I am looking for a ballhead for a lightweight tripod to be used for hiking. The camera is a 400D with 10-22 or 17-55 lenses. This is a load of about 2.5 pounds max. I have been looking at the Markins Q3 and the RRS BH-25 ballheads as light weight head options. When I go to the Markins website, they state a maximum load of 65 pounds for the Q3 and RRS states 8.8 pounds for their BH-25 head. Obviously there is something wrong with the Markins rated maximum weight. Does anyone have experience with the Q3; what is the true limit for this ballhead.
I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I can't even find the RRS BH-25 listed on their site. The only ballheads they seem to show are the Q3, M10, and the M20.
Could you give a direct link to that page where you saw it?
Oct 25, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Mel Gross wrote:
I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I can't even find the RRS BH-25 listed on their site. The only ballheads they seem to show are the Q3, M10, and the M20.
Could you give a direct link to that page where you saw it?
I think the Q3 is a better ballhead than the BH-25.
The maximum load rating is a joke on most ballheads. The Q3 can be used very nicely with your small camera and lenses. I have used it many times with Canon 1series camera and 300/2,8 lenses. It's a strong head for it's small size
Like Lars, I too think the Q3 is the better of those two. Besides, you can get in colors besides black! I love my blue one and use it with a 70-200 2.8 all the time.
One other head to consider is the Acratech Ultimate or V2. I went through the same process recently. The BH-25 is appealing, but it doesn't have an independent panning control. The Acratechs and the Markins do. I ended up with an Acratech Ultimate. It is rated to 25lbs. It has held my 4X5 rail camera with no complaints, so I'd say its in the ballpark for an accurate rating.
If you use the RRS LR or B2 mini clamp on both heads purely for the sake of comparison in weights you wind up with a real world difference of a hair over four ounces for the added feature of a panning base.
My lightweight setup is a Gitzo G1097 tripod with a Gitzo G1277M ballhead and Kirk 2" clamp. I looked at a friend's BH-25 and it just wasn't going to work for me. No panning base is one strike, but the deal-breaker is that it's just not possible to set the drag so you can move the camera position without unlocking/locking the ball. The Gitzo G1227M head has a super-smooth feeling to the ball and it's easy to set a drag setting to allow camera adjustments. I think it's a steal, and the best head under $250, if you're not using heavy gear on it. The panning base is also smooth and locks firmly. BTW, this is the second one of these I've had, after feeling badly about selling the first one.
The Q3 is a very nice head, and will surely handle a much heavier load. I sold mine and bought the BH-40 instead, as I had trouble with a slipping panning base when I had a long lens mounted on my 30D body. Mine seemed to be worse than others have described, but the panning base is about the only functional weakness I've noticed with the Q3. I'd recommend buying it without the Markins clamp, though, as the clamps from RRS and Kirk are better in design and use. Why is the Markins bubble level hidden when a camera is mounted?
Lars, these are heads from two different companies. That's what is confusing.
Ok, let's get to the point. What you want is a lightweight head. What you have is a lightweight camera and lens combo. All small heads have small capacities. When it comes to ball heads there are several things that determine what the capacity is.
Surface area of the clamping of the ball. Diameter of the ball, and where it is clamped. Strength of the clamping mechanism. Strength of the person doing the clamping. Weight of the camera and heaviest lens. And the fulcrum of the camera lens combo.
Simply put, a small head with a small ball, no matter how well it may be constructed, will never have the same capacity of a head with a larger ball.
Larger heads also have stronger elements, allowing more force for clamping. This results in much greater capacity.
While some here are automatically recommending the larger, heavier, and much more expensive head as a matter of course, the question is whether you actually need a head designed for a large, heavy, unbalanced camera/lens combo.
You stated that your camera and lens weigh about 2.5 pounds, or so. These lenses are also short, therefore they don't hang over the head, and add to the fulcrum effect of leverage. In other words, the situation is such that there is a balanced situation, adding little strain to the head.
I agree that the capacity of a head is about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the stated load, so a head rated at 8.5 pounds should be fine for your application.
In all of this, I'm not speaking to the quality of the head. As I'm not familliar with any of the models mentioned, I can't address that.
But, there are a number of well known manufacturers making excellent heads.
The Q3 is much more heavy than the Bh-25. The Bh-25 is a good choice when weight is the absolute most important factor. Otherwise, I would get a Q3. In particular, I found the unique lock for both panning and head rotation to be a major pain on the Bh-25. I do think that RRS should revise the Bh-25 or even add a Bh-30 now...
