Monopod head question

Ok, not trying to start any arguments I am just curious. Seems a lot of people recommend the 486RC2 ball head for a monopod. My question is why? Do you actually use the full benifits of a ball head on a monopod?

I always have my camera and lens mounted on the lens ring when on my monopod and have always used the 3229 Swivel Tilt Monopod Head with Quick Release. I can rotate the camera in the lens ring for portrait mode.

Would someone that uses the 486RC2 on a monopod please explain what advantages there are to the ball head. Thanks.

gryphonslair99 wrote in post #2584509
Would someone that uses the 486RC2 on a monopod please explain what advantages there are to the ball head. Thanks.

I use my monopod in many ways, not just standing in front of a vertically oriented monopod. When the angle of the monopod (relative to the camera's intended position) is not the usual approximate 90°, the ball head comes in very handy.

An example of where I use the monopod at wierd angles: I may be sitting, either in a chair or maybe on a rock, waiting for an animal or bird to come to a particular place. The foot of the monopod may be well out in front of me or possibly even off to the side somewhat. I use the ball head to align the camera to where I expect to have the subject so that I can wait for long periods of time with the camera supported and properly aimed.

Like Skip, I use the monopod at weird angles lots, especially when shooting macro. Another good use is when shooting portrait. A couple months ago I tried using my monopod without the ballhead at the zoo to save carrying the weight around, hardly used the darn thing as I found it real awkward to use a lot of the time after being used to having the ballhead on.

I'm another who uses the monopod and/or the camera at assorted angles.

Yep.. odd angles here too!

SkipD wrote in post #2585509
I use my monopod in many ways, not just standing in front of a vertically oriented monopod. When the angle of the monopod (relative to the camera's intended position) is not the usual approximate 90°, the ball head comes in very handy.

An example of where I use the monopod at wierd angles: I may be sitting, either in a chair or maybe on a rock, waiting for an animal or bird to come to a particular place. The foot of the monopod may be well out in front of me or possibly even off to the side somewhat. I use the ball head to align the camera to where I expect to have the subject so that I can wait for long periods of time with the camera supported and properly aimed.

Ok, I understand what you are saying. I to do weird angles. Is it just easier to use a ball head rather than a head that tilts the camera horizontally and rotating the camera via the lens ring. I guess that is my confusion. I have been using the tilting head and lens ring for my horizontal and vertical adjustments. If it is significently easier, I would consider getting a 486RC2.

gryphonslair99 wrote in post #2588746
Ok, I understand what you are saying. I to do weird angles. Is it just easier to use a ball head rather than a head that tilts the camera horizontally and rotating the camera via the lens ring. I guess that is my confusion. I have been using the tilting head and lens ring for my horizontal and vertical adjustments. If it is significently easier, I would consider getting a 486RC2.

I would imagine that with lenses with rings the method you describe would work fine using a tilt head and they are a bit lighter, but I don't have a mounting ring for my 100 macro, not sure it they even have one. I guess it is what you are used too. I sometimes keep the tension just hard enough that I can move the head about if I push it but it will hold on its own without any pressure.

BearLeeAlive wrote in post #2588850
I would imagine that with lenses with rings the method you describe would work fine using a tilt head and they are a bit lighter, but I don't have a mounting ring for my 100 macro, not sure it they even have one. I guess it is what you are used too. I sometimes keep the tension just hard enough that I can move the head about if I push it but it will hold on its own without any pressure.

Ok. Thanks. Yeah I use lens rings on any lens that has a ring available. Canon's 100mm F2.8 does have an available ring that I did buy. I appreciate the information. I thought that my setup would do what it seemed to me the ball head would do but with so many people suggesting the 486 I began to question if there were things it could do that my setup would not allow.

gryphonslair99 wrote in post #2584509
Ok, not trying to start any arguments I am just curious. Seems a lot of people recommend the 486RC2 ball head for a monopod. My question is why? Do you actually use the full benifits of a ball head on a monopod?

I always have my camera and lens mounted on the lens ring when on my monopod and have always used the 3229 Swivel Tilt Monopod Head with Quick Release. I can rotate the camera in the lens ring for portrait mode.

Would someone that uses the 486RC2 on a monopod please explain what advantages there are to the ball head. Thanks.

Personally, while some may like it, I find it difficult. I use a very similar head to yours - the 3232 from Manfrotto, or I just mount the clamp directly to the top. Another control to mess with sort of (in my mind) defeats the whole purpose of a monopod - portable and simple support.

Using the 3232 to get the desired angle and then *if* required, rotating in the lens collar is all I require too.

J.

The advantage to the ball head is that there are lenses that don't have tripod rings which you may want to use on a monopod; 24-70 zoom, say, or the 135 f/2. If you've got the 3232 or similar you're going to have to change the orientation of the baseplate to get an "off-angle".

Jon wrote in post #2592589
The advantage to the ball head is that there are lenses that don't have tripod rings which you may want to use on a monopod; 24-70 zoom, say, or the 135 f/2. If you've got the 3232 or similar you're going to have to change the orientation of the baseplate to get an "off-angle".

This point is not one that I have encounted as of yet. I mainly use the monopod for sports shooting with longer glass that has lens rings and I make sure I have a lens ring for any lens that can use one. Being old school, long glass 30+ years ago was a tad bit heavier then todays lenses so I am used to always mounting a lens and camera by the lens ring. I guess I will have to look at a 486RC2 if I ever start using the monopod with glass that does not have a lens ring. Thanks all for the imput.

gryphonslair99 wrote in post #2594462
This point is not one that I have encounted as of yet. I mainly use the monopod for sports shooting with longer glass that has lens rings and I make sure I have a lens ring for any lens that can use one. Being old school, long glass 30+ years ago was a tad bit heavier then todays lenses so I am used to always mounting a lens and camera by the lens ring. I guess I will have to look at a 486RC2 if I ever start using the monopod with glass that does not have a lens ring. Thanks all for the imput.

I use the ball head on my monopod most often with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS which, of course, does have a tripod mount ring on it. I, however, seldom stand straight up with the monopod directly in front of me. That's why I have a ball head on it. I need the flexibility to have the monopod's shaft at many different angles from the axis of the camera/lens (one angle at a time, that is - depending on the particular situation). A ball head provides the flexibility.

Having the ball head on the tripod does NOT reduce the ability to use it in a "conventional" way. Just lock the ball head straight up and it's like it isn't there, except that now the monopod is several inches taller when fully extended (which isn't the worst feature in the world).

My concern in shooting is not to get an off angle shot as much as it is to get my horizons level. That is a far bigger problem for me. The result is that the off angle capability is not important to me and would actually present more of a problem. *if* I need to change the angle between my camera and monopod, the 3232 is more than adequate and appropriate for me. I do like a slight angle forward to make more of tripod between me and the leg out (slightly) in front of me.

j.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2594912
My concern in shooting is not to get an off angle shot as much as it is to get my horizons level. That is a far bigger problem for me. The result is that the off angle capability is not important to me and would actually present more of a problem. *if* I need to change the angle between my camera and monopod, the 3232 is more than adequate and appropriate for me. I do like a slight angle forward to make more of tripod between me and the leg out (slightly) in front of me.

j.

Like you, I find the tilt quite adequate for me as I am always using a lens ring. I do however place the foot of the monopod aginst the inside of my right foot planting it firmly against the ground and my foot. It has always provided me with a steady platform.

Jon had a good point about smaller lenses with out a ring. Makes it kind of tough to change the side to side angle of the monopod if the lens has no ring and you attach the body to the monopod. Having never used a ball head on a monopod it didn't seem convienient. I usually have the tilt slightly loose so with a bit of pressure I can adjust the horizontal plain of lens and have the ring slightly loosened so I can spin the lens and camera in the ring.

gryphonslair99 wrote in post #2595749
Like you, I find the tilt quite adequate for me as I am always using a lens ring. I do however place the foot of the monopod aginst the inside of my right foot planting it firmly against the ground and my foot. It has always provided me with a steady platform.

Jon had a good point about smaller lenses with out a ring. Makes it kind of tough to change the side to side angle of the monopod if the lens has no ring and you attach the body to the monopod. Having never used a ball head on a monopod it didn't seem convienient. I usually have the tilt slightly loose so with a bit of pressure I can adjust the horizontal plain of lens and have the ring slightly loosened so I can spin the lens and camera in the ring.

Think of this for a moment. You are standing in a spot with a 200mm lens on the monopod - in the usual vertical position with the lens roughly horizontal to the ground (front-to-back) and a mouse shows up in front of you, about 10 feet away. How would you point the lens DOWN enough to photograph the mouse if you are using the typical tilt head designed for monopods? You couldn't, of course, unless you made a radical change to the position of the monopod's foot and probably it's length. However with a ball head, the task is extremely simple - merely loosen the knob/lever on the ball head and point the camera down.

While this illustration may be a little silly, it should make the point for using a ballhead on a monopod. The versatility the ball head provides makes the monopod MUCH more useful than just limiting yourself to using it in the "classic" position.