What goes around: 6 mid-sized ball heads put to the test

@JasonC66 - Check out the big ball reviews I did last year. It also has an intro worth actually reading. :rollseyes:

Why is the comment about RRS financially supporting the campaign against gay equality in this thread? It troubles me that if you are serious with your comment that you don't support equality all the way around, why can't a person or a company have and support their own beliefs, which is an assault against freedom of speech and expression. If is to slip your own ideology then I am offended and the comment should be removed from this post.

I can understand that reviews cannot include every ball head made. But cost should not be a reason to exclude an outstanding product like RRS. After all, the lenses being supported are often equally or even more expensive! Readers should be given the opportunity to make their own choices about which product to purchase.

OMG, please people, try reading more than just the comments section!!

Nothing has ever been excluded due to price (or any political straw man), but then you'd need to *read* the article above these self-aggrandizing comments to know why.

RRS was in the last ball head roundup (that you might also want to read), and out of the three recommended heads in that conclusion, two of them cost *more* than the BH-55. Price will always factor into a purchase decision, but not my review decisions. Heck, the Acratech above (oh darn, more reading!) is Made in the USA, costs more than a BH-40, and many people here will still be fine with the $25 head they bought used in Shanghai.

As always, thanks for reading! :D

@dougstroud photography I read nothing in Paul's remarks that showed any bias whatsoever. It was a question and he was ok if it were answered either way. Don't read too much into someone's remarks. To claim to be a supporter of free speech, then in the same breath to call for censorship of his post is most amazing and a bit humorous.

Moreover, as Mark says, please read his 2014 review and you'll see other brands included. I don't think he's considering political positions of the companies involved. It's a ballhead review. It's a person's opinion. Read it and enjoy it, if you want.

Doug, Mark is probably just as gay as you and I am. ;-)

Mark, I understand your point and I'm sure it's fun to review obscure models by brands many haven't heard of. For me, I try to stick to mainstream gear so I have a better chance for repair and parts later on. Moreover, I know I'll find specific plates and my L grips will more likely fit better. I can mix and match safely from any of my three tripods and monopod without concern something won't fit right on a job. If they've been around twenty plus years and been successful, chances are they'll be around for the next twenty. It doesn't mean they're the best, just the best choice for my work.

I'm sure others have different wants and needs, of course. :-)

Great approach because you're right, one can't test these at a typical camera store. Could I suggest that your next test include at least one of the Manfrotto 400-series gear heads? I see a lot of professionals using those rather than ball heads. It seems like they would eliminate the sag problem, but who knows until they're tested.

When Manfrotto and Gitzo complete going Arca-Swiss compatible, then their heads are worth testing, otherwise I would not recommend them.

@Neroon While I like cross compatibility, Manfrotto's RC2 is fairly much a standard in its own right, considering a less expensive approach. You can buy plates nearly anywhere and they lock up nice and tight. Many third party head makers also use RC2, not just Manfrotto.

Consider a good Arca plate costs somewhere around $50 while a Manfrotto RC2 plate can be had closer to $10-$15, there can be a significant savings when you need ten to fifteen plates. Admittedly, the Arca plate may be of better quality, the Manfrotto plates and system does a darn good job and I think they are slightly more secure. They absolutely cannot slide out and with the safety lock engaged, they can't pop out either even if you inadvertently brush the lever.

The point is that on a budget, the RC2 standard isn't a bad system for many. It was quite expensive for me to upgrade just in plates alone, not to mention 3 ballheads and 1 monopod head. LOL

@Neroon I know one can find cheap off-brand Arca plates, but I personally find they often just don't fit well. I like the larger Markins Q20 head as well as the RSS BH55, but find that RSS fits the best on any head I've tried. Therefore, that's what I get and they are $50 plus per plate. I need one for each camera and for each lens with a tripod collar. I also have two for my macro focusing rails and one for my bellows, so that's a lot of plates and some are even more expensive than others. I haven't completely migrated over yet but we're talking between $750 and $1000 just in Arca plates by Really Right Stuff when I'm done, probably. That's something to consider.

But if what rich says is true then one could have multiple backups and still be far ahead of the game.

Pros rely on redundancy.

I would trust a pro packing 3 knock off heads vs a guy showing up to a shoot with only one acratech.

Something to think about.

The difference is that the guy with the Acratech does not have to waste time replacing his broken head, because it simply does not break. I love mine, worth every dime. Another point is that I would rather own a head that isn't going to break and drop my camera on the pavement...

? Waste time? Look the Acratech is awesome but if your a pro that doesnt have...um 20 seconds to swap a head...your not a pro.

20 seconds?

If you can afford 2 Acratechs, go for it. But lets be realistic here.

If the knock offs are prone to having cameras fall on the ground (debatable) then you might have a point.

Different strokes for different folks I guess but I have to agree with RichRMA on this one.

I doubt there is any chance of breaking an aluminum head of any kind, short of smashing it against something. The differences would be in the fit, finish and function. If cheap heads simply didn't work, or allowed huge sag (not that I've noticed) then you could easily make the case for using a $400 head.

You ultimately do what suits you and your purposes. Personally, i have always bought the best gear i can afford (within reason) and have had a very low (actually virtually non existent) repair status. I get to use the best gear and then a couple of years down the track i resell it for at least than 50% of what i paid for it. (sometimes more) As hobbyist love buying cheaper used pro gear.

I wouldn't put a $3000 lens (assuming it to be large and just not an apo Leica 50mm or something) on a small ball head anyway, they aren't suitable to carry it, no matter what their claimed weight capacity. Such a lens belongs on a larger 3 axis head, a large pan head or a gimbal head. Once you've had a heavy camera and lens unexpectedly head downward at high speed after accidentally loosening a small ball head, you'll know why.

Thanks. I understand what you are saying. I think it would still be beneficial to see what the performance difference between the bigger and smaller ball heads would be. Even if the smaller heads can't hold up the test rig at all, at least we'll have a better idea of what the "performance envelope" is for smaller heads. I'm guessing that there is some overlap the performance envelope between the larger head and smaller heads. It would be nice to get some idea as to how much it is.

Without doubt, it will be more work for you to do multiple tests using multiple test rigs. But for your next review a year from now, it would be great to see that.

Thanks.