Many of the posts in this forum relate to ballheads with the ability to operate with heavy cameras and large lens.
I am using a compact camera weighing 10 ounces and probablly will never use anything heavier. I do want a ballhead that will move smoothly, lock firmly and have seperate tension control.
I see Kirk , Markins , RSS as being most highly regarded . However I am reluctant to spend more for a ballhead than my camera is worth.
Considering my lightweight use , is there no good quality ballhead which would meet my requirements?
If the answer no I would consider the Markins Q3 or the smallest Photo Clam with seperate tension control. Please help if there are less expensive alternatives
With your minimal weight needs, you should consider ergonomics over all other factors.
Yes, a BH55 would be overkill, but it is very easy to adjust and has a great panning base (well marked & easy to lock tight) if you do a lot of panning or simply pano work.
Personally, I'd probably get a smaller Markins if I were you. Q-ball, or....
Photoclam looks promising, but I wouldn't buy anything that hasn't been out in the field for at least a year, with lots of user feedback. Rarely such a thing as a free lunch, even from China.
Cableaddict wrote:
With your minimal weight needs, you should consider ergonomics over all other factors.
Yes, a BH55 would be overkill, but it is very easy to adjust and has a great panning base (well marked & easy to lock tight) if you do a lot of panning or simply pano work.
Personally, I'd probably get a smaller Markins if I were you. Q-ball, or....
Photoclam looks promising, but I wouldn't buy anything that hasn't been out in the field for at least a year, with lots of user feedback. Rarely such a thing as a free lunch, even from China.
1st: There is NO such thing as a free lunch. Not even in/from China (though in Cambodia I did see a dog eating it's own tapeworm...circle of life, I guess you could call it... that's about as close as it gets.
So that will be lighter than the new Canon G11. I think one of the Gitzo ballheads would be nice for a lightweight set-up like this. I used to have one that sagged just a bit with a heavy, cantilevered load. It was very nice and would have been great for light loads. I'm not sure if they make them with seperate tension controls, but do you really need that with such a light load?
The Giotto 1302-655 referred to in your post looks like it would meet my requirements. I was leery of this one because of some negative comments regarding cheaper ballheads
I use the Giottos 1301-656, the bigger brother of the 1302. I use it infrequently with a Canon 1D3 and various lenses up to 70-200 with no problems. That combo weighs about 6-6.5 lbs. I suppose you could throw a 1D3 with 300 2.8is on there as well...it would run ~9.5 lbs. It is a quality ballhead, buy with confidence.
Bearmann wrote:
So that will be lighter than the new Canon G11. I think one of the Gitzo ballheads would be nice for a lightweight set-up like this. I used to have one that sagged just a bit with a heavy, cantilevered load. It was very nice and would have been great for light loads. I'm not sure if they make them with separate tension controls, but do you really need that with such a light load?
Barry[/quote
I have been using a Gitzo #275 which is only just adequate. It does not have a separate tension control and more importantly is does not move as smoothly as I have been led to believe the better ballheads operate.
The only negatives I see about the Cullman and the newer Photo Clam ballheads is that their durability is not yet proven to be satisfactory. Their capability appears not to be in question as compared say to the Markins brand .I don't know if this is a case of "they cant be good because they are so inexpensive " or are they really as good ?...Show more →
