Manfrotto 496RC2 - panning ability question

[s2kdriver80]

I'm looking for a compact head for travel that has the ability to do panning (simple video shots) with my Rebel.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc....html#features

The description on B&H's site claims that the 496RC2 can do 360 panning yet I've read in the forums where people suggest the bulkier 498RC2 instead. Can the 496 do panning at all or is there a mistake in the description? Or is it just an issue of needing more steps to do it? I just want to know if I can pan in a straight horizontal line for video without it going all over the place like a normal ballhead would. Thanks.

[Pita_146]

I just got a 496RC2 because I was on vacation and needed a tripod/head and that's all they had.

There isn't a separate lock for panning. You can however set the friction relatively tight so it will hold the camera in place unless you move it.

[s2kdriver80]

Originally Posted by Pita_146

I just got a 496RC2 because I was on vacation and needed a tripod/head and that's all they had.

There isn't a separate lock for panning. You can however set the friction relatively tight so it will hold the camera in place unless you move it.

Thanks for your feedback. So are you saying that you can pan reliably without much trouble? I'm looking to do mostly quick simple video pans and not panoramic photo stitches, so I don't think I'll need the head to firmly hold the camera in place for too long.

[SkipD]

Originally Posted by s2kdriver80

Thanks for your feedback. So are you saying that you can pan reliably without much trouble? I'm looking to do mostly quick simple video pans and not panoramic photo stitches, so I don't think I'll need the head to firmly hold the camera in place for too long.

The only way you can move the 496RC2 head is to loosen the main ball. That allows the camera to move in any direction that you allow it to go. It will NOT pan smoothly in a purely horizontal direction. It may flop sideways or up/down while trying to pan sideways.

You need the 498RC2 to have the controlled one-axis panning capability.

Besides, the 498RC2 is MUCH more suited to EOS cameras on a tripod. The 496 will, more than likely, creep more than the 498 head. I know for certain that the 486 (the forerunner to the 496) creeps more than the 488 (the forerunner to the 497), as I have both. I use the 486 on a monopod only these days.

[SuzyView]

Yes, the 498RC2 is the one you want for panning. I have had no issues with the 488 or the 496 I have. But for something like video, the 498 is a good choice. Get what you really want and need, and not what you think you can get along with, if you can afford it. I've done that too often and regretted it.

[s2kdriver80]

Oh ok - thank you all for your input. So it seems like the 496RC2 is not much better than a normal ballhead? I wonder how that model differs at all to the built-in normal ballhead found on the 7302YB. And Manfrotto should really remove the 360 panning from the 496RC2 description - that's false advertising.

[Jon]

The 496 is a normal ballhead. It's not false advertising; you can pan with it. It just doesn't permit optimum panning. There's a difference. And one major difference between the 496RC2 and the ballhead on the 7302 is the head capacity; the 496 is able to cope with about twice the load.

[s2kdriver80]

Originally Posted by Jon

The 496 is a normal ballhead. It's not false advertising; you can pan with it. It just doesn't permit optimum panning. There's a difference. And one major difference between the 496RC2 and the ballhead on the 7302 is the head capacity; the 496 is able to cope with about twice the load.

I guess you're right. In that case, I can pan with my 7302YB as well hehe. Thanks for the info. I think I'll just go and get the 498RC2 for the true panning ability then. There isn't a more compact Manfrotto ballhead with true panning other than the 498RC2 right?

[Jon]

Not Manfrotto. If you want to look at the Arca-Swiss mounts Adorama's Flashpoint F-2 and F-3 heads both offer a separate panning control and are smaller than the 498RC2.

Left to right. Flashpoint F-2, Flashpoint F-3, Manfrotto 486RC2, Manfrotto 488 converted with RRS LR-40 (Arca-Swiss) clamp. The F-2 is about a 486 equivalent in specs; the F-3 the 488 equivalent.

[s2kdriver80]

Originally Posted by Jon

Not Manfrotto. If you want to look at the Arca-Swiss mounts Adorama's Flashpoint F-2 and F-3 heads both offer a separate panning control and are smaller than the 498RC2.

Left to right. Flashpoint F-2, Flashpoint F-3, Manfrotto 486RC2, Manfrotto 488 converted with RRS LR-40 (Arca-Swiss) clamp. The F-2 is about a 486 equivalent in specs; the F-3 the 488 equivalent.

Very nice - thank you! So is there any loss in going for those F series as opposed to the Manfrotto heads? It seems from a portability/travel perspective, it's a no-brainer. And I take it those Arca Swiss F series are as small as you can get, right?

[Jon]

This is the F2 holding a 1D3 and 70-200 2.8 IS off kilter and mounted to the body, not the lens, to increase likelihood of torque. Seems solid enough to me.

[Lowner]

Before I moved to an M10, I used a 486. Panning was never a problem but control of it moved from the head to the centre column lock. Simply set up the tripod exactly upright and leaving the head fully locked down, rotate the whole column. I used to leave the lock so that it created a little drag and left it alone.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Lowner

Before I moved to an M10, I used a 486. Panning was never a problem but control of it moved from the head to the centre column lock. Simply set up the tripod exactly upright and leaving the head fully locked down, rotate the whole column. I used to leave the lock so that it created a little drag and left it alone.

That sort of presupposes your center column can freely rotate (and you're not extending it any at all, not even an inch). Otherwise you'll end up unscrewing the head . . . Several of my tripods have non-rotating center columns for one reason or another.

[s2kdriver80]

Thanks Jon, just picked up the F2 today. It fits the bill - compact, yet can pan.

[Jon]

Must be nice!

I'm glad I can't just run into town and hit Adorama or B&H. I'd be broke.