I see you're using their suggested plate. In my mind's eye, it's too short. I like a seven inch plate on even a short nine inch lense like a 100-300/4.0 so I'm able to better balance the lense.
As a suggestion, with a longer plate (don't matter if the plate is ten feet long) you might be able to better balance the lense and body.
In the case of the friction control, I set it to the point where at the worst possible angle, it takes a small amount of force to move the set up when the locking knob is fully released. (Disclaimer: I don't have any big glass like your pic.) I like it tighter then most would naturally feel comfortable with but the equipment is more immune to damaging "equipment flop" when the tension knob is set in this inconvenient fashion.
It is good to know that the 468 will handle the loooong glass. With regard to the friction control, although I have it set to a setting I am comfortable with, I still never trust that it will stop a flop. I always hold the lens while adjusting the position. Caution first and comfort second. Thanks for the picture.
Also, you will find adjusting the big knob about an 1/8 of a turn will make the friction control engage. From 0 to 1/8 turn the ball is free roaming. Remember, you really have only 3/4 of a turn to fully locked. This is the impressive feature of the 468.
Haha yeah, although I've notice that when it does start to flop your natural reaction is to push in the opposite direction (i.e. horizontally). Depending on your reaction time (I was half asleep last night when I was playing around) that can be a bad thing. I almost tipped the tripod on one or two occasions (I had the neck strap on just in case. Anyway just more things to practice/learn. It's like taking a car in a parking lot full of snow/ice to see how to react in a skid. You hope to never be in that situation but if you are, experience will kick in. Again with this long glass, once it starts moving its got a bit of intertia).
As for the lens plate/foot its plenty long enough for balancing on the gimbal head (which is how I plan on using the 600 99% of the time). However I may end up considering a longer plate for the 400 once I get the new clamp mounted. This ballhead thing is a whole new ballgame.
The quck lock/unlock is very cool, especially when balancing the 600 in a precarious orientation Its good to be able to trust that it will hold.
just wanted to bump this thread up... it has alot of great information, especially about the Manfrotto 468 ballhead and various gitzo models.
its sad to say, but picking a tripod + head combination appears to be more complicated than choosing a body + lensemount system! I still can't believe I'm going to end up coughing up about $1000 CAD for a 'decent' 'pod and mount, but the proof is in the pudding as they say...
BeeMan458 wrote:
Wait till you try and find the ideal carrying case I've spent the price of an 85L and in real terms, still not happy
What?!? I thought the answer was "thinktank bazooka"? My strategy is to attach to the back of a lowepro mini trekker and be done with it.
if i have to put as much effort into picking a case as I do into a tripod & ballhead, then I QUIT! I'll take up something easier like golf, or achieving a 1 minute mile or something...
BTW, head shortlist:
- Arca Swiss Monoball B1
- RRS BH-55pro (panning model out of stock!?! WTF
- Acratech Ultimate Ballhead
- Kirk BH-1 (or BH-3)
- Markins M10 or M20 (surprisingly not discussed much here @ FM)
- and a stretch contender, the Manfrotto 468 w/ RSS clamps
At this point the Markins M20 @ 1.1 lbs seems like the best deal. I figured Acratech's $299 pricetag plus weight was good, but apparently the Markins ties it for weight...darn. Why do the Markins not get as much coverage here at FM? any defects I should be aware about?
For tripods, I'm probably set on saving towards a Gitzo 1257 or 1227. Everyone hs the 1258 and 28s, not many w/ the 3 legs...weird again.
Acratech is too lightweight for a 70-200 f2.8 and larger (w/1-series body). Got a lot of soft images due to wobbling in gentle steady winds. Even with the plastic platform removed, not stable enough for long exposures at night on the beach.
Perfect for long-distance traveling and for hiking if all you shoot with are wides and shorter primes, and on a g-1128 fits in 22" carry-on luggage.
For studio stuff or teles, i recommend the RRS bh-40 or equivalent, on a gitzo 1228 or larger. Manfrottos seem wobbly to me, tempting as they are pricewise.
BeeMan458 wrote:
Wait till you try and find the ideal carrying case I've spent the price of an 85L and in real terms, still not happy
Following this thread I picked up a Kata HB-207 which is great for lugging around most of the gear, but I think I'm about ready for a mid-sized shoulder bag... Well, at least there weren't too many choices for noise-reduction software , that choice was pretty easy.
I can't believe this thread is still around, I'm glad people are finding it useful.
"Following this thread I picked up a Kata HB-207 which is great for lugging around most of the gear, ..."
I've developed the, for me, ideal traveling kit, now if I can just figure out how to make things disappear and reappear into and out of thin air This having to carry stuff, after some forty years, is getting old.
The panning base on the M20-L (which I have) is great. As a couple of generations removed "boomer" married to my "WW II war baby" bride, what am I missing; besides my hair?
BeeMan458 wrote:
The panning base on the M20-L (which I have) is great. As a couple of generations removed "boomer" married to my "WW II war baby" bride, what am I missing; besides my hair?
Lock your panning base as hard as you can. Then mount a long lens and rotate by the end of the lens. the panning base will not hold.
mauriceramirez wrote:
anyone have a strong feeling about which they think is better, the Markin M10 or the RRS BH-55
-m
Markins' ball action is smoother when partially tightened. It's smaller and lighter.
RRS BH-55 has better panning base and I prefer their main locking knob - it's very smooth and locks very quickly. The lever release clamp is great.
One thing to consider about BH-55 that I don't see mentioned in any reviews, is that there's a limit to how high up you can aim your camera before the clamp hits the rear of the ballhead's housing. The rear part of the housing is thicker than the rest of it and prevents the full rearward movement of the clamp.
i had a 488 RC4 with a RRS clamp on it. nice but sold it and bought a Markins M10. no comparison, the Markins is top of the line. once that baby is locked down there is no movement what so ever.
Its good to be able to trust that it will hold.
