Just curious, anytime I see someone with a 500/600mm lens they always have a wimberly attached. But it seems like the smaller kirk BH-3 or RRS BH-40 type heads should hold any SLR type camera and 400 5.6/100-400/300f4 type lens with a flash pretty adequately.
Is there a reason to go with a larger ballhead? Eventually I'd like to get a 500 or 600 but if I need to get a gimble for it anyways what's the point in getting a bigger ballhead for lenses that don't require it?
Pardon? Do you mean that you hesitate to get a larger ball head now, because you might need a gimbal head later ? I look at it this way; if I need something, I buy it. If I don't need something, I usually don't buy it.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I got the Manfrotto 468MG ball head to carry a future 500mm IS lens with a sidekick or similar. Trouble is that now I have a 600 instead of the 500 I can see that it really wants to be on a Wimberley head rather than a sidekick. People seem relatively content to use a 500 on a sidekick but less so a 600. If you use a sidekick with a big lens then the ball head needs to be fairly strong because it will be taking the weight "sideways" instead of vertically.
I will use the 468 ball head on my new monopod with the 600 (sometimes) or 300 f/2.8 IS but it might be overkill. It depends on whether I get into the habit of tilting the ball head or using the tripod collar to tilt the lens for portrait shots. For my other lighter lenses I'll use my lighter-duty monopod with the Manfrotto pistol grip ball head.
If I understand the question correctly, then, well, I agree. Big glass goes on a full gimbal head, and small glass does just fine on a medium-sized ballhead. The really big ballheads--for me at least--are neither here nor there.
