Which ball head? Really right BH40 or BH30

[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.





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.





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?