 410 that others have mentioned.

jeroldharter
14-Nov-2011, 09:43
Of course, it all depends on what your goals are.

You camera is a relatively heavy one I think. The heavier the camera, the less appealing is a ball head because the weight f the camera can overwhelm the ball which exacerbates flop, makes fine adjustments precarious, and requires uncomfortably forceful clamping down of the head. But a ball head is great for travel, generally much lighter than a pan-tilt head, have more elegant quick release plates, and seem to downscale to smaller format cameras better. I have an Arca Z1 ball head that works great with an Arca 4x5 and Pentax 67. It is rated to easily handle my 8x10 but I find it overmatched and unsuitable.

I like pan-tilt heads much better for big cameras. I have a Gitzo 15xx model, the top plate of which is like a coffee table. It is rock solid and makes leveling my 8x10 easy and quick. In the field, the large handles are stout enough to hang a filter wallet, hat, framing device, etc. which is handy. The long handles do unscrew to make it somewhat more convenient for travel. But it weighs nearly as much as a beefy Feisol CF tripod. So I think the weight of most pan-tilt heads diminishes the weight advantage of CF tripods - but I will take whatever weight savings I can find. I wish someone made an ultralight pan-tilt head.

David R Munson
14-Nov-2011, 09:48
...have more elegant quick release plates...

On that note, this has been working pretty well for me. I firmly screw an Acratech qr clamp onto the top of a Gitzo head and it works perfectly. I can still take it off when I want to just use the screw (happens less and less often). Long-term, I want to pick up a panning base, put it between the top of the Gitzo and the clamp, and work out a more permanent method of affixing it all together, but even as an interim solution this works very well.

jeroldharter
15-Nov-2011, 06:05
On that note, this has been working pretty well for me. I firmly screw an Acratech qr clamp onto the top of a Gitzo head and it works perfectly. I can still take it off when I want to just use the screw (happens less and less often). Long-term, I want to pick up a panning base, put it between the top of the Gitzo and the clamp, and work out a more permanent method of affixing it all together, but even as an interim solution this works very well.

That's a nice work around. Notice though that the size of the top plate on your pan tilt head happens to be just the right size so that it accommodates the knob for the quick release. The top plate on mine is much larger and would not fit.

Also, when you start adding components called "Arca", "RRS", "Novoflex" to a Gitzo you quickly realize why a weak dollar is bad. Plus the weight climbs further.

I just tried going "headless" to save weight. I swapped out the Gitzo pan tilt head and replaced it with a Feisol leveling base on a Feisol tripod for use with a Wehman 8x10. The weight savings weas ~2.5 pounds which is significant. I found using that combination possible but it really slowed me down and made me more irritable due to the tedious and unmanageable leveling process. After the first morning I reverted back to the Gitzo. But a more determined and patient man, perhaps a bit more clever too, could have lived with the leveling base.

David R Munson
15-Nov-2011, 06:59
Very true. One reason I was attracted to this particular head when I found it at a used shop was that it was perfect for 35mm and medium format while not being undersized for 4x5 (especially my Chamonix). It's not a perfect setup, and there are downsides to my modifications, but it works very well for the time being.

Long term, though, it's a Cube or the new d4 for me.