Arca Swiss P0?

Regardless of whether the panning mechanism is below or above the ball and socket the panorama will always line up in 360°, so it's not really possible to screw that part up. With a traditional ball head with the panning taking place below the ball and socket you'd have to level the legs to get a level panorama, then control height with the ball (camera pointing up, down, or level). With the P0 you can't really do this, you have to have the clamp level or else the panorama will go up and then down throughout the image. As long as the clamp is level the panorama will also be, although it may not appear so depending on what you're taking a photo of. Do you have an example you could show us?

The above is one of the reason why I think the P0 is a bit of a silly and limited head, sure it's easier to level the clamp than the legs but you have no adjustability of the tilt of the camera so you're stuck with pointing it at the horizon. For example imagine a situation where you were in the centre of a football pitch and wanted to do a panorama pointed at the very highest seats in the stand, that's impossible with the P0 on its own without using a really wide lens and cropping the image. You also can't stick multiple panoramas with different amounts of tilt to get more vertical field of view, again requiring a wider lens instead.

@The Ran

It sounds like you are dissatisfied that you won't be able to handle everything that might arise with a P0 and 1 lens in your bag.

Why are using lenses of different focal lengths, raising/lowering the tripod, and cropping in post negative solutions?

Panning base ballheads with added panning clamps on top, multi-row panning setups etc. are sometimes required but the flipside is that they are heavy and cumbersome.

Edit: Sorry if this sounds like an attack. I'm trying to express some of the thinking that lead me to this solution and am interested in your response.

SeanL wrote in post #15014455
@The Ran

It sounds like you are dissatisfied that you won't be able to handle everything that might arise with a P0 and 1 lens in your bag.

Well, not everything. But yes it is a disadvantage of the P0 and so I wouldn't be satisfied with one.

Using a different lens - It costs more money.

Raising or lower the tripod - This won't affect the view as much as tilting the camera up and down, varying by the distance from the camera to subject. Sure if you're wanting to take a panorama of a border running round a small room this would work, but not for the stadium example. It also affects the perspective, for example in the stadium shot you might want the image to appear from the eyes of someone standing in that stadium, and no one is twenty feet tall.

Cropping in post - You lose resolution.

The P0 is basically a regular non-panning ballhead with a permanently attached panning clamp, you could achieve the same size and weight with a non-panning and an add on panning clamp with the added bonus of being removable for even less size and weight. And as I've said having the panning mechanism above the ball is not as good as having it below in most situations, yet the size and weight is the same regardless.

No problem, I'm happy to explain it further.

The Ran wrote in post #15014712
Well, not everything. But yes it is a disadvantage of the P0 and so I wouldn't be satisfied with one.


Using a different lens - It costs more money.

Aren't most already working with ~3 primes or a few zooms?

The Ran wrote in post #15014712
Raising or lower the tripod - This won't affect the view as much as tilting the camera up and down, varying by the distance from the camera to subject. Sure if you're wanting to take a panorama of a border running round a small room this would work, but not for the stadium example. It also affects the perspective, for example in the stadium shot you might want the image to appear from the eyes of someone standing in that stadium, and no one is twenty feet tall.

Ok, this argument is good.

The Ran wrote in post #15014712
Cropping in post - You lose resolution.

2 things:

1. Cropping can result in a change in only the aspect ratio without any loss of resolution

2. Pano images, particularly taken vertically by using the camera with an l-bracket can result in >100 MP images that can then be cropped with more than sufficient resolution remaining for a medium to large print (camera such as 21mp 5D Mk II, for example).

The Ran wrote in post #15014712
The P0 is basically a regular non-panning ballhead with a permanently attached panning clamp, you could achieve the same size and weight with a non-panning and an add on panning clamp with the added bonus of being removable for even less size and weight. And as I've said having the panning mechanism above the ball is not as good as having it below in most situations, yet the size and weight is the same regardless.

If you add up the weight of these items you see them coming in heavier.

P0 with a small clamp:
280g P0
100g clamp

for a total of 380g


Markins Q3 with RRS panning clamp and dovetail adaptor:

375g Q3
290g clamp
20g dovetail

for a total of 685g, as well as slower and more cumbersome to use. If you use a Markins Q10 that would be 115g more.

Edit: The P0 solution is also much less expensive since we're arguing cost as well here.

SeanL wrote in post #15014885
Aren't most already working with ~3 primes or a few zooms?

Most, probably, but not all. Say for example someone has something like the 50mm f/1.8 and the 18-55mm kit lens, they could do a multi-pass panorama with the 50mm for better image quality. Say they make 4 passes, they'd need a 12mm to replicate that.

How do you figure that one out? If you crop the vertical field of view you're going to be losing resolution.

That's all subjective and depends on the pano size, lens used (both field of view determining the amount of photos as well as detail captured), body used, etc.

For starters the Q3 has a panning mechanism below the ball, and like I said it would be around the same weight as the P0 which it is. To make a real comparison we'd need a ballhead without a panning mechanism which would be lighter. Even if you did go with the Q3 100 grams isn't going to break your back, is less than the extra lenses required with the P0, and gives you panning abilities above and below the ball with the advantages of each.

Not arguing, debating . A normal ballhead with the panning mechanism located below the ball can be had for less than the P0 with equal quality. You have much more choice with that, and also a separate panning clamp if you wish to add one.