Ball heads, what makes a good one, brands, etc.
>>4388871They all do the same thing.
>>4388871get one that has adjustable preload and rated for double the weight of your heaviest setup (even your dream heavy setup for futureproofing)
Let me guess, you need more?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2560Image Height2560Scene Capture TypeStandard
Wanted to buy this a while back since it was probably the only counterbalanced ball head on the market, but seems like it's not sold in the US anymore.
>>4388897>669 dollars.
>>4388898that's kiwibucks since I can't find it in the US anymore
>>4388871kessler crane ball head + arca platelooks tiny but works like a champ
>>4391989dropped pic[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1024Image Height683Scene Capture TypeStandard
arca swiss
>>4388871>ball headThey're a meme, limited strength and the only advantage is that they have unlimited different positions within their range. Problem is, is that their range is pretty small, and there's basically no reason to use the roll axis on them as they can rarely get you 90 degrees, so not enough to do a portrait shot unless you get a slotted one like >>4388894. Even then though, they're not really stable enough for a heavy camera. Get a fluid head instead.
>>4392291I'm yet to see a fluid head that can point directly up for astro shots, unfortunately.
>>4392291>Problem is, is that their range is pretty smallMore than almost any other type of head>there's basically no reason to use the roll axis on them as they can rarely get you 90 degrees, so not enough to do a portrait shot unless you get a slotted oneAlmost all ballheads have a slot to drop in to. And if the head isn't level and you can't get fully vertical in one direction then you can get past vertical on the opposite side>Even then though, they're not really stable enough for a heavy camera.Yeah they are>Get a fluid head instead.Then you need to buy some video legs with a levelling ball and spend more time levelling it. And if you want to shoot portrait you need to remove the camera and rotate it (if that's even possible) and then you're limited in tilting up and down by the range of the levelling ball. Also many video heads like that are designed to have the plate mounted longitudinally, not convenient for a stills camera.
>>4392307>More than almost any other type of headFluids go further, pan/tilts go further, most geared heads go further. The reason people get ball heads is because they're a cost compromise.>Almost all ballheads have a slot to drop in to. And if the head isn't level and you can't get fully vertical in one direction then you can get past vertical on the opposite sideI mean, two out of the three posted in this thread don't>Yeah they areAbsolutely not. If you're shooting a 300, a 70-200 on any full frame camera, a ball head will not be good enough.>Then you need to buy some video legs with a levelling ball and spend more time levelling itAlmost every set of legs has a levelling ball, almost every fluid head will have a levelling ball, every mirrorless camera has in-camera levelling, and every ILC camera has a shoe where you can mount a levelling ball.>And if you want to shoot portrait you need to remove the camera and rotate it (if that's even possible) and then you're limited in tilting up and down by the range of the levelling ballYes, genuine critique, but you can overcome this by just using an L bracket. Extending or reducing the legs also works but yeah, not convenient. >Also many video heads like that are designed to have the plate mounted longitudinally, not convenient for a stills camera.I can see how it looks like that from the image, but those plates are really big, both in length and width and will cover more surface area than normal 4:3 or 1:1 aspect ration plates. At least the ones ive used. But yes, they are *designed* for cameras that are longer than they are wide, like video cameras.>>4392304picrel
>>4392309>If you're shooting a 300, a 70-200 on any full frame camera, a ball head will not be good enough.Bro even the amazon brands are rated at like 12lbs. Yeah they won't hold a fucking 600mm f/5.6, but a 70-200? 1300g? Even with a DSLRnosaur with an extra 800g added that's still within spec. Yes, obviously if you're attatching at the base of the camera the center of gravity will be off, but that's why your beeg white lens came with a tripod collar.
>>4392309>Fluids go further, pan/tilts go further, most geared heads go further.A lot of them actually don't, can't tilt as far. And then there's the side to side tilt limitation that I mentioned.>I mean, two out of the three posted in this thread don'tHardly representative of all ballheads. A quick search on Amazon for ballheads I had to click through to page 7 to find one without a drop slot, that's literally about 1%.>Absolutely not. If you're shooting a 300, a 70-200 on any full frame camera, a ball head will not be good enough.Well that's funny because my ballhead handles my 70-200mm f/2.8 and 150-500mm just fine and it's not even a particularly large one.>Almost every set of legs has a levelling ballVideo legs. That severely limits your choice of legs. And also it's just not as convenient or as quick as using a ballhead. And the levelling range also isn't as great as a ballhead so you could end up in a situation where you're instead having to mess about with adjusting the leg length as well.>Yes, genuine critique, but you can overcome this by just using an L bracket.Doesn't work with a lot of fluid heads, unless you want to go mounting two plates longitudinally to the L bracket.>I can see how it looks like that from the image, but those plates are really big, both in length and width and will cover more surface area than normal 4:3 or 1:1 aspect ration platesYou're missing the point. You don't want a plate sticking out of the front and back of a stills body.Don't get me wrong, fluid and pan/tilt heads are great for what they're designed for, but that's video work. Just like how a ballhead sucks for video work. OP was asking for ballhead recommendations so presumably he's shooting stills.
>>4392321>Bro even the amazon brands are rated at like 12lbsYeah they are, but they're not rated at what they're stable for, they're just rated at what they guarantee they won't break with (which in my experience isn't even true, but thats just an anecdote). I was also mainly speaking about their stability when tilted all the way to the side, in portrait mode, as this hurts the stability further. I'm not saying they're not stable enough for any camera, they will definitely do the job for some people. Personally I shoot a 5D, sometimes with a battery grip and a 300 f2.8, so they don't work for me. And since tripods are dirt cheap used, I don't see the point in buying an ulta-cheap one used.>Hardly representative of all ballheads.True, but I'm not going to go add up which ones do and don't>Well that's funny because my ballhead handles my 70-200mm f/2.8 and 150-500mm just fine and it's not even a particularly large one.You must have a ball of steel my friend>And also it's just not as convenient or as quick as using a ballheadI dunno, I find the lockers on fluid heads to be so fast to use. I really dig them. I find it way faster to use a fluid head to get a critically aligned shot than a ball or a pan tilt.>You don't want a plate sticking out of the front and back of a stills body.Why not? It's on a tripod. Most fluid heads are just arca swiss so if it really matters to you, you could just get a shorter plate.>Don't get me wrong, fluid and pan/tilt heads are great for what they're designed for, but that's video work.In my experience, any camera setup that I need a tripod to shoot with, I would prefer to use a fluid head. And the panning actions aren't useful just for video, think about if you're tracking something moving with a long lens, like shooting motor sports. A fluid head works awesome for that.
>>4392326>they're just rated at what they guarantee they won't break withFair.>I don't see the point in buying an ulta-cheap one used.Also fair. I never understood why some anons will shell out thousands for a Z8 but then fuck around with a $50 tripod.
>>4392326>You must have a ball of steel my friendNo it's just a cheap Triopo NB-2S. It's rated for 8kg and my heaviest setup is about 2.5kg so it can handle it easily.>I dunno, I find the lockers on fluid heads to be so fast to useMessing about with multiple knobs (don't forget the levelling ball) is never going to be faster than a single knob.>Why not? It's on a tripod. Most fluid heads are just arca swiss so if it really matters to you, you could just get a shorter plate.Because a plate sticking out the back is going to jab you in the chin, in front it's going to get in the way of removing and mounting the lens and possibly getting to the zoom/focus ring. I don't think there is a plate that's short enough that it won't stick out from either side, mirrorless bodies are pretty narrow.>And the panning actions aren't useful just for video, think about if you're tracking something moving with a long lens, like shooting motor sportsBallheads can also pan. But typically if you're going to be tracking moving subjects with a big lens then you're going to get a gimbal head.
>>4392331Sorry, meant to say "buying an ultra-cheap one new" when you could get a expensive one used for the same price or not much more.>>4392339>Messing about with multiple knobsThey're not really knobs, they're just levers, you only move them around 90 degrees to go from completely free to completely locked. Being able to do one at a time is really useful, especially because not every movement you wanna do will concert both axis.>I don't think there is a plate that's short enough that it won't stick out from either side, mirrorless bodies are pretty narrow.Could be true, not sure as its never bothered me, if my camera is going to be on and off my tripod, I align the back of the plate with the back of the camera, and let it stick out the front, as its no longer than the lens typically.>Ballheads can also panYeah but its not as easy to keep the level, which is pretty annoying if you're already operating the camera.>if you're going to be tracking moving subjects with a big lens then you're going to get a gimbal head.Yeah, I find you don't really get much of an advantage from gimbals over fluids, they're both designed to have nice smooth panning motions. Gimbal head would definitely work too, I just prefer the fluid as a hybrid solution. Personally ive never tried to use a gimbal head for stills though, maybe they're good, dunno.
>>4392343>They're not really knobs, they're just levers, you only move them around 90 degrees to go from completely free to completely locked. Being able to do one at a time is really useful, especially because not every movement you wanna do will concert both axis.That's fair, but it's neither as convenient or as quick as a ballhead which is what you claimed. > I align the back of the plate with the back of the camera, and let it stick out the front, as its no longer than the lens typically.That's true, but it's still there. I don't know about you but my left hand is underneath my lens and if I had a long plate mounted longitudinally then it would be sticking into my palm.>Yeah but its not as easy to keep the level, which is pretty annoying if you're already operating the camera.If having a level pan is vital then you can add a levelling base below a ballhead and you've just eliminated one of the advantages of video legs with a levelling bowl.>Yeah, I find you don't really get much of an advantage from gimbals over fluids, they're both designed to have nice smooth panning motionsI've not used one to be able to say how well they work but gimbal heads are designed to be able to balance the camera and lens combo, so there's minimal effort required to move it and it stays put when you let go.
>>4392373>but it's neither as convenient or as quick as a ballhead which is what you claimed.I think that depends on how critical you need your angle to be. I think for an exactly straight shot, a fluid head will be faster.>I don't know about you but my left hand is underneath my lensYeah same you just hold it like a foregrip, doesnt work as well for manual lenses.>gimbal heads are designed to be able to balance the camera and lens comboProbably no point for me then, I dont have any lenses that can't be balanced by either using a lens foot or by adding a battery grip.>If having a level pan is vital then you can add a levelling base below a ballhead and you've just eliminated one of the advantages of video legs with a levelling bowl.This would almost definitely work for stills, though I havent tried it. I feel like it's not going to be sturdy enough for any serious video work Feels good to talk to someone having a normal discussion on this board, rather than an at-throats shitpost graph-battle. Thank you anon.
>>4392387>I think for an exactly straight shot, a fluid head will be faster.Potentially. One of the good things about ballheads is also it's downside for precise work, all movement directions are on one knob (except for panning). It can be annoying when you loosen it off because you want to nudge it slightly in one direction but you loosen it too much and it flops. Then when you're tightening it you need to support it in all directions at once. They're more suited for a quick setup and getting close enough, then if you're slightly off level or whatever crop it in post. I have considered getting a geared head for stuff like macro.>Yeah same you just hold it like a foregrip, doesnt work as well for manual lenses.I can see that working out for some lenses and body combos, if the plate is close enough to the lens barrel that you can still comfortably reach the control rings with your fingers. I just don't like the idea of a squared off plate digging into my palm. I've done it before with the foot of my longer lenses, although those are heavier.>Probably no point for me then, I dont have any lenses that can't be balanced by either using a lens foot or by adding a battery grip.You'll be having to add resistance to stop it sagging though. The idea behind a gimbal head is the weight is below the pivot point so instead of tipping forwards or backwards it naturally settles at the lowest point which is level (think of it like someone sitting on a swing).
>>4392395>You'll be having to add resistance to stop it sagging thoughSurprisingly, for some lens combos, not really. It will sit level. You get a fair bit of freedom when it comes to how far back or forward you can mount it due to that long plate, and that combined with lens foots and battery grips, I haven't ran into a combo that couldn't be balanced. I can definitely see it not working with mirrorless though, as the bodies are going to be much lighter than my old DSLR. >I can see that working out for some lenses and body combosYeah, you also can run into issues if the plat is too close to the lens and doesnt let you properly get your fingers under it.
I have this Kirk BH-1 ball head. I like it. Is it considered good?
