Benro KB-2 Ball Mount Tear Down

Karl. wrote in post #2836337
Personally this is/was my main worry. I'm pretty sure a Benro will work well directly out of the box, but what after one year, two years of use?? The info/reviews available on the net doesn't answer this question very well.

@Lightstream:
Did your Benro require both knobs to be tightened every time you wanted to fix the head? As I understand this could be one problem with the 3-knob version (compared to the KJ series).

Remember that this KB-2 has had about a year of use so the impression wear on the lower cup is after that degree of use. This came apart pretty easily so I have no issues in tearing it down again in another year and showing what additional wear has occured. I too will probably try and locate a nice high end ball mount just to do the tear down and track wear elements in both. That is the kind of tear down I really intended to do.

Also, the small tensioning knob does exactly that, it tensions the ball to some degree to stop camera flop. I find that it works quite well on the KB-2. I try not to change its adjustment when locking the ball down, only apply the tightening knob. The way the design works is kind of like a teater-totter. If you were to use only the tightening knob you would be applying pressure to only one side of the cup. When the tensioning knob is applied you get one fulcrum point on one side against the cup; and then the tightening knob acts as the lever point on the other side. The spring really just holds the cup to the bottom of the ball. I am looking at getting a KJ-2 as well to try and understand the single knob design. Not only in Benro, but for Markins and Kirk and AS, how does the tensioner knob on the tightening knob work to apply pressure on the other side of the ball cup? Aye, there's the rub. Looking forward to finding out.

Stew

Lightstream wrote in post #2835982
I have always been very candid about that too - I specifically said that by the time comes where I can afford a 300/2.8 ISL, I can damn well pony up for a better tripod, maybe a Gitzo Series 3 or something like that. And that day is a LONG time coming.

BTW, I still have my A127n6 legset (with the Q3 on top) because it is tremendously good value. Carbon fiber would increase max loading capacity by a couple of pounds, decrease weight by half a pound, and lighten my wallet by 3X more. Can't justify that.

Actually the Benro C328 CF tripod should not be overlooked. This is quite similar to the Gitzo 1349 (4 leg segments and reversable center column) I think. The load rating is similar with 26# for the Gitzo and 22# for the Benro. The design is quite a bit improved over the C128 that I have, with non-rotating legs and great fit and finish (although the 128 is no slouch there either). I use this tripod with a Manfrotto 3063 pan head primarily for large format 8x10 and 4x5 work (although the 128 and KB-2 hold the 4x5 just fine as well). I will be using the 328 with a Wimberley swingarm mount when I finally get some really big L glass.

Stew

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2819892
I'll look but I'm not going to take it apart for at least the next 60 days. I've got a couple of projects I need to finish first that require this head.

J.

Did you happen to take a peak at the bottom of your M20? Maybe post a pic of the base?

Thanks

Stew

Lightstream wrote in post #2835982
The most important part however, was that the Benro offers a real Arca-compatible QR system. I have a big problem with proprietary QR systems because if you do choose to upgrade, your entire QR plate investment is nullified. The Arca standard is the closest we have to an 'open' standard. When I upgraded to the Q3, ALL my accessories remained relevant because the Q3 is also an Arca-compatible mount. NOBODY ELSE offers an Arca-compatible mount at the KS-1's price point. (if I am wrong, I would be very keen to hear about the alternatives available)

Webster described the plate as 'cheezy'. I have four or five of them and they work quite well and have NO manufacturing marks or anything else negative in appearance or finish that looks 'cheezy' in my opinon. Same for the QR assembly on the ball head. Very solidly built and smoothly operating.

Stew

squiress wrote in post #2836492
Did you happen to take a peak at the bottom of your M20? Maybe post a pic of the base?

Thanks

Stew

No.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2837522
No.

Don't bother for my sake. I will be looking over my neighbor's Arca Swiss B2 (I think) this evening.

Stew

I may be able to get to it this weekend. I just am pretty busy right now with travel etc...

J.

Let's see. Where do I begin? First of all, if you didn't like the "tone" of my review of the Benro KS-2...tough cookies. It's my web site and, quite frankly, I call 'em as I see 'em. Some of my comments were meant to be tongue-in-cheek and some were serious. However, you cannot deny the images. Also, keep in mind, that tear down was done after I attempted to use the ball head in my home just after receiving it. When I wrote the review that ball head had not even been used in the field.

I think the most important point everybody is dancing around and not directly addressing is that the Benro KS-2 ball head does not live up to its billing. It is claimed to support 39 lbs. Support means "support at any angle". I can make a crappy Giottos MH-1000 support my 500mm f4L IS lens + camera as long as I don't have to tilt the lens/camera. No way does the Benro KS-2 ball head support anywhere near the claimed weight. All of the users of this ball head, and the KB-2 torn down here, that have posted replies in this topic are attaching camera/lens combinations that weigh far less than what Benro claims the ball head supports. My 500mm + 1D MkII + teleconverter + leveling base + Wimberley Sidekick gimbel head weighs less than half the rated weight capacity the Benro KS-2 ball head is supposed to support. In no way at all will the Benro ball head support that combination of gear. No way at all. None of you find the specs misleading at all?

I'm also curious why the shoddy system of attaching the camera plate clamp to the support ball was not addressed in this tear down. That is probably one of the weakest design features of the Benro ball heads. Not having the camera plate clamp post machined as one piece with the support ball is just begging for trouble, especially if someone does attempt to use the ball head at its rated weight capacity. As regards the "cheesy camera plates", I stand by that description. Compared to the plates manufactured by Arca-Swiss, Really Right Stuff, Kirk Enterprises, Wimberley, and all of the other quality-conscious manufacturers, the Benro camera plates are cheesy-and-a-half. The AMC Pacer was a pretty cheesy looking car but it functioned as a car. However, how many of you "out there" would drive one?

After I epoxy glued all of the Benro ball head components together, except for the panning bearing and panning lock, I did use the ball head in the field for a month. The panning lock became so scarred that it was impossible to lock the panning base without the panning base rotating. Yes, what junk!

Manufacturers of quality ball heads are very conservative in their weight capacity ratings. I own both a Really Right Stuff BH-55 ball head and a RRS BH-40 ball head. I normally use the BH-55 head to support my 500mm lens/Sidekick/camera combination. It supports this combination without even breathing hard. I have lateley ruptured 2 discs in my lower back and I will be having spinal fusion surgery next month. To lighten my load in the meantime I have replaced the BH-55 ball head with the BH-40 ball head on my 500mm rig. Really Right Stuff does not recommend the BH-40 for that much weight, however, the BH-40 supports my 500mm rig just as easily as the BH-55 ball head. Quality ball head manufacturer's products meet and/or exceed the weight capacity ratings claimed by these manufacturers.

I may just do a tear-down of the BH-40 ball head while I am recuperating from back surgery. I won't be using my equipment for the 6 months I'll be recuperating so I will have the time and opportunity to do a tear-down. I predict that the results and comparisons will be very enlightening.

The vast majority of the equipment I've seen listed in the replies to this topic all could be easily supported by the Kirk BH-3 ball head. At $255.00 I don't understand why a photographer couldn't eat macaroni and cheese for 2 or 3 months more and save the difference between the cost of the Benro ball heads and the cost of the Kirk ball head and purchase a real ball head that can properly support the equipment. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

OK. Now, if you don't like the tone of my reply here...tough cookies. As I stated before, I just call 'em as I see 'em.

twebster wrote in post #2856328
Let's see. Where do I begin? ...... I just call 'em as I see 'em.

In my opinion tone is important for establishing a credible review. YMMV.)

I know I would appreciate, when you feel better, your tearing down one of the really good mounts and show us all how much better they are built and what we are all missing. It's what I wanted to do all along.

Good point on the ratings versus the actual load bearing capability, however if there is no difference between vertical load and torsional load then why does Markins make a difference and post different numbers for each on their specs. My understanding is vertical load is being described for the Benro and that covers a lot of sins of the misrepresentation kind. I still plan to test torsional limits with my KB-2 with apparatus similar to the Markin's test, which was pretty cool.

As to the post and ball tear down omission, it's not really an issue with my use. I am not likely to hang a large lens off the camera with camera mounted to ball. Again, that's what the tripod ring on the lens is for (even the Markin's Nikon 800 video uses the tripod ring). I may still do it, but pending an inspection of an Arca Swiss B-2 to see whether it too is bolt mounted to the ball or turned as one part. The point here is that these systems are meant to be pretty much balanced for best use. If the mass of a camera and lens system is predominantly on one side or the other, no system will be smoothly useable.

Been there with the back thing. Wouldn't wish that on anyone. Hope it gets better quickly, but six to nine months is pretty typical for recovery.

Stew

Tom's tone aside (which bothers me not at all), I really appreciate his teardown of the ballhead. I think his photos highlighted some significant issues that should not be ignored.

J.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2857890
Tom's tone aside (which bothers me not at all), I really appreciate his teardown of the ballhead. I think his photos highlighted some significant issues that should not be ignored.

J.

I appreciate the info he has provided as well, and that he was willing to post here.

Leaving tone completely out of it, his tear down, like mine, is only one-sided, and not REALLY helpful unless one can compare point by point material and design. Certainly we can read and see external differences by going to any of the websites (Markin, Kirk, RSS). I see a lot of good reason to consider spending more. But now that I've seen the inside of mine, I don't know that any of that makes a difference for the average photographer (if such a person exists ). Do I really need ball bearings on my tensioning screw? Aside from Webster tearing down and publishing photos of his BH-40, or me buying a better ball for roughly 4X the dollars (Markin M-20 $390, Kirk BH-1 $355, RSS BH-55 $415, Benro KB-2 $91) and doing a tear down of that, or unless someone can point us to someplace else on the web where that has been done, we don't know how things are inside these high end ball mounts. If you read through the sticky on one man's quest for the perfect tripod you get a confusion of comments on simple ball composition, from aluminum to phenoloic (sp?) resin to Delrin to, and Benro isn't even mentioned. I'd love to see more detail on these vendor websites. I'd love to see a quarter of the ball mount cut out and detailed. Probably won't happen.

Still waiting to look over my neighbor's Arca Swiss B2 and still looking hard at a Benro KJ-2 single knob ball mount for about $165 shipped.

Stew

Starting to compile a list of build comments from the various vendor sites noting when materials are mentioned. Pretty interesting. Will post when more complete.

I noticed on Markin's site under maintenance two things of interest - 1) The Q ball instructions seem to be written by someone without very good English skills. One wonders what country these ball mounts are made in? Also, although it's under a 'ball cleaning' heading, Markin advises that the ball be regularly sprayed with WD-40. Other threads I've read are pretty strongly against any design with a ball that needs lubricating.

And on an engineering note with Markin, they actually advise the use of SUPER GLUE when installing their captive screw clamp knob. I would have thought that the use of one of the loc-tite compounds more prudent, in case you ever wanted to change out the knob.

Kirk's site states that their ball cups are Delrin. By Mr. Webster's definition they are not high end ball mounts because high end mount all have metal ball cups (of course they do cost less by about $50 compared to Markin/RSS).

Just havin a little fun now, but more and more am appreciative of the diversity of designs out there.

Stew

Markins is made in Korea and the owner is Korean.

I'd use loctite and think that would be adequate. I also think that superglue probably isn't much different in that application (fairly brittle).

Anyhow, my advice would be to replace the markins clamp with a RRS one - RRS makes better clamps IMO.

J.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2858821
Markins is made in Korea and the owner is Korean.
J.

South or North?

Non DPRK.

LOL

J