I need a tripod head

Now kids, lets be nice. It's only a tripod head, nothing to get all worked up over.

Look, if you want to trade insults, we can do that but it would be better to do that via PM. You can call me names to your heart's content all day long. Just for fun, I'll respond so you can get it out of your system.

I've tried countless cheapo tripods and heads (maybe 20 or so). So far, all of them in this price range have been junk. They slip, they hitch when you lock them, there is slop when they are locked, they don't move smoothly - etc... A whole list of issues. Put a 200mm lens on them and see how it works and precisely it locks the composition in place. Given that, if this one was a terrific ballhead and operated in a manner that put to shame ones costing much more not only would it be huge news, it would be the only one out of many like it that wasn't junk. Hence, the "almost" qualifier. There is a chance, remote though it may be.

I'll grant you that I *might* be wrong. You'll also not that I said it was "It's almost certainly junk."

Do you understand the meaning of the word "almost"?

So, if it works for you and maybe you have much lower expectations than I do - then I'm happy for you (in a casual, forum sort of way)

So, vis a vis "narrow minded," apparently not fully reading and understanding simple phrases is appropriate to then turn that into insults?

J.

To me "almost certainly" means something different to "might be". Sure you can say "considering the price it might be junk" but you basically said "because it's so cheap it most likely is junk", two very different things. You made an assumption based solely on price without using the product in question, disregarding the experiences of those that have used it. I'd say that's pretty narrow minded. So no it wasn't an insult, it was an observation, in this situation you have exhibited narrow mindedness and I was simply stating it.

Now let me address your concerns:

*They slip - Nope, holds rock steady
*they hitch when you lock them - Not to a huge extent and only if you're not gripping the camera well, hold it tight and it's fine (I use it for 3:1+ macros, that's how precise I can position it)
*there is slop when they are locked - Not in the actual ballhead. My plates fit a tad loosely but a few strips of tape fixed that
*they don't move smoothly - Seems fine to me, doesn't have any friction control so depends on how far you loosen it

tvphotog wrote in post #12967465
Then throw it out and get a beanbag. Tripods are to stabilize shots at slow shutter speeds, or to get amazing sharpness at standard speeds. A cheap tripod setup will not give you either because it will not give you the stability that you need. It's a waste of money and time.

A beanbag is rock solid and cheap. I've got an expensive tripod but always take a beanbag. It's fast and easy.

That beanbag link you posted is only for Nikons. Do you know of one that is compatible with Canons?

After my experience with the el cheapo tripod that came with my camera, free, I wouldn't have tried that head personally. However, it seems you are happy with it, so lets just hope it doesn't give out on you anytime soon

ben_r_ wrote in post #12940720
I think that head is a waste of money personally. IMO you shouldnt be looking at any less than this for a decent starter ballhead: LINK

Cheap heads just have a lot of problems with drooping/sagging, or breaking. Or worse, dropping your precious camera and lens on the ground!

I agree , you get what you pay for .. price has come down since I purchased mine ....

The Ran wrote in post #12968852
To me "almost certainly" means something different to "might be". Sure you can say "considering the price it might be junk" but you basically said "because it's so cheap it most likely is junk", two very different things. You made an assumption based solely on price without using the product in question, disregarding the experiences of those that have used it. I'd say that's pretty narrow minded. So no it wasn't an insult, it was an observation, in this situation you have exhibited narrow mindedness and I was simply stating it.

Now let me address your concerns:

*They slip - Nope, holds rock steady
*they hitch when you lock them - Not to a huge extent and only if you're not gripping the camera well, hold it tight and it's fine (I use it for 3:1+ macros, that's how precise I can position it)
*there is slop when they are locked - Not in the actual ballhead. My plates fit a tad loosely but a few strips of tape fixed that
*they don't move smoothly - Seems fine to me, doesn't have any friction control so depends on how far you loosen it

"Almost" was used to say "highly unlikely but not impossible." I'll stand by that and you've confirmed it. We have considerably different expectations for our gear.

The hitching part is a case in point. Use a longer lens, compose and try and lock it. it's not where you put it - it moves. That's not acceptable for me, it's quite irritating, it's a hassle and is characteristic of ballheads in this price range. If you frame tight, you will often blow your composition.

Plates fitting a tad loosely are also characteristic of these (clamps and plates). When you get vibration that makes it up through the tripod, or that is aggravated in any breeze whatsoever, you will get softening in your image. if you can even tell by visual inspection that there is some slop, then it is not satisfactory - 50um of vibration transmitted will give you several pixels of blur.

These are precisely the problems that will take an image and cause inconsistencies in sharpness or even mess up the composition. It's frustrating and makes taking good images just that much more difficult. All tripods and ballheads are a hassle to use, this sort of thing is just that much more frustrating and aggravating.

So, you've confirmed that this ballhead is no different than any others in this price range. I'll stand by my original statement.

J.

I understand, you don't quite grasp the English language. This should help, notice the first two words in the definition are "very nearly": http://dictionary.refe​rence.com/browse/almos​t

Evidentially, you expect a £20 ballhead to perform the same as a £70 one, and assume that it won't even be worth the asking price.

Ah, again with the assumptions. I'll remind you that I have used this ballhead, I use it with a 300mm on crop and for 3:1+ magnification macros, it really isn't hard to precisely position.

It's a side effect of the cheap price, but one that can be remedied with a few strips of tape. I'll also point out that not all Arca Swiss type plates fit every clamp precisely, you may not realise but it's not that feasible to make everything to precise measurements. For all you know I may have got one of the bad ones, the majority of the others may fit nice and tight.

Are you trolling? I haven't confirmed your assumption at all, unless your definition of junk is a slightly loose quick release plate. Actually I wouldn't be surprised at that, you've shown a few times that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Ran wrote in post #12970699
I understand, you don't quite grasp the English language. This should help, notice the first two words in the definition are "very nearly": http://dictionary.refe​rence.com/browse/almos​t


Evidentially, you expect a £20 ballhead to perform the same as a £70 one, and assume that it won't even be worth the asking price.


Ah, again with the assumptions. I'll remind you that I have used this ballhead, I use it with a 300mm on crop and for 3:1+ magnification macros, it really isn't hard to precisely position.


It's a side effect of the cheap price, but one that can be remedied with a few strips of tape. I'll also point out that not all Arca Swiss type plates fit every clamp precisely, you may not realise but it's not that feasible to make everything to precise measurements. For all you know I may have got one of the bad ones, the majority of the others may fit nice and tight.


Are you trolling? I haven't confirmed your assumption at all, unless your definition of junk is a slightly loose quick release plate. Actually I wouldn't be surprised at that, you've shown a few times that you have no idea what you're talking about.

What you have (and exactly how you describe it) is characteristic of all the others that have looked, owned or used in this price range. Yours sounds representative to me and would be confirmation of my experience. Tape? Are you kidding me? That's what passes for quality?

Having used quite a number of Arca Plates, I've never seen one that had any slop in it at all. But, I've used good ones from reputable companies not ebay specials.

What you describe, I would consider junk and unacceptable. You like that sort of stuff apparently. I don't. We have different expectations. it's that simple. Is that a hard concept for you to grasp?

J.

I'd agree completely with John here. The Opteka specs give it the carrying capacity of a Manfrotto 494RC2 (minus the pan control, from the picture) for the size and weight of the Manfrotto 498RC2. From the photo, the maker cut corners on the exterior design and finish, which suggests that they cut just as many on the "hidden" parts. POTN has had any number of posts from people who'd thought their inexpensive tripods and heads were "plenty good", until they borrowed or bought better ones and were stunned at the difference. Buy good and buy once holds here; if you can't afford a good head now, get a bean bag and keep saving.

Arca-Swiss plates don't have a standard; the Opteka is using a cloned Manfrotto RC2 plate, and the Manfrotto RC2 doesn't fit even Manfrotto's own RC2 clamps consistently, or snugly (I've had at least 8 on heads of various models). That's one reason I moved to A-S. Except for the RRS lever clamp, virtually any A-S compatible clamp will fit any A-S-compatible plate firmly when used as directed. And RRS makes no bones about the reason they stipulate you need to use specific brands of plate with their lever heads.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #12971912
What you have (and exactly how you describe it) is characteristic of all the others that have looked, owned or used in this price range. Yours sounds representative to me and would be confirmation of my experience.

So what about my descriptions confirms that it is junk? Because as far as I can remember the only issue is the loose plates, and if actual Manfrotto RC2 plates are the same then this is hardly any junkier for the price.

Erm, there's nothing wrong with a bit of tape, plenty of photogs use it for various things. It's not supporting anything, it's not as if I'm using it to hold the camera to the plate, it's merely acting as a shim.

Yeah, well the other Jon has confirmed that there are discrepancies between plates. If you use plates from the same manufacturer then you're probably fine.

You have extremely high expectations and are prejudice to cheaper gear, I guess you could probably be described as a gear snob. Once again there is nothing junk or unacceptable about the head, that's coming from someone that has extensively used one and not upgraded despite having the money to.

The Ran wrote in post #12972406
Yeah, well the other Jon has confirmed that there are discrepancies between plates. If you use plates from the same manufacturer then you're probably fine.

I'll thank you not to quote me out of context to support your delusions. As I indicated, the A-S plates fit solidly in A-S screw-type clamps (the commonest type out there) from any vendor, and in Markins lever clamps. The only A-S clamp vendor that doesn't claim to handle (and live up to its claim) any A-S plate out there is RRS, and only for their lever-release clamps; where they explicitly include a disclaimer (which is narrower than experience has indicated it need be, but they're a quality company who stand squarely behind their products). RC2 plates, however, as I also said, don't necessarily fit solidly even in Manfrotto's own RC2 clamps, which is clearly borne out by your relying on tape to hold yours (something I've never had to rely on for my RRS calmps/plates). You get what you pay for. Have you ever used a good tripod head? If not, don't assume that your lack of experience with quality means you have a quality product.

I didn't take what you said out of context, and I'm not deluded (this is starting to feel like one of those "gang up on the newer guy" moments). You confirmed, in a round about way, that some AS plates don't fit all lever clamps, thus there are discrepancies. If you do want every plate to fit your clamp then you need to use a screw clamp, which carries more consequences than my tape fix.

The Ran wrote in post #12972406
So what about my descriptions confirms that it is junk? Because as far as I can remember the only issue is the loose plates, and if actual Manfrotto RC2 plates are the same then this is hardly any junkier for the price.

1. The hitching when locking "unless you hold the camera firmly".
2. The slop in the clamp and plate.
3. Tape is not a reasonable solution.

A malleable and movable shim that may or may not be doing what it is supposed to do. To get an idea of the level of vibration that ruins images see this:

http://markins.com/cha​rlie/report4e6.pdf

Vibration that you can't see or feel does it. Tape? Uh, no.

What are those high expectations? That I can reliably and consistently get my lenses to operate near their maximum performance? That I have lots of money invested in camera bodies and lenses and then to give away that performance with a marginal ballhead and tripod is foolish? Those are "high expectations"?

Please knock off with the insults and slurs. It's not appropriate and is best described as rude.

Again, I'm happy for you. I think it's junk, you don't. We have widely different opinions about this. So what? So enjoy you ballhead. Love it to pieces. Good for you etc... I'm not going to. I've wasted too much time fooling around with bargain basement stuff and I find it frustrating and a hassle. My results became much more consistent when I quit using stuff like that and the aggravation and hassle factor in my photography went down by a lot. YMMV.

J.

1. Not a huge problem, like I said I can manage when doing high magnification macros so it doesn't hitch that much.
2. That same slop that Manfrottos have? Are they junk too?
3. Why not? It works.

A malleable and movable shim that may or may not be doing what it is supposed to do. To get an idea of the level of vibration that ruins images see this:

http://markins.com/cha​rlie/report4e6.pdf

Vibration that you can't see or feel does it. Tape? Uh, no.

Again, more assumptions. We're talking about 2 or 3 strips of tape, that are compressed so much when tightening the clamp that there is probably less wobble than an Arca Swiss lever clamp and plate combo.

The expectation that a £20 head should perform as good as a £70 one, and that any minor imperfection isn't acceptable. I can "reliably and consistently get my lenses to operate near their maximum performance", I'm do not "give away that performance with a marginal ballhead and tripod" (my tripod is very good actually). I'm only being as rude as you are by making stupid assumptions.

You "think" it's junk, you haven't used it so you don't know that it is junk. That's what I'm getting at, you're trying to turn people away from buying something that you clearly don't have a clue about, you haven't used it and are ignoring the opinions on those that have and instead are making stupid assumptions.