Any interest in a Markins Q3 VS Manfrotto 468MGRC2 VS Benro J3 vs Arca Swiss B1

[btaki]

Hi guys,

I'm expecting a Markins Q3 from Korea, a Benro J-3 from China and have in my posession an Arca Swiss B1g and National Georgraphic NGEH1 Hydrostatic Ballhead (Same as the Manfrotto 468MGRC2). If there's enough interest I could do a review comparing the build quality, friction and ball creep. Your feedback is appreciated as I don't want to clutter the forum with useless posts.

[René Damkot]

I'd be curious....
I'd be even more curious if you throw in an Arca Z1 ;)

[jhom]

I think it would be interesting to throw in the Benro and B1. My experience with the Q3 and 468MG shows that the Q3 is better overall. However, you would be comparing ballheads of different class sizes.

[NYPhotog]

What's the point? On what basis, for example, can you compare the tiny Q3 with the massive 3.5 lb. B1g?

[tsaros]

comparing reviews are always interesting in my opinion.

[JohnJ80]

comparing reviews are always interesting in my opinion.

actually, the MOST interesting.

I think half the reviews here are from people who are still giddy that they got the thing an hour ago and they are still in the "love" and "never look back" phase.

J.

[tdodd]

I have a 468MGRC2 and I am not bowled over by it. Apart from anything else I was expecting my money to buy me a 2" ball, just like Manfrotto's marketing blurb would have you believe. The ball is nothing like 2" and I would be very interested to see whether other heads in a similar price bracket offer a significant step up in ease of use and quality.

This is what the blurb (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/off/pid/2314?livid=80|81&idx=83) says....

The Hydrostat is our most advanced ball head, designed to meet the demands of professional photographers for a lightweight, but at the same time heavy duty load capacity head. This model has similar features to our standard range of ball and socket heads, with independent pan and tilt locks, 360° pan and +90° / -90° tilt movement - but employs a revolutionary friction and locking mechanism. An inner oil chamber is compressed by turning the locking knob, exerting even pressure on the whole of the underside of the ball, which ensures sturdier locking and higher capacity... for camera and lens loads of up to 10kg. This head has a magnesium die cast body, a 2” Teflon coated aluminium ball which combined with specially designed tension surfaces provides movement as smooth as silk. A calibrated adjustable tension control allows you to preset the ball tension to suit your camera weight and give you fingertip control. The oversized lock knob is easier and quicker to find and turn. The second benefit of the liquid-based locking mechanism is that it all but eliminates unwanted movement during the locking phase. Completing this masterpiece, a graduated panoramic base and a 200PL quick release camera plate.

This is what the ball actually measures - about 1 1/4"....

(As for smooth as silk? Not if you want your 1D3, 70-200/2.8 IS and 580EX to be held securely when tilted upwards at an angle!)

I'm not saying it's a bad head, but it falls well below the expectation that Manfrotto set in their description. I also see movement when tightening down the pan or the ball and there also seems to be a little elastic movement somewhere in the support system - maybe in the 055MF3 legs, maybe in the head, or most likely in the RC2 QR plate and that silly rubber bit that tops it off. e.g. if I'm aiming for a moon shot, with the head tightened sufficiently to allow movement but still support the camera without slipping, I always have to make allowance for some "settling" after I've lined up the camera with the subject. e.g. if I line up the central AF marker with the centre of the moon, once I let go the aim will go off as the weight of the camera settles back and the aim ends up a little high. That is not what I was expecting, not for the money I spent. Maybe my expectations are unreasonable, but the impression I get when people speak of other heads, such as Markins, is that these issues are entirely absent.

[jhom]

I have a 468MGRC2 and I am not bowled over by it. Apart from anything else I was expecting my money to buy me a 2" ball, just like Manfrotto's marketing blurb would have you believe. The ball is nothing like 2" and I would be very interested to see whether other heads in a similar price bracket offer a significant step up in ease of use and quality.

This is what the blurb (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/off/pid/2314?livid=80|81&idx=83) says....



This is what the ball actually measures - about 1 1/4"....

(As for smooth as silk? Not if you want your 1D3, 70-200/2.8 IS and 580EX to be held securely when tilted upwards at an angle!)

I'm not saying it's a bad head, but it falls well below the expectation that Manfrotto set in their description. I also see movement when tightening down the pan or the ball and there also seems to be a little elastic movement somewhere in the support system - maybe in the 055MF3 legs, maybe in the head, or most likely in the RC2 QR plate and that silly rubber bit that tops it off. e.g. if I'm aiming for a moon shot, with the head tightened sufficiently to allow movement but still support the camera without slipping, I always have to make allowance for some "settling" after I've lined up the camera with the subject. e.g. if I line up the central AF marker with the centre of the moon, once I let go the aim will go off as the weight of the camera settles back and the aim ends up a little high. That is not what I was expecting, not for the money I spent. Maybe my expectations are unreasonable, but the impression I get when people speak of other heads, such as Markins, is that these issues are entirely absent.

I had the 468MG and 055MF3 setup for a few years. I agree with what you have found with your setup. The 468MG is a good ballhead but it does show some lens droop with heavier gear. The elasticity you mention is inherent with the overall setup and is the main reason I've changed. I moved to a Gitzo and Markins system with RRS clamps. I do not experience the problems I had with the Manfrottos. For me, ignorance was bliss until I challenged the Manfrotto setup.

There is a cost. The Gitzo/Markins/RRS setup is more expensive. But, IMO it is well worth the difference. The inconvenience, weight, and frustration of the Manfrottos is just not worth the savings in money in the long run.

[tdodd]

Thanks for your reply, Jim. It saddens me to think I basically spent almost £400 on a setp that is barely better than junk. I really thought the Manfrotto name and a decent wedge of cash would secure me a decent setup. At the time I bought that rig I could not believe that £400 or £500 on a Gitzo and over £200 on a head would be money well spent. I thought that was taking the pi55.

Then when one looks at the price of those A-S style QR plates one can't help feeling those are extortionate. I've got 6-7 RC2 (200PL-14) plates - one for each of my EOS bodies and a couple for my white L lenses. They cost £10 each (less on eBay). The Kirk PZ-93 equivalents are £60 each. Why? It's a little lump of metal.

Anyway, I guess one day I'll stump up the readies for a system that actually works properly. :(

EDIT : p.s. Any thoughts on what Manfrotto mean when they say the 468MGRC2 head has a 2" ball? By what system of measurement is it 2" in any dimension? By the look of things, when RRS say they have a 40mm or 55mm ball I'm pretty sure they mean what they say. But Manrotto? They seem to speak with forked tongue.

[jhom]

Tim, I believe the Manfrotto engineer who measured the ball had a few too many pints when he tried measuring the size of the ball. Perhaps, he was measuring the distance length of the top of the ballhead.

The one thing I do miss from the 468 is the large rubberized tension knob. I liked the ease with which I could grab the knob and lock down the ball in a 1/4 to 1/2 turn.

[Lowner]

Take the ballhead, the original advert and a ruler to Citizens Advice Bureau. Then once they agree you have a case, return the ballhead to the dealer and get your money back.

Simply put, that advert is fraud. Small Claims Court would have a field day with it and Manfrotto need to learn the lesson.

One reason the Markins heads don't suffer the locking down movement is that we don't lock them down. They are designed to work that way. I have locked my M10 down as a test and suffer the slight movement you mention, but relying on the "sweet spot" as recommended, its completely solid.

I use the 055PROB, with the centre column removed. I can get the tripod to move, but only if I actually touch the camera.

[btaki]

I don't have access to an Arca Swiss Z1 or B1 if anyone is interested in lending me theirs, I'd more than happy to provide references and pay the shipping fees.
I'm going to compare the three with a Sigma 100-300mm F4, Sigma 150mm Macro and a Canon 40D, The weight is no where near the limit on any of these heads. I'm mostly interested in Friction, and creep. I'm open to suggestion if you guys are looking for something specific.

[René Damkot]

It might be interesting to see how much difference the RC2 vs. Arca Style QR makes.
In my experience the rubber on the RC2 plate causes quite a bit of play...

[tdodd]

Take the ballhead, the original advert and a ruler to Citizens Advice Bureau. Then once they agree you have a case, return the ballhead to the dealer and get your money back.

Simply put, that advert is fraud. Small Claims Court would have a field day with it and Manfrotto need to learn the lesson.
I must admit it was my first reaction to do something about it, even if only returning the head for a refund, but that would have left me wondering what to replace it with.

I agree that Manfrotto should not be allowed to get away with it. However, I've now had the head for a couple of years so I don't know whether I can realistically start a case. Annoyingy, I can find my web receipts for the legs but the head came from a different supplier and I can't find any supporting purchasing documentation so I'm not sure I have much to go forward with.

I wonder whether removing the rubber from the 200PL-14 plate would improve things. I'm sure it would do no harm to the lens collars but might not be too pretty when removed from the bottom of a camera body. I look forward to any test results that come back :)

[tsaros]

It might be interesting to see how much difference the RC2 vs. Arca Style QR makes.
In my experience the rubber on the RC2 plate causes quite a bit of play...

I will find out for us both soon enough as i am about to hit the order button on RRS, I will be getting an l-plate and the quickrelease-plate that fits on my 468MG head.

[jhom]

I will find out for us both soon enough as i am about to hit the order button on RRS, I will be getting an l-plate and the quickrelease-plate that fits on my 468MG head.

I had an RRS lever clamp on my 468MG. It helps but does not solve some of the other problems with the head. My suggestion is save the money and apply it to a Markins M10.

[tsaros]

I had an RRS lever clamp on my 468MG. It helps but does not solve some of the other problems with the head. My suggestion is save the money and apply it to a Markins M10.

What problems did you have with it?
I am quite happy with my head, but i really have not tried any other of higher quality.

[jhom]

Lense droop with my longer lenses. For example, my 300 f2.8L IS showed some lens droop as I tightened the main knob. The tension system doesn't exert enough pressure to counteract the weight of the gear. The Markins ballheads is excellent in these aspects. You can create a "sweet spot" where you can move the head around without lens droop. When tightening down the main knob, the lens doesn't move ever so slightly so that you need to readjust the focal point. With lighter lenses, the 468MG does a good job.

[wickerprints]

And this is why gimbal heads rock. I don't understand why anyone would buy the super expensive ball heads when they could just drop the $600 on the Wimberley and be done with it.

[jhom]

Having a good ballhead and a Wimberley gimbal gives the photog a great arsenal for shooting with wide and superteles. Convenience and flexibility is the name of the game when it comes to legsets.

[tdodd]

Hi guys,

I'm expecting a Markins Q3 from Korea, a Benro J-3 from China and have in my posession an Arca Swiss B1g and National Georgraphic NGEH1 Hydrostatic Ballhead (Same as the Manfrotto 468MGRC2). If there's enough interest I could do a review comparing the build quality, friction and ball creep. Your feedback is appreciated as I don't want to clutter the forum with useless posts.
Still looking forward to the results. :)

[tsaros]

Im guessing that this will not happen :)
btaki:Last Activity: 2nd of July 2010