Ballhead mafrotto 468MGRC2 or anyone else.

[jlw82]

I need a new ballhead. The ballhead I have now slips when tighten the head. Very annoying.

I have been looking at the manfrotto 468MGRC2 HYDROSTATIC BALL HEAD REL.RC2 : http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/lang/en/pid/2314?livid=80&lsf=80&child=2

Any one have any experience with this head?

Or something similar in the same price range?

[tdodd]

I have had this head for around two years. It generally works as advertised and there is certainly no risk of slip when tightened properly. It is very nice to have fine control over the "slack" tension level, for ease of movement without slop and final tightening (needed for fairly off balance loads) is a doddle.

My only head for comparison is a cheap Manfrotto ball head, without the hydrostatic feature, and by comparison that is absolutely horrid to use.

However, I have no idea what Manfrotto is measuring when they say the ball is 2". It's nothing of the sort in any dimension that I can fathom. I bought mine new, online, sight unseen, and was shocked to find the puny little ball that this head actually has. I do wonder whether a larger ball - like a genuine 2" - would offer superior performance. If you're going to be spending this sort of money you should probably try to find a way to get a hands on comparison of something from Markins or RRS to make sure which offers the best performance and value. e.g. take a look at the specs for the Markins M20 ball head, with a 1.89" diameter ball and a load capacity of 45Kg - http://www.markinsamerica.com/MA5/M20.php. Why is Manfrotto's 2" ball head only rated to 10Kg/16Kg?

A lot of people recommend the RC2 platform for DSLRs, and I went with that advice, but I have to say that I do wonder whether a larger plate would be better. e.g. if you put an RC2 (200-PL14) plate onto the bottom of a 1D3 with a 24-70/2.8L mounted then the plate does not fully cover the base of the camera, and I feel the support is somewhat lacking, especially for such an off-balance load, compared to what could be achieved. As far as I know the 468MGRC4 head is identical in every way except the QR plate but the quoted load capacity soars from 10Kg to 16Kg. I would certainly consider a larger plate than the RC2.

[jhom]

I used the 468MG for several years. It is clearly a step up from the other Manfrottos such as the 488. I liked the large main knob and tension control. It held my 300 f2.8L IS well. However, the 468 is heavy and has some slight lens droop with heavier lens setups. I have since upgraded to a Markins M10. Compared to the 468, it is definitely a step up. It is lighter, has better tension control, and shows no lens droop. It uses the universal AS QR system, not the proprietary Manfrotto QR system. I have an RRS lever clamp on it and I love it. I expect to have the Markins for a long long time.

[MR do little]

Iv used the 468MGRC4 for 3 years, and iv been quite happy with it.

The camera plates are BIG, it was never a problem for me though since i always took them off when i didnt use the camera on a tripod.

I use cameras with integrated vertical grip so the plate didnt stick out to much as it would on a small camera.

The RC2 plates are to small for larger cameras imo, given they dont have any antitwist flange.

The main knob is nice, and feels solid, the fine control as another poster is excellent to get the right tension.

Its however big, especially if you consider how much in can "hold", also it could be smoother.

The quick release (RC4) is fast and secure, downside being the big camera plates and that its not a "standard" .The clamp also have two spirit levels, one for portrait mode and one for landscape.

The build is quite decent, but noticble diffrent compared to Markins/RRS/Arca.

In all its Manfrottos best ballhead, and does the job nicely given you dont use BIG gear on them, and can live with their plates.

I just recently sold mine, and replaced it with a Markins M20 and im very happy thus far.

I would save up and get a Markins M10 or Q3.

/MR do little