Lasse Eriksson wrote:
What's the big deal about using a Acratech head in snow, high and low humidity, in the tropics, deserts, and on the beach I have been doing that with every brand and ballhead that I have been using in the last 25 years. If you can use camera's and lenses there, why would it be difficult to use a ballhead?
it's called creating a perception in your favor. standard advertising methodology: make much ado about nothing and someone will buy into it.
sjms wrote:
it's called creating a perception in your favor. standard advertising methodology: make much ado about nothing and someone will buy into it.
Not, it's called counteracting a misperception. Lars and some others suggested that the Acratech ball somehow collects more dirt and therefore would need more frequent cleaning than a conventional ball. That's not supported by the experience of actual Acratech users, who have cited their use of the head in various challenging environments without the effect imagined by others. No one suggested that other ballheads can't also be used, just that the canard or "more frequent cleaning" for Acratech was invalid.
Dave
Nov 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
No it started with Dan writing that the Acratech was much more easy to clean. And then I replied it would also get more dirt. Which it does. An open ball will of course get more dirt than a normal covered ball.
And many of the environments you and others talked about doesn't have more dust/dirt than a normal environment. Dan and I wrote about deserts. you and others talked about humid, dry environments & tropics, rain and similar stuff. Which is not dusty.
And like Lasse wrote: if you can use your lenses and camera where you shoot. Then you don't have to worry about the ballhead
I have one, the only ballhead I have ever owned, had it for 4 years now. Love it. Its been on dusty-ass hikes, rain, and just about everything else. No complaints. Nice and light, quick adjustments......
Lars, the issue isn't how much of the outside world the ball sees, but how much dirt is actually accumulated in a way that could affect operation. The open ball of of the Acratech doesn't accumulate dirt, and thus doesn't need cleaning "more often" as you alleged. Your "logic" doesn't hold up to actual experience.
And for the record, I have used it in dusty environments, as mentioned in my original message, without the need for any cleaning. No one here is suggesting that this is a "make or break" issue, nor that conventional ballheads are unsuitable. Thus there's really no reason for such a defensive reaction, and no reason to strain to come up with red herrings about the Acratech.
dsjtecserv wrote:
Not, it's called counteracting a misperception. Lars and some others suggested that the Acratech ball somehow collects more dirt and therefore would need more frequent cleaning than a conventional ball. That's not supported by the experience of actual Acratech users, who have cited their use of the head in various challenging environments without the effect imagined by others. No one suggested that other ballheads can't also be used, just that the canard or "more frequent cleaning" for Acratech was invalid.
Dave
Dan Brown have a point when he write it's easy to clean. But to say that an open ballhead is not getting dirty in an dusty environment is just ridiculous. Just like your camera and lens will get dusty, the ballhead will also get dusty. Dust and sand attach to every kind of photo equipment
sjms wrote:
it's called creating a perception in your favor. standard advertising methodology: make much ado about nothing and someone will buy into it.
+1
Nov 19, 2011 at 12:33 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
dsjtecserv wrote:
Lars, the issue isn't how much of the outside world the ball sees, but how much dirt is actually accumulated in a way that could affect operation. The open ball of of the Acratech doesn't accumulate dirt, and thus doesn't need cleaning "more often" as you alleged. Your "logic" doesn't hold up to actual experience.
And for the record, I have used it in dusty environments, as mentioned in my original message, without the need for any cleaning. No one here is suggesting that this is a "make or break" issue, nor that conventional ballheads are unsuitable. Thus there's really no reason for such a defensive reaction, and no reason to strain to come up with red herrings about the Acratech.
Why clean it if it doesn't accumulate dirt or get dirty? I have a lot of actual experience with Acratech, RRS, Kirk, Manfrotto, Gitzo, Markins & Arca-Swiss heads.
And for the record, the Acratech always did get more dusty/dirty than the others. even if it was not a big deal for me. Maybe you should try a few other good brands so you can compare
And like I wrote in my first post: I think Acratech ballheads are ok. But not as good as the best from RRS, Arca-Swiss, Markins, Kirk
Why clean it if it doesn't accumulate dirt or get dirty?
Exactly.
While it is open, the Acratech doesn't accumulate dirt to the extent that would affect operation. Since it isn't dirty, it doesn't need to be cleaned, disproving you original contention that it needs to be cleaned "more frequently" than conventional ball heads. That's the only point I am trying to make. In my more limited experience, I haven't found conventional ballheads to need inordinate cleaning either, so I'm not trying to denigrate them. But since the cleaning frequency of my Acratech has been at the rate of 0/12 months, I can state with a high degree of confidence that it it isn't more than conventional heads!
Lasse, one needs to remember that being exposed to dust is not the same as accumulating dust, or anything else. While dust may fall on it, it can also be released voluntarily without ever building to the point of needing manual cleaning. This is no doubt partly due to the fact that the Acratech doesn't use lubricants that would bind the dust, and that it doesn't have hidden recesses that encourage accumulation. I suppose one could wipe it down whether it really needed cleaning or not, but the question is really whether it is needed. Because of the open design I admit I expected to need to clean it more often, but I've been pleasantly surprised that this hasn't been necessary.
dsjtecserv wrote: Why clean it if it doesn't accumulate dirt or get dirty?
Exactly.
While it is open, the Acratech doesn't accumulate dirt to the extent that would affect operation. Since it isn't dirty, it doesn't need to be cleaned, disproving you original contention that it needs to be cleaned "more frequently" than conventional ball heads. That's the only point I am trying to make. In my more limited experience, I haven't found conventional ballheads to need inordinate cleaning either, so I'm not trying to denigrate them. But since the cleaning frequency of my Acratech has been at the rate of 0/12 months, I can state with a high degree of confidence that it it isn't more than conventional heads!
Lasse, one needs to remember that being exposed to dust is not the same as accumulating dust, or anything else. While dust may fall on it, it can also be released voluntarily without ever building to the point of needing manual cleaning. This is no doubt partly due to the fact that the Acratech doesn't use lubricants that would bind the dust, and that it doesn't have hidden recesses that encourage accumulation. I suppose one could wipe it down whether it really needed cleaning or not, but the question is really whether it is needed. Because of the open design I admit I expected to need to clean it more often, but I've been pleasantly surprised that this hasn't been necessary.
Maybe you should look at Dan Browns posting and his link to the storm in the desert that started the talk about cleaning.
Dust, sand & salt will attach to this head and ball just like every other equipment we use when shooting. Just look at a lens after one days shooting at a windy beach. It's covered with salt and sand. And so is the Acratech head/ball
It's nothing special with this head comparing to other heads when shooting in rain, storm, deserts. I never open and clean my other ballheads.
sjms wrote:
it's called creating a perception in your favor. standard advertising methodology: make much ado about nothing and someone will buy into it.
I have an Acratech Ultimate and used it as my only head for several years. Its both light and dependable. What I didn't like about it:
There was no tension, so when the head is loosened, a heavy camera/lens could easliy flop around.
What bugged me the most is when using a longer lens, like 400/5.6. After composing and tightening the ball head, the lens would "droop" a bit, as if there was some angular flex in the base of the head. I would have to recompose higher to have it droop into the desired composition.
Also the pan lock is a very small set screw and the mechanism could not hold much torque.
Mike K
I have been doing that with every brand and ballhead that I have been using in the last 25 years. If you can use camera's and lenses there, why would it be difficult to use a ballhead?
