Now that the Swiss don't make make money from their once best designed Ball heads, They now come out with an all new one: it looks futuristic, simple and it may works as advertised. I wonder if there is any review yet. Any comp. Or any of you hs had any handon-experience with this new kid one the block?.
The problem I have with this type of head is that it forces you to pan with you camera dead-level.
There are times when I'm doing a pano, without a T/S lens, where I want a bit more sky, or buildings, or whatever. A regular head, combined with a panning base or leveling base, lets me do this. I'd rather carry the extra weight, than be so limited.
I see more and more limitation of this head. . the tilt is limited. Of course one can add a panning base. But then it would defeat the purpose. Since I don't have it in my hands to really compare with the traditional ArcaSwiss one And other generics, I wish some pro would do this and show the comp in pics. Wishing to much?
Since I've actually handled the head in question I hope you don't mind if Iaddress the rumors:
"I see more and more limitation of this head. . the tilt is limited."..."Very limited tilt."
Simply not true. Tilt angles are no more limited than with standard design ball heads.
"The problem I have with this type of head is that it forces you to pan with you camera dead-level."
Again, simply not true.
"its a inverted ballhead as was of recent a flash in the pan pop idea where users were doing this the the likes of acratech heads."
Actually while it looks that way fro mthe outside , the difference is that the new A-S P0 and p1 heads were designed to work this way --as is true with the Novaflex magic Ball heads where as inverted standard design ballheads are not. This has to do with how and where pressure is applied to the ball. Arca is using a set of planetary gears to exert pressure around their elliptically shaped ball while non Arca-Swiss heads use a round ball and are apply pressure from the bottom of the ball ( top of the ball if you invert the head) to push the ball against the top part of the case. . I neffect the clamping mechanism in the P0 and P1 heads are applying pressure the same way your hand would grip a ball in the palm of your hand rather merely pushing the ball from one side.
From what I saw at PhotoPlus Expo last month I was impressed enough to request a Arca-Swiss P0 for review for the magazine I write for.
"The problem I have with this type of head is that it forces you to pan with you camera dead-level."
Again, simply not true.
What do you mean, not true? Explain how you would do it.
The way I see it: In order to stitch the shots together, without massive software distortions, (and a whole lot of trouble) the panner itself has to be parallel with the ground, even if the camera isn't.
Impossible with this type of head. You can't even do normal pan & shoots if the camera is slightly angled, as that angle would change on you as you panned.
Someone should make a head like this that also incorporates a device, on top, that can angle the camera slightly(front up or down) That would really be something.
Someone should make a head like this that also incorporates a device, on top, that can angle the camera slightly(front up or down) That would really be something.
Arca Swiss has exactly that device. Different price setting than regular ball heads. C1 Cube Geared Head
E-Vener wrote:
Since I've actually handled the head in question I hope you don't mind if Iaddress the rumors:
"I see more and more limitation of this head. . the tilt is limited."..."Very limited tilt."
Simply not true. Tilt angles are no more limited than with standard design ball heads.
"The problem I have with this type of head is that it forces you to pan with you camera dead-level."
Again, simply not true.
"its a inverted ballhead as was of recent a flash in the pan pop idea where users were doing this the the likes of acratech heads."
Actually while it looks that way fro mthe outside , the difference is that the new A-S P0 and p1 heads were designed to work this way --as is true with the Novaflex magic Ball heads where as inverted standard design ballheads are not. This has to do with how and where pressure is applied to the ball. Arca is using a set of planetary gears to exert pressure around their elliptically shaped ball while non Arca-Swiss heads use a round ball and are apply pressure from the bottom of the ball ( top of the ball if you invert the head) to push the ball against the top part of the case. . I neffect the clamping mechanism in the P0 and P1 heads are applying pressure the same way your hand would grip a ball in the palm of your hand rather merely pushing the ball from one side.
From what I saw at PhotoPlus Expo last month I was impressed enough to request a Arca-Swiss P0 for review for the magazine I write for.
dolina wrote:
Is this the replacement to the Z1? Since they also had Z1 heeads on display in their booth my guess is that the Z series remain in the Arca-Swiss production.
From a users point of view they have simplified things but since you probably haven't actually seen the P0 or the p1 or handled either please continue with your armchair sniping, as it's kind of entertaining.
i don't snipe i aim before i shoot. i don't comment on what i don't touch.
i also attend the Photo+ show as i have since about 1996 and make it a absolute must to see whats up at AS. spent nearly 30 minutes at arca swiss looking over their product and ideas and speaking to them. i look into how they do things and have a fair understanding of their engineering. i can comment as yes i have seen and played with them. as usual they are impeccably made. what i reall don't understand is the true ergonomics in this situation. the put all the mass now above the base and the locking ring isn't in my opinion a real improvement in setup. it is a fun engineering exercise.
their lever lock assy to date was the worst overall design i had seen when introduced none of the componentry was captive. also out in the field if the user liked to play with it as it had no limit stops it would come apart in multiple small pieces. there was adjustability for differenc in plate widths. but in a end users hands the lever (polymer) could and did break rendering it useless if over tightened. these are facts.
so tell me what have you done for dear old continental airlines? i only ask because i've been with the technical staff for 23 years.
Shot some of their annual reports and did various P.R. and travel work for them when I lived in Houston. I beleivethe last piece I did for Continental Airlines at the very tail end of Gordon Bethune's tenure as CEO. M yfirst work for Continentla was in 1986 when Frank Lorenzo was still CEO but after the first bankruptcy.
"their lever lock assy to date was the worst overall design i had seen when introduced none of the componentry was captive."
I am assuming you are referring to their lever lock on the QR clamps and I agree with you on that point, but I don't like lever locks as ageneral principal as they marry you to a single brnad of QR plate as well. On that note what did you think of the new QR plates?
el gordo and PMax http://i.pbase.com/u33/crusader/large/35667360.GBPMweb.jpg
on the lever lock
in reality it doesn't really marry you to a single source. RRS and wimberly run the same tolerance limits for their products. all you have to do to join is simple make a higher tolerance product and maintain it. so for kirk has managed that too.
i still feel that RRS is the most consistant developer and producer of AS type QR plates out there. so i started with them in 1991 and occasionally looked at the others but they are the only ones that seem to hold my attention. their products have a design flow that remains consistant.
doing work right now with the NPS at Ellis and Libery Islands. have a few fun projects in the works
not a pano kind a person but i do have one that will throw a challenge in my face at Liberty Island in the NY/NJ Harbor. dotting the I's and crossing the t's on it because we do not have an infinite amount of time to accomplish it.
My apologies for the "armchair sniping" comment I made earlier.
It really isn't a matter of tolerences however Neither RRS or Wimberley match Arca-Swiss's bevel angle so you could say they are out of tolerance with the "Standard".
as the AS clamp is a simple vise. if you are in the ballpark a screw clamp will lock just about any width up within the adjustment of the clamps range of the clamp. if you match the plate base width and angle within a margin of error of even 2 deg a lever lock locks the plate. the RRS angle is a dead on 45 deg. the AS angle is also 45 deg within a margin of error. the difference is the plate overall width. the throw on a ASscrew type clamp is infinately adjustable within open and close. this is its strong selling point. your plates do not need to be precision width because you can jus tighten it further. the RRS lever has a limited throw and limited tolerance so the plates must be a specific overall width. i have an out of tolerance plate by RRS which the angles are dead on perfect but after clamping it will slide. they admitted tht a few got out and replaced it.
top image foot replacement for a nikon 70-200/2.8 vr purchased in 2008 http://ic2.pbase.com/g3/89/44489/3/119638628.AKb9tcFU.jpg
lower image base plate made by the original RRS for a F4s purchased in 1991 http://i.pbase.com/g3/89/44489/3/119640163.abNRaGzZ.jpg
both are imaged in a RRS lever lock clamp. note the angles and contact points are pretty much the same. not bad for a 17 year and two different owners difference
you could also say that theirs is the "standard" as it has been since 1990 when RRS first produced the first dedicated plates and immediately started to outsell AS (at the time AS plates were real limited and to this day still are). in the process also made the AS B1 (though flawed in its own right) the most popular ballhead of its day. and as you know those who sell the most plates wins
