What kind of head are you using with your monorail camera?

[Thalmees]

..., it seemed like the majority of heads suited for that weight (around 25-30lbs) are predominately ball heads. I've never used a ball head before and feel like there would be nothing to hold onto when changing the position/tilting of the camera like there is with a pan/tilt head ...
If you own a ball head do you have any issues with tilting the camera?

.
Hello,
Ball heads now have a precision fraction/tension control. In some examples, they have a separate tilt function.
Please check FLM CB-58, its weight capacity is beyond what any photographer may need(130Lb). It has also a separate tilt function(more about this in the 4th paragraph of this post).
RRS BH-55(low profile. Actually the lowest profile I know among full size ball heads in the market now), is another excellent example, but its payload capacity(50Lb) is below the FLM CB-58.
The extra load capacity beyond the camera weight, is not something passive. It's still valid or active, to facilitate friction control(for example) for more precise and smooth function.
The problem with payload capacity, is being not objective parameter, not standardized.
I used both ball heads for more than enough time now. Both are excellent, least saying.
.
But, with large format(specially mono-rails), the tripod weight(alone) is as important as any other feature in the tripod itself or in the tripod head.
The tripod weight should exceed the standards adopted in the digital realm nowadays. Its very biased toward simplicity and mobility(lower size/weight) of the tripod in its self, not as an essential photo requirement.
As an example, IMO, the tripod weight of Gitzo series 4 and RRS TVC-3x series(they are equivalent/4-5.5 Lbs without tripod head) or any equivalent tripod of any sort of material, is not enough to support a monorail camera(like Sinar 4X5, C2, with usual weight lens/10Lb with lens), UNLESS an extra weight is used hanged under the top plate.
Even, if you added a 2Lb ballhead, the amount of friction needed(for gross camera adjustment) on the ball head is too high to be accommodated by a lower weight tripod for appropriate stability. The problem is exaggerated(truly not apparently) if you used a longer focal length lens.
After you lock the main knob, the fine adjustments of the camera could be transferred easily to the tripod, if it is of lower weight.
The difference in weight is not that much, if you decided to start with enough weight tripod.
If you backpack, you may have to use a field camera in the first place, and accordingly the tripod weight can be lower.
.
BTW, load capacity of ballheads is much higher in general than pan-tilt-swivel(3 way) tripod heads, though the apparent! stability of the later looks more, which I think due to step by step sequence of work flow only.
Load capacity, if other components added to the tripod(leveling base, head or panning base), is the lowest number among the components of the tripod system, wither that rate is of the tripod itself or of any added piece. Please consider this when you chose to use any thing more than tripod head.
.
Ball heads may be used more, due to:
* Smaller size(but not necessarily lower in weight) and can bear more weight.
* One lock to stabilize every thing. It has all axis at one point.
* Tension control, it's really precise in the top rated ballheads(not exclusive to the examples above).
* Tilt control. This if accurate, it turns your ball head to a pan-tilt head of a very high stability. The FLM CB-58 has this feature, its practically accurate.
But honestly, the tilt function of CB-58, is not scientifically accurate. Still very useful feature, because the lateral readjustment is just minor. If you consider that and compensated for it on the first lateral adjustment, you may not even need any further lateral readjustment after adjusting camera tilt.
* Muti-Format. Same size/same system of smaller plates that locks tightly every time and can be left permanently in each of your equipment.
.
All that said about ball heads, it does not mean pan-tilt heads have no advantage. They have, but I know and use only ball heads since long time.
Hope you find my post useful.

[Len Middleton]

Yea I'd use the 8x10 for studio and some location work every once in a while. What's the difference of a leveling head to other heads?

My head for 8x10 and 8x20

[Christopher Barrett]

When my 8x10 F Metric arrived, I found that my Arca Cube wasn't quite up to the task. I ordered their Z2+ ball head and couldn't be happier. Tilt is on a separate axis, which makes leveling painless.

[asf]

I used to use the B2 with my f metric 8x10 and it wasn't solid enough side to side. The z2 is a couple generations newer so I'd expect it to be improved.

I doubt it could handle an 810G, you'd have to fit an arca plate and in my experience the arca clamp isn't strong enough for a camera as big as the 810G (I've tried).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DG 3313]

+1 the 3047 head is a beast............

For a small 4x5 field camera a quality ballhead works fine. For bigger stuff, such as the 4x5 Cambo monorail I first had, I was using a Bogen/Manfrotto 3047 head. That thing was a beast, and it was solid!


Kent in SD

[Dan Fromm]

+1 the 3047 head is a beast............

The 3039//229 is stronger. I overloaded a 3047 somewhat with my Baby Bertha and it complained. Baby Bertha was built around a 2x3 Cambo monorail but much of the weight was in the SLR module (2x3 RB Ser. B), a heavy lens (4 kg of 900/10) and the crutch (SC-1 standard). A 3039/229 bears the load without problems.

[Leigh]

The 3039//229 is stronger. I overloaded a 3047 somewhat with my Baby Bertha and it complained. Baby Bertha was built around a 2x3 Cambo monorail but much of the weight was in the SLR module (2x3 RB Ser. B), a heavy lens (4 kg of 900/10) and the crutch (SC-1 standard). A 3039/229 bears the load without problems.

Hi Dan,

That might convey the intent for those familiar with all the components.

For the rest of us, a simple "The camera weighs xx pounds" would likely be more meaningful.

- Leigh

[DG 3313]

I can't speak for the 3039//229 but, I have used the same tripod (Bogen 3021 legs and 3047 head) for twenty years with a Horseman 450L and a Sironar-N 210 F5.6 racked out and up close with no slip. I would recommend this rig to anyone for anything up to 20 lbs. of camera.

The 3039//229 is stronger. I overloaded a 3047 somewhat with my Baby Bertha and it complained. Baby Bertha was built around a 2x3 Cambo monorail but much of the weight was in the SLR module (2x3 RB Ser. B), a heavy lens (4 kg of 900/10) and the crutch (SC-1 standard). A 3039/229 bears the load without problems.

[asf]

As someone with a lot of experience using the 810G with different heads I can say a 3047 is not adequate

The 3039 should be fine

(Yes I've used several 3047s)

The 810G and others like the big old Linhof Kardan 810s aren't just heavy, they're physically large. Produces a lot of stress on any head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uphereinmytree]

I use a variety of newer gitzo 3 way heads. g1370m seems plenty for a 4x5 monorail and I use a deardorff 8x10 on it also. A g1570M may be required for heavier 8x10 monorails. The M is for magnesium which makes it lighter. all of the gitzo heads i have seem to need regular maintenance to stay smooth. Gitzo has it's own grease that has some resistance so that when a camera is attached, the movements are smooth but not loose.

Also, I avoid any quick releases as they are in my opinion just another place to introduce vibration or movement.