Pan-Head or Ball-Head ???

Getting back to the heart of the question...

BuckSkin wrote in post #19064720
Which do you prefer ... and why?

The practicality of pistol, ball or 3-way depends on several factors, including the weight of the rig and how much you need to lock (or do you even need to lock all axes?). Within the range of what's possible, it really is about personal preference. For me, the gimbal head on my 600mm is the right match for me. But the Sigma extends while zooming and the balance could be thrown off. Or not, because you're likely to leave it zoomed long.

The problem that you described is shifting when locking. I have the problem with some other configurations that I use. I'd probably lean towards a geared head in that case. For the Sigma, a possible geared head would be a Manfrotto 405. Sadly, it's US$400 new, but can be found cheaper (like US$300 at KEH right now).

I have the Manfrotto XPRO 3-way and like it. It's "only" US$200 and claims to hold 8 lbs, but manufacturers sometimes lie about these things. I generally "over-buy" for capacity and will never try to mount my big lens on that head.

It's situations like this that we learn what the true cost of a lens is. With larger lenses especially, the head and filters are important to consider up front as to what the cost of the lens really is.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19065828
When you use a high quality gimbal head like a Wimberley 2, there is no need to lock anything down - the camera can be moved about and panned with your subject, but the instant you stop moving, the camera and lens stay in perfectly stable position by themselves - no need to do anything like tighten a clamp or a tension knob.

Thanks for explaining; I did not know that.

.

Here's a video that explains the use of a full gimbal head.

If you don't feel like watching the whole 7 minutes, then the part from 2:17 to 2:44 sums things up quite nicely.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=_EI7BCMZaxE


.

dasmith232 wrote in post #19065830
because you're likely to leave it zoomed long

I had never really thought about that before.
I have the Sigma 18-250mm that stays on my main camera and I am constantly zooming to and fro, using all possible lengths during a day of shooting; but then, whenever I am using a long lens, I run it all the way out and there it stays, even with one or both 2x extenders.

When I decided the 50-500mm would be the thing to have, I remembered reading many times that for general all-around use, a 50mm prime lens was about ideal; I had it in my head that I might just use the 50-500mm as a super-long-range walk-around lens; it didn't take me long to ditch that idea, at least for 90% of the things I shoot.

While I was unpacking the new-to-me 50-500, the tree-trimmer guys showed up with their bucket-truck and I quickly attached the lens to a camera and went out there to document this operation, "a moment in time frozen forever" (does anyone remember who said that?).
The big lens was ideal for zeroing in on the guy way up there in the bucket; but, when I decided to take a few shots of the entire truck, with the lens at 50mm, I had to cross two fences and the road before I could frame the truck bumper-to-bumper.

If it is not too terribly inconvenient --- dangerous to the camera/lens --- I just carry both cameras; but, a lot of the time, it is hard enough to keep one camera from crashing into something, let alone having a second one swinging around on my other side.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19065840
.

Here's a video that explains the use of a full gimbal head.


.

Thanks; I will most definitely watch that after while.

BuckSkin wrote in post #19065822
Maybe I am missing something here; I thought the whole idea of using a tripod was so that the camera doesn't wobble or move.

Sorry about the quote problem in the earlier post.

I was referring to bird and wildlife photography where I'm usually panning a moving subject, using a high shutter speed, and can't lock the head. I also shoot landscapes, with very slow shutter speeds, where the head absolutely needs to be locked.

tomj wrote in post #19065858
Sorry about the quote problem in the earlier post.

I was referring to bird and wildlife photography where I'm usually panning a moving subject, using a high shutter speed, and can't lock the head. I also shoot landscapes, with very slow shutter speeds, where the head absolutely needs to be locked.

When you're shooting landscapes, will you be using a shorter lens and the shift-when-locking problem isn't perceptible. I'm thinking that the problem isn't all that pertinent to the every day situations and when shooting long to leave the head loose on at least 1 axis.

BuckSkin wrote in post #19064827
Meaning we no longer have to pay a fortune for a good locking mechanism ?

Correct.

Wilt wrote in post #19064850
Since I have never owned one, I cannot vouch with accuracy. But there are lots of folks who state these knock-offs are 'just as good' as the recognized quality ballheads and tripods.

I can speak to the quality of Siriu "knock-off" ballheads.
I own both a K20X and K30X for my small and large tripods, respectively.
If I had to make a guess, I'd say the tensioning adjustment on these heads
is likely to play a major role in position accuracy upon tightening.
They are not "cheaply" priced, but they do cost significantly less than
their established industry counterparts. I think I paid $110 for the K20X
and around ~$135 for the K30X.

Both of these were colossal upgrades over the Amvona clone of Manfrotto's 486RC2
and a genuine Manfrotto 488RC2. Machining accuracy, spherical accuracy,
smooth movement, locking accuracy, fit & finish, weight capacity, and overall
material quality seem to be of a generally much higher standard than the Manfrotto units.


I have only ever used ball heads except for a super-cheap "Carrot"-branded tripod
some 30-plus years ago for a highschool photography course. My next tripod,
some 20-plus years later, had a ballhead, which proved extremely versatile.
I may consider a full-on gimbal head if I get into long-tele shooting, but for
the majority of my current shooting preferences, a good ballhead is a must-have
for the versatility and ease of use.

My first tripod came with a tilt-pan head. I switched to a ball head pretty quickly. Never looked back.

My favorite ball heads are the FLM CB models. Strong, smooth, easy to use... and extremely precise. I can't see any shift during lockdown with my CB-48f. It's invisible to the naked eye. I can only see a fraction of a mm shift at life-size (macro)... it's that good. I had to do a before/after test to see the shift. If you don't buy the fancy-feature models, they aren't out of line pricewise.

I haven't had a large enough tele to need a gimbal, but I'd do that for anything heavier than a 100-400.

Aves wrote in post #19064836
The ball head I use is the Arca Z1+ head. Absolutely great tripod head that will last a very long time. The only reason I don’t recommend it is the poor access to repair/servicing in NA. Something like the RRS heads have better support here and are equal in performance. Something to consider as tripod heads can take a beating.

The Arca Swiss distributor in the US does a very poor job in my humble opinion. Arca Swiss are very pedantic about service and warranty issues. The only Arca Swiss authorized service facility in the US is Precision Camera Works in Fairfield, CA. You get someone else to tinker with your Z1+ and your warranty goes out the window.

I use three Arca Swiss geared heads and Bob Watkins has replaced the horrible double-decker Arca Swiss clamp on all three with RRS lever release clamps. He is a very experienced tech - I could do this myself but I value the warranty, particularly for the d4 and C1. You can call Precision Camera Works at 847-470-3350 and Loren will likely answer the phone. STE 108-436 is a drop-off.

Precision Camera Works
ATTN: Bob Watkins
5055 Business Center Drive
STE 108-436
Fairfield, CA 94534

I bought a gimbal head about a month ago, and now sorely regret not buying one years ago. It makes taking birds in flight photos much easier, and tracking moving animals much easier.
Once you buy a quality gimbal, it should last a lifetime.
I bought a new Benro gimbal. It handles my biggest lens, a 100-400 Canon, with aplomb.
Bozeman Camera in Bozeman, MT has several used gimbals including some Wimberleys at substantial savings. If I was going to use a huge lens, I would go with one of those used Wimberleys.

Unless you are shooting a heavy supertelephoto a good ball head should serve you well. I have a kirk bh1 for the tripod and a modified, shortened, vanguard SBH 250 with kirk clamp for my ergorest I mount to car door. I have kirk qr plates on both camera body and sigma 150-600mm foot.
I rarely tighten the ball head when using for birds, wildlife or anything else that moves. I lock down for longer exposure stuff.

I have only owned one gimbal, it was a manfrotto 393, it held my 400mm f2.8 mk1 with 1d3, and did a pretty decent job considering the lens alone was almost 12 lbs. It was a dedicated piece, I even made a little blind that mounted to it. When trying to mount gimbal to the camera body, the 1d3 wouldn't fit inside gimbal frame with the manfrotto 357 qr system, I am not sure if other gimbals with other qr systems have this issue. I admit panning with a gimbal is nice, probably a bit better than a ballhead, and gimbals are really almost a necessity for very large super telephotos. For my Sigma 150-600mm contemporary, my Kirk bh1 and much cheaper modified Vanguard SBH 250 both get the job done, and with practice work very well for panning. When I switch lenses and mount to camera body instead of a lens foot, I rotate ball 90 degrees, clamp it, and I am shooting again.

After reading many of these replies and also many similar conversations in other threads, I have to ask - and forgive me if the answer is obvious - - -

I have spent years shooting big heavy rifles offhand; and, without even giving it a thought, I apply the same methods to shooting with a camera.

I always think of a tripod as being akin to a rifle bench-rest = something to hold the camera rock-steady for such occasions as test shots, and multi-shot groups such as panoramas and exposure bracketing, or landscape shots with slower shutter speeds = all of which are times when I want the tripod locked tight and the captures to be hands-free.


If not locking down the tripod, why use one at all ?

gonzogolf wrote in post #19065779
I dont shoot enough with a tele on a tripod to invest in a gimbal head. For occasional use I've had good look with the manfrotto pistol grip ball head. You simply squeeze.the grip to release ball head move it, then release to lock it in. I dont have the exact model # handy but an Amazon or Google search will find it easily.

Shooting portraits, I use only the Manfrotto "speed" grip ball head. That head pokes the pistol grip out to the side and lowers the center of gravity (the original Manfrotto speed grip put the camera at the top of the handle). I have the Manfrotto head, but also have three Chinese copies that have proven just as good at a third of the price.

I use a fluid pan head for video.

BuckSkin wrote in post #19086405
.
If not locking down the tripod, why use one at all ?
.

.
With a high-end gimbal head, when the camera/lens is balanced properly, it is just as stable when it is "free" as it is when it is locked down. . Tightening the knobs does not make it any more stable because it is already rock solid even with the knobs left semi-snug.

For me, the reason not to lock it down is because of the need or desire to move the camera a little here and a little there to adjust the framing of a shot. . This often has to be done rapidly, and there is not enough time to be tightening and untightening knobs between shots.

For example, I am currently shooting a Bluebird nest cavity. . I have my big lens on the tripod and clamped to the Wimberley gimbal. . As I sit there for minutes on end, waiting for one of the adult Bluebirds to return to the nest, the lens will be pre-focused, and aimed in such a way so as to capture the Bluebird in flight as it approaches the nest tree. . I try to fire a short burst as it is in mid-air, right before it lands on the tree.

The instant it lands on the tree, then I want to very quickly move the camera a little bit, to get shots of the Bluebird while it is perched at the mouth of the hole, before it goes into the hole to give the food to the babies. . It only sits on the edge of the hole for a brief moment; sometimes less than one second. . So I have to be able to re-aim the lens, zoom it in closer, re-focus the camera, and fire off a shot or two in less than one second. . That is A LOT to do in less than a second! . If the tripod were locked down (a.k.a. the knobs tightened all the way), then I would have to loosen the knobs before I would be able to re-aim the lens. . There is just no time for that.

Another example would be when shooting mammal or bird portraits. . If a bird is perched on a branch, and turns its head to its right, then the photographer will typically want to have the bird on the right side of the frame, and have some nicely balanced negative space on the left of the frame. . The second that bird turns its head to the left, the photographer will want to instantly re-aim the camera, to compose the scene differently, so that the bird is on the left of the frame, with the negative space on the right side of the image. . Birds and mammals often turn their heads for only a brief moment; less than a second in many cases. . If the gimbal head were locked down, you wouldn't be able to re-compose the scene and fire off a shot every time the subject turned its head for a second. . That would absolutely suck.

Who wants to be stuck with an awkward composition with the bird in the center of the frame? . No! . You need to put the bird off-center, for the most pleasing composition. . And there is often just a second, or just a part of a second, in which to do this. . No time to be fiddling with knobs, or you miss the shot.

I guess I have the reverse question for you; if the tripod and gimbal head holds the camera and lens just as steady and solid when the knobs are loose as it does when they are tightened, then why would one ever tighten the knobs? . What advantage would that ever provide?

EDIT:

Below is a pic of my set-up at the Bluebird nest. The nest is in the charred, blackened stump on the left side of the frame. The shot below that is one that I got as the Bluebird approached its nest in flight, bringing a Dragonfly back to the hole for its young.