Ball versus 3-Way head

[psychonaut]

which do you prefer ?

more specifically the choice looks like it is between

manfrotto 3030 and 484RC2

ps: dont ask noob hard questions :shock:

ps2: tripod legs will have a column mountable sideways.

[CoolToolGuy]

Personally, I like a ball head for the monopod and a 3-way for the tripod.

On the tripod I like to move the camera over a specific axis until I get it the way I want it. On the monopod, I am mostly working with sports or action, and in situations where a tripod is not suitable, and I may need to adjust it more quickly.

Have Fun,

[Jon]

What camera are you going to be mounting on it? Is the tripod/head weight going to be important? What are you going to be photographing? I was concerned about weight, so I got a 486RC2 head for my tripod. (20D, possibly with grip, and 100-400 as target max. load).

[psychonaut]

What camera are you going to be mounting on it? Is the tripod/head weight going to be important? What are you going to be photographing? I was concerned about weight, so I got a 486RC2 head for my tripod. (20D, possibly with grip, and 100-400 as target max. load).
the camera is digital rebel :( and its going to be mostly still photography outdoors.

tilt/pan is heavier than ball as i understand ? but would this really be that important ?

CoolToolGuy i kinda follow your logic.

[CoolToolGuy]

the camera is digital rebel http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif and its going to be mostly still photography outdoors.

tilt/pan is heavier than ball as i understand ? but would this really be that important ?

CoolToolGuy i kinda follow your logic.I started with a 482RC2 head on my monopod, but I eventually went to the 486RC2 - it has a bigger ball (smoother action) and the ball lock is a little larger, which makes it easier to use. On either one you can snug up the ball lock gradually to get just the level of drag that you want. The weight limit of the 486RC2 is also higher.

If you are going for a carbon fiber trpod or monopod the weight of the head can make a difference.

Have Fun,

[GPR1]

I like a ball head on a tripod; it's faster and less fussy to adjust. I rarely found with a three way that I only wanted to adjust one axis. I was always fiddling with a couple different knobs. I also like the lighter weight.

Greg

[psychonaut]

hm...

will 486RC2 head be compatible with SLIK 700 DX PRO legs ? supposedly it has same thread but want to be sure ?

[CyberDyneSystems]

I like a Ballhead.. but having used several now,. I now know that the better ones are larger and heavier with larger balls (did I just say that? :lol: )

I'm not completely literate with all the Manfrotto Ballheads by number so I don't really know what size you are speaking of with the 486-488,. but I have seen some very well made large manfrotto units,. as well as some that are too small and lightweight to give positive and smooth adjustment.

With a Ballhead.. "bigger is better, heaviest is best" ;)

Also,. having tried the pistol grip heads.. they do have there advantages,..(speed and ease of use) but they seem to be outwieghed by there disadvantages as well.(lack of balance, ball is too small for real smooth operation,.. no PAN only bearing... etc)

Giottos makes the MH3000 Ballhead,.. for under $150.00 @ B&H it is a really nice product.

I have a used one that I'm very impressed with for the cost,. I recently picked up one of the real "Big Daddies" though.. a Graf StudioBall,.. Swiss engineering pays off,. it is wonderfull. (but HUGE and heavy!)

[CyberDyneSystems]

hm...

will 486RC2 head be compatible with SLIK 700 DX PRO legs ? supposedly it has same thread but want to be sure ?

As far as I know,. this is one place where tripod manufacturers don't mess around. They all seem to use one of two thread mounts.. completely universal systems. There are even adapters for the two thread mounts.

[TomC]

This may be a dumb question but.. how to you make sure your ball head is level?? For instance with the above noted MH3000 from Giotto, I dont see a bubble level or anything.

[Belmondo]

[QUOTE=belmondo]The best thing to do is buy one of those spirit levels that mounts on your hot shoe.

Like this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=194974&is=REG

[TomC]

Very cool. Didnt know such a beast existed.

[Mike Panic]

really depends on what your shooting... we got these in not so long ago at my store - http://www.bogenimaging.us/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=8&itemid=2529 - they seem to sell VERY well and very fast

[CyberDyneSystems]

Mike,. it is a nice product,. I had the 322RC for a while.. but eventually sold it.

It suffered the same shortcomings I mention in my post above,. except that it does not suffer from the balance issues that other grip action heads have.

However,. that head did introduce some new problems. Because of it's lower profile,. to mount many lenses to the head with a tripod collar,. one must reverse the QR on the head itself. (easily done)

BUT.. if you like to have the same QR system on a number of heads (as I did) and thus the same QR plates on all your lenses and bodies (as I do) .. then with the female side of the QR assembly reversed on the 322rc (and 90degrees off of the tilt only monopod head).. this means everytime you switch heads,. you must remove and realighn the QR plate on each of the lens collars or bodies you are using.

At this point you may as well not be using a QR because there is nothing quick about having to turn the QR plate every time you use it.

On many Manfrotto heads the QR lever is best working 90 degrees from the 322RC,. (like the monopod head,. and the earlier grip head) ....this also allows the plates to run lengthwise along the long end of a tripod color bottom,. as opposed to cross wise,. allowing for much better attachment to the lens collar. With the 322RC,. this sideways setting is out of the question without machine shop work (work I was baout to undertake before deciding to abandon the 322RC alltogether and get a real ball head instead.)

Of course with a real ball head.. the QR assembly can be turned any which way you want with no need to re-align the plates themselves.. the head simply allows you to turn the orientation of the receiving QR fixture wahtever you want. With the RC2 this is very helpfull as the plates want to be running front to back on the lens collars and side to side on the camera bodies ...


;)

[donlavange]

I like a Ballhead.. but having used several now,. I now know that the better ones are larger and heavier with larger balls (did I just say that? :lol: )

I'm not completely literate with all the Manfrotto Ballheads by number so I don't really know what size you are speaking of with the 486-488,. but I have seen some very well made large manfrotto units,. as well as some that are too small and lightweight to give positive and smooth adjustment.

With a Ballhead.. "bigger is better, heaviest is best" ;)

Also,. having tried the pistol grip heads.. they do have there advantages,..(speed and ease of use) but they seem to be outwieghed by there disadvantages as well.(lack of balance, ball is too small for real smooth operation,.. no PAN only bearing... etc)

Giottos makes the MH3000 Ballhead,.. for under $150.00 @ B&H it is a really nice product.

I have a used one that I'm very impressed with for the cost,. I recently picked up one of the real "Big Daddies" though.. a Graf StudioBall,.. Swiss engineering pays off,. it is wonderfull. (but HUGE and heavy!)

So, I have the carbon fiber Manfrotto coming and have not made a head decision (I have a Manfrotto ballhead on my monopod). Given the weight of the CF tripod, what is the heaviest ballhead I can get away with?

[Scottes]

Heaviest ballhead? Probably pretty darn heavy. Take the max load capabilities of your tripod and subtract 4 pounds to account for camera & lens weight, and that's your max head weight.

But really, how do you use the tripod? Do you like it fully extended with a big camera and lens on it? This might be precarious with a light tripod - stable, yes, but kick a leg accidentally and it may fall over - or it just might not be heavy enough to remain motion-free. You might not want to decrease stability by adding a heavy head. Do you always use a small lens, thus adding little weight and allowing for a heavier head? Do you like to do landscapes low to the ground? Stability's not so much of an issue here, so a heavy head's OK. Did you get the CF to save weight? If so, get a light head.

I guess, for me, the answer would be to get the smallest, lightest head that will do what I want. I say small & light because that's why *I* would buy a CF tripod.

Actually, I think the answer for any "which head" question is "the smallest, lightest head that will do what you want." But with the reminder that if you use big lenses in high winds then the "lightest" head should probably weigh as much as possible. And then you wouldn't want a CF tripod in this case.

[donlavange]

Heaviest ballhead? Probably pretty darn heavy. Take the max load capabilities of your tripod and subtract 4 pounds to account for camera & lens weight, and that's your max head weight.

But really, how do you use the tripod? Do you like it fully extended with a big camera and lens on it? This might be precarious with a light tripod - stable, yes, but kick a leg accidentally and it may fall over - or it just might not be heavy enough to remain motion-free. You might not want to decrease stability by adding a heavy head. Do you always use a small lens, thus adding little weight and allowing for a heavier head? Do you like to do landscapes low to the ground? Stability's not so much of an issue here, so a heavy head's OK. Did you get the CF to save weight? If so, get a light head.

I guess, for me, the answer would be to get the smallest, lightest head that will do what I want. I say small & light because that's why *I* would buy a CF tripod.

Actually, I think the answer for any "which head" question is "the smallest, lightest head that will do what you want." But with the reminder that if you use big lenses in high winds then the "lightest" head should probably weigh as much as possible. And then you wouldn't want a CF tripod in this case.

Yup! The CF for weight. To be used for macros, landscapes etc. I don't see me using the long lens on it. Although I still use my Mamiya medium format film camera on occasion.

I was leaning toward the 3030 and kept reading about the better versatility in use of the ballhead and thus my question. Then I thought about the 322RC2 but read some negative comments about that one (too small a ball) .For macros, I think the 3 way has benefits, but I am used to the ballhead I have on my monopod and comments read here led me away from the 3 way.

I should go into a store and look in person, but I have mostly given up on photo stores, not for price reasons, but because I find the personel increasingly unfriendly. Not all of them , but the 2 closest to my home.

[Scottes]

I agree, the 3 way can be nice for macros. It can be a pain in the butt to set up sometimes, but the versatile movement can make up for this. I'd be looking at a medium-sized head - too small a ball can *really* be a pain. And there's little sense in wiping out the weight-savings of a CF by getting a 3-pound head. What about the 486RC2, or perhaps a little bigger like the 488RC2?

[donlavange]

I think that they are too heavy. The CF is only rated for 15.5lbs which is the head weight of the 488RC2??? Does that seem correct??. I guess you can't have it both ways or I guess that this is "the rock and the hard place".

I am going to review all the weights I am dealing with and face it tomorrow. Thanks for your input!

[Bodryn]

I have a 3-way Bogen and a couple of ball-head mounts. While using my 35mm cameras I quickly learned that the 3-way drove me nuts because I was always getting confused as to which of the 3 handles controlled what movement so it took forever to set up a shot. With the ball head, there was only one thing to tighten/loosen and could usually get the camera leveled and aimed and the picture composed well within a minute or so. I find this even more useful when taking nighttime long exposures - I may not be able to see much but I can feel what to loosen/tighten.

[Scottes]

I think that they are too heavy. The CF is only rated for 15.5lbs which is the head weight of the 488RC2??? Does that seem correct??.
488RC2 Specifications (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=272779&is=REG&si=spec#goto_itemInfo)

This head can handle 17.6 Lb, and weighs 1.5 Lb.

[Jesper]

I have the 488 RC2. When I bought it I wanted to order the 486 RC2, but the shop didn't have it in stock, so I took the 488 RC2. Later in another shop I saw the 486 RC2 and I was glad I took the 488. The 486 looked small, and it doesn't have the 0 - 360 degrees scale on the bottom of the head.

(I'm using a 10D, but I don't have really heavy lenses).

[hedphonz]

from using my 300D, i have only used ballhead on my monopod and the ballhead is amazing. i also have a monfrotto and have had no problems with it. i am actually kinda sad i can't use it more often. i have also used both the three way on the tripod with the 300D and i will admit that it drives up the wall with the amount of time it takes to get adjusted.

[tim]

Would a ball head be strong enough to support a 20D/550EX/flash bracket (small one like quickflip or pro-t) in portrait mode? Given I don't need to pan, any suggestions which QR2 capable ball head I should look at? If I need a 3 way head, any suggestions which QR2 compatible head to use?

TIA

[DocFrankenstein]

Have you considered acratech ultimate ballhead?

At less than a pound it seems to be "the" ballhead for the carbon fiber tripod.

I've read about 20 reviews on it, and all agree that manfrotto doesn't even come close with the quality.

What's more important is that's it's easy to clean.

Mind you, I only have 2 pan tilt manfrotto heads... and never used a ballhead.

http://www.acratech.net/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AOS&Product_Code=ubh

[ScottE]

I have the Acratech on my Gitzo carbon fibre tripod. My old Manfrotto 468RC ball head stays at home most of the time and usually only gets used on the window pod if I am shooting game from a vehicle. I just find the Acratech more enjoyable to use.

Scott

[TammieO]

I use an RRS ballhead on my Gitzo CF tripod. It will hold my 1DMkII with 100-400L with 1.4x TC attached at any angle without any creep. The ballhead movement is really smooth and you can adjust the tension so the head doesn't flop when you loosen it. It also has a bubble level. The only drawback might be the weight.

[Hot Opal]

Consider a Haldex FT 6703.
It has a Pistol Grip - Ball Head, Quick Release Mount (it comes with a spare plate), there are 3 small levels on the head (2 circular & 1 straight) You can check the head for level from any side. It comes in a bag with a couple of tools. The legs have snap clamps to make it easy & quick to adjust. The legs are independant and can lift to aprox 90 degrees so you can lean them against a wall. The ball head is mounted on a removable centre shaft which is a telescopic monopod. The monopod (centre shaft) can be inverted to hang the camera under the tripod for close to the ground shots. The whole unit is a cracker!!! However it is made in Australia & the freight cost may make it expensive for you people in other parts or the world. I paid AU$295 for the whole unit. I purchase a lot of camera equipment from USA, Hong Kong & UK and have no problems but a tripod is quite large. I guess the exchange rate may make it cheap!!!

[tim]

Hot Opal, the brand on that seems to be "Weifeng". I'd rather stick with Manfrotto, they have a great reputation.

Right now i'm strongly leaning towards a standard 3 way head, though i'd also consider one of these (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=303591&is=REG). I think it'd be easier to keep things level with a 3 way head, but anyone with practical experience either way could convince me. I'll be placing my order in an hour or so, any suggestions type fast! :)

[tim]

Ok, i've been reading about tripod heads for a couple of hours now, and the general opinion seems to be ball heads are generally easier to use than pan/tilt heads, and preferred. My teacher recommeded a pistol grip head, but CDS's post convinced me that they're not the best idea.

I'd rather have the Manfrotto RC2 quick release system, to match my monopod. Could I put that plate on top of a different brand of ball head?

Now i'm considering a 488 RC2, or because of CDS the Giotto MH-3000. Any other suggestions at $150 or less?

[DocFrankenstein]

Read this about the quick releases:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=65907

[tim]

I think the answer to "Could I put that plate [Manfrotto QR2] on top of a different brand of ball head?" is "probably, but it might take some effort".

Gona get the Manfrotto 322 for now, since it's cheap I don't have any lenses with collars it'll be fine, and i'll upgrade to something else if I need to later.

Thanks for your help everyone :)

[Longwatcher]

Not sure if you can afford this but I think this kind of gives the best of both worlds. The Bogen/Manfrotto 755B
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=272828&is=REG

It has a leveling head (which Works like a ball head) with a built in bubble level.
And then add any compatable 3-way head to the top. Thus you can quickly set the basic level quickly without messing with the tripod legs too much and then you have a pan-tilt from there.

It is what I use. It is technically a video tripod, but since the heads fit either my 1DsMkII or my XL-2 who cares. The only way ot could be better is if I could do the leveling with a grip instead of the twist ring.

My only complaint is the weight of the tripod is a bit much and I still have not found a pan-tilt head that only tilts 90 degrees (not 105)

Just a thought,

[tim]

Thanks Longwatcher, it's more than I want to spend right now. I'm just going to do a quick google to decide between tripod legs (3021BPro is what i've liked the most so far) then i'll finally make my order :)

[StealthLude]

I also like the 3021BPro, thoes are the legs I KNOW im going to get. Ive been trying to pick a tripod and head for about 1-2 weeks now! Im very sure I want the 3021Pro,...

But for the head, (and Tim this might intrest you), many people have recomended this...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=109828&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Seems to be excellent for Pano, Macro, Landscape, Panning, Its like a 3-Way tilt with smaller knobs and the ability to fine tune using Gears. Also has a FREE move mode where u can disengage the gears so free it up.

I dont think a ball head is going to work well for what im trying to do... But I would eventually like to have one. This is an expencive head, but seems to fit what im trying to do. Can anyone show me anything different?

This is a thread I started on the Bogen 3021Pro + WHAT HEAD>

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=154631

[jafrknb]

I just got the Gitzo 1276m offcenter ball head along with the G2220 explorer tripod.for macro and table top product shots the angles you can achieve are amazing.......Tony

[bettyn]

Do any of you guys know if there is such a thing as a decent tripod that does not weigh a ton? I like to do nature photography but must take my husband along as a pack mule because most tripods (in addition to my Rebel XT, 17-85 EFS IS, and 100-300 4.5-5.6 EF lenses) weigh over 5 lbs. I am a 5'3' inch little old lady who weighs 125 lbs. Any solutions?

[DocFrankenstein]

Do any of you guys know if there is such a thing as a decent tripod that does not weigh a ton? I like to do nature photography but must take my husband along as a pack mule because most tripods (in addition to my Rebel XT, 17-85 EFS IS, and 100-300 4.5-5.6 EF lenses) weigh over 5 lbs. I am a 5'3' inch little old lady who weighs 125 lbs. Any solutions?
How light do you want it to be?

I'm thinking Gitzo reporter. I beleive #1108... or at least 11XX.

[SuzyView]

I just got my 488RC2 yesterday and am very impressed. I had the 3-2ay head before and couldn't get 90 degree use of the camera to see the moon last month. So, went to POTN threads, asked around and bought the 488RC2. It holds my 40D with 70-200 2.8 IS without a problem. Very sturdy and I'd highly recommend it.

[oaktree]

I have both a Manfrotto ball and pan/tilt head for my 35 year old Gitzo. The ball head is good for "fast" use while the pan/tilt head is good for slow/carefully use like still life.

[travelbuds]

[quote=belmondo]The best thing to do is buy one of those spirit levels that mounts on your hot shoe.

Like this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=194974&is=REG

Curious if there is any reason to have something like that if there is one on the tripod?
Thanks,
Bruce

[Belmondo]

[quote=belmondo;371812]

Curious if there is any reason to have something like that if there is one on the tripod?
Thanks,
Bruce

If you're using a ball head, it's much easier to achieve level with the camera than with the tripod unless you have a tripod with a self-leveling center columns (forgive me if I don't have the nomenclature correct).

[20droger]

We currently have the Manfrotto QR2 system on a 488 head, but are in the process of replacing it with an Arca-Swiss type QR system. All the QR plates and receivers are easily replaced without changing heads. Personally, I am impressed with the Really Right Stuff QR receivers and plates.

We're going Arca-Swiss type for upward compatibility with Wimberley and other mounts. (We have big-lens dreams.)

This works both ways. There are Manfrotto QR2 receivers that will mount on other-brand heads. Virtually everybody uses either either 1/4-20 or 3/8-16 threads. The Manfrotto 488RC2 head, for example, mounts the receiver with a 3/8-16 thread.

As for leveling, we use the tripod's buble level only when we wish to pan truly horizontally. A level on the camera itself allows the camera to be leveled for individual shots, which is where it's at.

Mostly, though, leveling is done visually through the viewfinder. Leveling the horizon visually is almost always more than sufficient.