Ballhead choice

dasams said:

NRothschild said:

dasams said:

I don't own any of Nikon's big guns but when that day comes, I'll buy
a BH-55 and directly attach my PCL clamp (ie, no quick release or
secondary clamp). You might consider this option.

Click to expand...

I would think twice and consult with RRS before using a Pano clamp
directly on a BH-55 with a big lens. The BH-55 is rated for 55LBs.
The Pano base is rated for 15LBs, less than your BH-40.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize the pano base had such a modest rating. Jeeze, I've
always thought of it as oversized and overweight and wondered why
they haven't released a smaller version.

Click to expand...

As I thought more about the configuration, I understand the 15 lb rating because of the leverage of a Sidekick. When a BH-55 configured with the pano base is dropped in the slot, the sidekick better stay perfectly vertical or else it'll put significant strain on the lock that prevents the pano base from rotating. It's really not designed for this.

dasams said:

dasams said:

Without knowing any more than that, I would personally not want to "cripple"
my BH-55 with a less than robust pano base.

Click to expand...

With this info, I'd keep the pano base separate and clamp it on when
needed.

dasams said:

I think that base was
designed for typical landscape lenses, not a 600/4 or whatever.
Again, I'm just reading specs and noting that as a point of research.
I considered this option myself, but decided not to because I use a
sidekick and didn't think the pano base would add value to that
configuration. Plus, I would have had to permanently bond it to my
Markins head, which would not be an issue for you, right? I think
RRS clamps are held on by screws instead of Loctite?

Click to expand...

I believe the clamps are held by screws and loctite.

dave
--

Click to expand...

dasams said:

As I thought more about the configuration, I understand the 15 lb
rating because of the leverage of a Sidekick. When a BH-55
configured with the pano base is dropped in the slot, the sidekick
better stay perfectly vertical or else it'll put significant strain
on the lock that prevents the pano base from rotating. It's really
not designed for this.

Click to expand...

BINGO! You may pick up your prize as you exit the stage....

You didn't even mention a sidekick. That's a no-brainer no-no, even if the PCL were rated significantly higher. That's why I never got to the point of bothering to ask RRS about the payload rating.

--
Regards,
Neil

I use the screw type clamp with my RRS BH-55 - it's cheaper and does the same job with more clamping force.

John

Despite the almost Messianic enthusiasm of some here for the Markins, it is not without issues. The pan lock is poor, and slippage is common. I don't think it is possible to lock it down to prevent a large lens from rotating when being carried. The pan lock is also painful to use being small and made of metal with a knurled surface. I would rate the pan lock as okay but I would expect better at the price. Otherwise this is an excellent head. The captive knob fell off my QR platform, but I think that was a manufacturing fault and not a design problem.

Are you using an M10 or M20? I have both; the M20 pan lock is much more secure if that is what you are after. It is also a little better damped, if that is the right description of the difference. Although I have tried a number of different ballheads in the field, I would not do that kind of stress test on a stranger's gear, so I have no basis for comparison. Between my M10 and M20, though, the biggest difference is the pan lock.

When I bought my M10 3 years ago, I was told that I should not carry a lens over my shoulder with tripod attached. (this should be searchable on the Nikonians.org tripod forum archives). There was concern it may damage the pan base. Since I don't do that, I have no need to lock it down that tightly.

Since I am not doing that, the smaller pan lock knob is not an issue. I'm not trying to do something (white knuckle tighten the pan base) that it was not designed to do. One of the great advantages, to me, of the Markins layout is that I can have both controls on the left side, and dedicate my right hand to the camera. That is an important feature. If the pan lock were larger, I don't think they could physically do that. I would not want the controls moved for the sake of a larger knob. That's just a trade-off of features- pick one. You cannot work a BH-55 with one hand. The Knobs are 180 degreees apart. That is actually one of the main reasons I never bought one. The Kirks are small, and because the pan lock and tension limiter are the same size they could be easily confused by feel, resulting in a catastrophic flop. The Arca-Swiss heads are substantially identical to the Markins in terms of location and knob size. Only the RRS heads have large pan locks and they are 180 degrees from the ball lock.

I have also found, via a substantial number of tests, that the M10 in particular performs better (less vibration) when it is shot with the pan lock fully loose. The only reason I lock the pan is when I need to change a camera setting or are otherwise concerned about losing the framing on a scene. I have to bump the lens pretty hard to make it move, especially with the M20. In that event, I'm happy the pan base gives instead of my long lens.

Because of all that, I don't find the pan lock to be an issue but, for someone that requries an absolutely tight pan lock down, that would be an issue. AFAIK, my experience, and I guess your experience, is normal and I am told that Markins designed it that way. True or not, it is apparently just the way it is.

I'm not Messianic, honest. I like the Markins heads. When I recently acquired the M20 I seriously consisdered a BH-55 but there is no such thing as perfection and, on balance, I prefer the Markins.

Neil

Slough said:

Despite the almost Messianic enthusiasm of some here for the Markins,
it is not without issues. The pan lock is poor, and slippage is
common. I don't think it is possible to lock it down to prevent a
large lens from rotating when being carried. The pan lock is also
painful to use being small and made of metal with a knurled surface.
I would rate the pan lock as okay but I would expect better at the
price. Otherwise this is an excellent head. The captive knob fell off
my QR platform, but I think that was a manufacturing fault and not a
design problem.

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Neil

NRothschild said:

I'm not Messianic, honest. I like the Markins heads. When I
recently acquired the M20 I seriously consisdered a BH-55 but there
is no such thing as perfection and, on balance, I prefer the Markins.

Click to expand...

Now that is a sensible comment. (Not that your other comments weren't of course.)

Have you read any accounts of the new Arca Swiss Z1? They seem to have 'borrowed' the Markins locking mechanism which I believe allows the Markins to hold a larger load than most if not all heads of similar size? Or maybe they have found a similar mechanism without infringing patents.

NRothschild said:

Are you using an M10 or M20? I have both; the M20 pan lock is much
more secure if that is what you are after. It is also a little
better damped, if that is the right description of the difference.
Although I have tried a number of different ballheads in the field, I
would not do that kind of stress test on a stranger's gear, so I have
no basis for comparison. Between my M10 and M20, though, the biggest
difference is the pan lock.

When I bought my M10 3 years ago, I was told that I should not carry
a lens over my shoulder with tripod attached. (this should be
searchable on the Nikonians.org tripod forum archives). There was
concern it may damage the pan base. Since I don't do that, I have
no need to lock it down that tightly.

Since I am not doing that, the smaller pan lock knob is not an issue.
I'm not trying to do something (white knuckle tighten the pan base)
that it was not designed to do.

Click to expand...

I have the M10, though I do not try to white knuckle tighten the pan lock. I just find it a bit painful on my fingers to achieve a satisfactory lock. I would rather a knob with a rubberised surface or an irregular cross section.

As you say, there is no perfection and the M10 is a very nice head despite flaws.

The Arca-Swiss B1 Monoball was THE original high end ballhead that started the ballhead thing rolling. They preceded Markins and I guess Markins followed the basic external geometry and control layout. Internally, I think they are very different, aside from the shape of the ball.

The B1 was an elliptial ballhead. An elliptical ballhead has the advantage of getting tighter as the altitude increases or decreases. The Markins, RRS, Kirk, etc., are spherical balls. Physics dictates that the tension on a spherical ball stays constant, but as the altitiude changes the forces exerted on the ball increase. The end result is that the ball is unable to hold a given weight past some angle. When you tension the Markins, you more or less tension it to hold to a certain angle. A B1 will hold virtually any angle, or maybe any angle at all. I have played with a B1 in the field and it is a neat ballhead because it holds extreme angles so well.

The problem with the B1 was that it could get locked up, and in many cases had to be sent in for service to get it unlocked. It got a bad rep for this.

Within the past few years Arca-Swiss came out with the Z1, which supposedly does not lock up, yet it is still an elliptical ball. I think it is a bit smaller than the old B1, which was a rather large and heavy head. I've never heard of the new Z1 locking up. The Z1 never regained the popularity of the old B1, but there are a number of happy users that have reported back here over the past year or two. One user mentioned a few issues he had related to the elliptical ball. He said, for example, it was actually difficult to get it to a full 90 degree flop, for portrait orientation or use on a sidekick. I have never seen one in the field; I'm just trying to summarize a fairly long post I read a while back. You should be able to find it and other comments on a search for "Z1".

From the above, you can imagine that although there may be external similarities, they must be very different on the inside due to the different ball geometries.

Neil
'

--
Regards,
Neil

Neil,

What I'm referring to is a greater mass and just ever so slightly greater dampening. Don't get me wrong, the Markins' is just about perfect, but on a long lens like my 300f4, I can see a difference in the "thump" test. Whether it would show up in pictures is debatable.

David in Phoenix

dstefan said:

Neil,
What I'm referring to is a greater mass and just ever so slightly
greater dampening. Don't get me wrong, the Markins' is just about
perfect, but on a long lens like my 300f4, I can see a difference in
the "thump" test. Whether it would show up in pictures is debatable.

Click to expand...

Greater damping on the pan axis?

As far as the thump test, which legs are you using? Have you tried both heads on both leg sets? Did you notice a difference in the thump test? Do you have TCs? Where you using one when you did the thump test?

Did you have the M10 pan base locked or unlocked? If you had it locked, try again with it unlocked- you WILL notice a significant improvement, assuming our two samples behave similarly. I have found that the M10 in particular performs better with the pan base unlocked. It dampens out vibrations and is very noticable in thump tests and actual images.

Are you using the Nikon stock collar on your 300/4 (AFS I assume?) or the Kirk?

I've compared my M10 and M20, both thumping, but more so in photographic tests at difficult shutter speeds, usually about 1/10s. I have seen little or no difference in my images. The other day I had the occasion to swap heads quickly, I think I was using a 300 2.8 working at 500mm, but I'm not sure now. I thought I noticed a little better behavior with the M20 but it was so close that I would have had to flip them back and forth and use a stop watch to be sure. Any differences in my images aren't suficient enough to make that a deciding factor in which head to use for a particular situation.

I suspect that any differences between ballheads are minute and swamped by differences in leg sets and how the legs are extended. There is much more opportunity for vibration in 20-50" of aluminum or cF leg than there is within a couple inches of ballhead. That's just me applying reasoning to my limited collection of gear and know that reasoning frequently results in the wrong answer, which is why I'm asking these questions. Not having ballheads from different makers, I am very interested in detailed observations for those that do.

You should test your two heads, shooting images at around 1/10s or so, at the same target. Tap tests can be misleading unless there are gross differences. RRS claims that their lower vertical profile, resulting in a lower center of gravity, adds stability. I think it would be helpful to see if this plays out in real life.

--
Regards,
Neil

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions and thoughts. I really appreciate your time and trouble.

I've ordered the BH-55 with the screw-clamp, an L-plate for the D200 and a plate for the 300/4.

The tripod I'll be using is my ancient Gitzo - maybe 35 years old. I can't remember what model it is but it's essentially the same as the Series 4 Pro-Studex (G1410). It has a centre-column and the 3-section legs are 37/32/28mm diameter. I don't intend to use the rig with the column extended. There's a plate available to replace the entire centre-column assembly (not just the column) and I'll probably get it. Unfortunately this old tripod doesn't allow the legs to unlock and be splayed out wide for low shots.
FWIW there's a very good PDF catalogue with specs etc here:-

http://www.gitzo.com/webdav/site/gitzo/shared/gitzo_news/cataloghi/GB_GITZO_CATALOGUE_2007_INTERNATIONAL.pdf

--
Cheers,
Peter.

Received the bits and pieces this morning. Absolutely thrilled with the build/quality/finish.
Looking forward to USING it all now.
Thanks again to everyone for your input.
--
Cheers,
Peter.