I did see a post from Roger Cicala about this cool new Markins head. He wrote it worked great with a 500/4 lens. And also held up good when he mounted a Sigma 200-500 lens
But a word of warning before anyone jumps in . The web page says you HAVE to have the proper head . The BV10 fits the Q10i and the BV20 fits the Q20i . You can't use any older head as they won't have the hole on the side .
binary visions wrote:
Yow, twice the price for that plate assembly and a hole in the side of the base?
edit: ah, that's for the Q20, and it comes with the plate assembly... still 60% more for the aforementioned items
How can it be 60% more and 60% more than what
A Q 20 head with lever release cost $ 410
Here you get a Q 20 head with lever release + a BV head/module for $ 690
So you pay $ 410 for the Ball-head and $ 280 for the BV head/module
$410 * 60% = $246... so my quick in-my-head estimate was off by $34. I was stating that it was 60% (actually 68%) more than the normal Q20, and all you're getting for that $290 is this piece:
Which is a re-machined version of their $70 quickshoe, with two braces attached to it.
I'm not really claiming anything negative about Markins, I'm sure they expect this to be lower volume and they may have had to do special testing with the head to ensure the hole drilled in the side of it (with a possible bearing in there) supports the weight... but my initial reaction is it seems like a lot of money for a small item.
When looking what other similar stuff cost I don't think $ 290 for the BV head is very expensive. And an L bracket for my camera cost more than $ 200. A monopod head with a clamp cost nearly the same as this head. Just a Sidekick is $ 250.
"just a $70 quickshoe, with two braces attached to it"
The brace on the far side is more like a Arca-Swiss style lens-plate. That's like $ 50-60 when buying a small one without the attachment to the quickshoe like this have.
Do you know any other head that cost a lot less from a well-known brand? And that can support really big lenses? And that you can use with your ballhead.
And if 60% is way too much. How many % do you think it should be
$410 * 60% = $246... so my quick in-my-head estimate was off by $34. I was stating that it was 60% (actually 68%) more than the normal Q20, and all you're getting for that $290 is this piece:
Which is a re-machined version of their $70 quickshoe, with two braces attached to it.
I'm not really claiming anything negative about Markins, I'm sure they expect this to be lower volume and they may have had to do special testing with the head to ensure the hole drilled in the side of it (with a possible bearing in there) supports the weight... but my initial reaction is it seems like a lot of money for a small item....Show more →
what is your time worth?
what is involved in the design and prototyping and end product? please don't throw back that the newer tools make it "cheaper" because that's not all that true in the end. these are products of thoughts and ideas. they are the labors of an individual or group who put effort and time into bringing it to its fruition. for many it is a labor of love. and in the end just how many do you make and sell it as it is not going to be mass produced.
I think you guys are getting unreasonably bent out of shape about this. Please read the last paragraph - I understand the costs associated with design, prototyping and manufacturing.
I didn't have a specific number in my head - I am simply stating that I'm not sure $280 for a quickshoe and an arca swiss plate on a bracket is good value for me. I specifically stated that I am not claiming anything negative about Markins: I did not say they are price gouging, or have created a bad product (quite the contrary, I very much like the idea), or they shouldn't sell it. I am making an observation about the value it creates for me personally.
On the topic of the actual item in question, price aside, the design appears very nice and it would be an excellent travel companion since the ball head will fulfill its normal role and the plate is all you have to add.
then you need state it that way. you put a lot of effort and such to in the end say "but my initial reaction is it seems like a lot of money for a small item.". that in itself is a general statement. not one that is you and its value to you as the specific end user.
your description of it being such a small item with out the thought of what went into it.
here is a simple switch: how much is it worth? its got lots of plastic and multiple circuit paths. it is machine manufactured for the most part. it is a small item. I can say that there are more then a few thousand out in the wild.
Yes. My initial reaction is that it is a lot of money for a small item.
A value proposition is always subjective. I don't think that's unreasonable. Pointing out another physically small item that can be complex does not change anything - I am perfectly aware that physically tiny items can be costly.
I hope my comments in my last post clarified my position on the subject.
sjms wrote:
it is quite innovative in its closed environment.
I hope that the drilled portion is not just a hole but that it contains a bearing insert.
It doesn't look like that. I wonder how well that pin and hole works after sustained use and if any dirt/debris enter. I also don't see how that replaces a gimbal. With the single axis of rotation, it seems more like a monopod head.
well, we will see on that point as you are correct the one image of a possible prototype unit does not have any sort of bearing insert installed. that would not be a wise move on their part delivering it that way.
EB-1 wrote:
It doesn't look like that. I wonder how well that pin and hole works after sustained use and if any dirt/debris enter. I also don't see how that replaces a gimbal. With the single axis of rotation, it seems more like a monopod head.
EBH
I don't belive it's meant to replace Gimbal heads. I think it's more for people that like a very small head. Or instead of a Sidekick
I don't think it's very expensive. It's a new innovative head that no other brand have. It's also smaller than any other brand. And i can't see why it should be cheap because it's small. It's probably the opposite.
sjms wrote:
it is quite innovative in its closed environment.
I hope that the drilled portion is not just a hole but that it contains a bearing insert.
EB-1 wrote:
It doesn't look like that. I wonder how well that pin and hole works after sustained use and if any dirt/debris enter. I also don't see how that replaces a gimbal. With the single axis of rotation, it seems more like a monopod head.
EBH
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't belive it's meant to replace Gimbal heads. I think it's more for people that like a very small head. Or instead of a Sidekick
A Sidekick approximates a gimbal in that the load is balanced when the knob is loosened. I'm sure that Markins setup will hold a long tele well when tightened, but will one be able to let go of the camera when the ball is loose?
and 60% more than what
