taat2d wrote:
Will this head work with the Benro Travel Angel legs? Will using this head allow the legs of the Benro to fold up and hug the ballhead or will the legs stick out? Any info on this would be greatly appreciated.
it looks to me like it would be ideal for a tripod like the travel angel, and in fact that tripod or one of the other "fold back" models is what i'm considering pairing with it.
but, i obviously can't give you a definitive answer.
can you refer me to more info on the travel angel?
Would I be right in assuming that the correct comparison to the BH-55 is the p1, and can you offer any insight into a comparison between the two? Which would you suggest for my needs?
I can't compare the two directly as I don't have an RRS BH-55, but if you want to compare the two feature wise you'll need to add an RRS PCL-1 on top of the BH-55 and a panning base to the Arca-Swiss p1.
Just got the p0 with the slidefix clamp, one issue if you thinking of getting this is that unlike the screw mount version this one has a stainless steel stud on the "panoramic plate" that prevents proper mounting of other brand clamps. So it is better to get the screw mount version. Also if you plan to use clamps without the threaded mount such as some of the quick release clamps from RRS, you will have to saw off the M6 screw as the p0 has a shallower mounting hole. Easier if you get Kirk's threaded clamps.
The clamp is also heavier than published, about 290g without the slidefix clamp(50g). With most arca swiss compatible clamps it will be close to 400g.
I can't compare the two directly as I don't have an RRS BH-55, but if you want to compare the two feature wise you'll need to add an RRS PCL-1 on top of the BH-55 and a panning base to the Arca-Swiss p1.
I have one of each -- an Arca P0 and a BH-55 (I sold me BH-40).
The BH-55's larger diameter ball makes it easier to maneuver a heavier camera, but other than that, it's a toss-up.
The BH-55 has an adjustable tension setting, while the Arca has an asymmetric ball that creates resistance when tilted off from vertical. I don't use the tension control on the BH-55 much, so I don't know whether or not you'd miss it if you switched.
I've never found much benefit from the panning base on the RRS ballheads, mostly just for turning the head without rotating the tripod. Since the base is a lot more difficult to level than the plat atop the ball, I find the panning base to be completely useless for panning.
Ergonomically it's pretty even; the Arca has only two controls, really; a small lever for panning, and a ring for unlocking the ball. The SlideFix clamp is nice also, since the "default" position is actually the middle position; you have to actually open it to slot the rail into it, and when you release the lever, it springs back to the middle position. Pressing it closed locks the rail into place, and it has a nice, positive "click" so you know it's engaged.
One reason that the P0 is smaller than the BH-40 is that the controls are smaller. The lever for the clamp is diminutive, the lever to release the panning clamp is diminutive, and the lock is a ring.
I've only tried it with one camera so far -- my Arca monorail, and it's been great for that. I THINK that it will work ok flopped over sideways for a portrait orientation, but I can't say for sure -- that wouldn't work so well with a 4x5, and it's easier to just flip the back. At some point I'll get a SlideFix rail for my SLR and try it, but I have a feeling that someone here will beat me to it. If not, then naturally I'll post rather than keeping it to myself
another situation. the use of a wimberley sidekick. can't get there form here on a P0 unless Wimberley decides to produce an adapter like the AK100 for the new AS system
sjms wrote:
another situation. the use of a wimberley sidekick. can't get there form here on a P0 unless Wimberley decides to produce an adapter like the AK100 for the new AS system
Even with a full size QR adapter I wouldn't use a Wimberley Sidekick on a p0 . it's simply not designed for that. On an Arca-Swiss p1, B1, B2, or Z1 yes, or on a RRS BH-55 yes.
yep, sure would. in fact pretty much impossible to use with this particular piece of gear.
it ends up showing that though AS has yet again produced a fine exercise in mechanical design. it has limitations for integration into existing product usage. a unique product in more ways then one.
C'mon, in your apparent zeal to bash Arca-Swiss you are forgetting that an equally valid point can be made about the RRS design (specifically the non adjustable width) of their lever clamp.
i have no zeal to bash AS and in fact i'm not. its a reality not an opinion. the validity of your point on the leverlock fails in that they always suggest using one of the two brands of plates due to the manufacturing differences in the marketplace. even markins with their adjustable clamp says simply stick with one plate maker for the same reason. the only real engineering difference in all of the current plates is the width dimension standard. by any stretch of the imagination much easier to resolve then going to another design. the non adjustable width has its advantage vs the adjustable width from the aspect that all things must be equal. that is if properly manufactured they do not require adjustment. it simply fits. so your not adjusting on a per plate basis. wasting time and effort. and yet again the other option is the good old screw type in which all AS type manufacturers plates will fit unless they have gone completey bonkers in manufacturing. currently on the original AS plate design you have choices with the slidefix its another route entirely.
even if others adapted the slidefix system into their plates as AS has to work with both systems it requires more material to remain in the plate to support the mount system. this increases the overall weight and or bulk that all have worked so diligently to reduce.
my next statement is one of reality:
AS has never put any real effort into the design and manufacture of plates for their own systems. will they with the new system? this is why RRS and Kirk flourish in this particular segment.
I am glad to see this thread about this new pO and see the positive comments.
Just one concern: a new plate is needed. So how it would work with my sidekick, that I use all the time with 300/2.8 lens+tc? Any one of you have this setup?
the bulk of the mechanicals are above the ball including the pan base. in order for the sidekick to attach to the existing slidefix clamp with a "adapter plate*" the only existing pan base will need to be flipped 90 deg and locked to hold the setup. the base of the P0 that attaches to the tripod is a non rotating component so an additional 3rd party panning base would be required to allow rotation at the bottom.
*currently none available.
look as long as you don't need to use a sidekick it's not an issue. someone will design something else for it for us to buy. its a fairly simple design to do also. in fact it can be made to center over the z axis nicely too.
sjms wrote:
it is not going to w/o a seperate below the ball panning base.
the bulk of the mechanicals are above the ball including the pan base. in order for the sidekick to attach to the existing slidefix clamp with a "adapter plate*" the only existing pan base will need to be flipped 90 deg and locked to hold the setup. the base of the P0 that attaches to the tripod is a non rotating component so an additional 3rd party panning base would be required to allow rotation at the bottom.
*currently none available.
look as long as you don't need to use a sidekick it's not an issue. someone will design something else for it for us to buy. its a fairly simple design to do also. in fact it can be made to center over the z axis nicely too....Show more →
So in short, pO is not a substitute for the old Arca-swiss and alike.
So bad.
Well nothing is perfect, as the fox told Petit Prince.
E-Vener wrote:
I know I've seen a catalog listing for a different clamp for the p0 or you can buy it without a clamp and add your own.
I think some of Arca's other ballheads have a panning base on the bottom of the ballhead, which might make using them with a Sidekick easier. Similarly, the BH-40 or 55 might be better choices for that application -- I don't know whether or not the BH-40's diminutive size would be an impediment or not though.
That said, a Sidekick wouldn't work very well with my setup, so I haven't tried one, and am only guessing
I've always wondered why wimberly or any one else never made a sidekick that didn't attach with the plate in a vertical position, but in the horizontal position. This would allow you to centre the lens/ camera weight perfectly over the balance point of the ball. So better balanced, and an ability to take a greater load or longer lens.
quite true. but in review most really good ballheads when dropped into the slot are dead on parallel with the Z or vertical axis. being that they are also well supported by the ballhead housing itself the only reason to need to tighten the lock knob is for locking clamp for rotation in the slot. of course that again is nice and easy to adjust for vertical arc movement limits.
by putting it on in a way to sit on top with the clamp in its 0 deg Z axis location is harder to maintain while rotating and moving. initial adjustment for pan would be more challenging too.
nugeny wrote:
So in short, pO is not a substitute for the old Arca-swiss and alike.
So bad.
Well nothing is perfect, as the fox told Petit Prince.
and the wise man asks the man clutching a fist full of cash: do we purchase the new cool looking one or do we go with something that works well on its own in addition to plays and works well with others?
Tamerlin wrote:
I think some of Arca's other ballheads have a panning base on the bottom of the ballhead, which might make using them with a Sidekick easier. Similarly, the BH-40 or 55 might be better choices for that application -- I don't know whether or not the BH-40's diminutive size would be an impediment or not though.
That said, a Sidekick wouldn't work very well with my setup, so I haven't tried one, and am only guessing
i have to say that would not be a pair made for each other. but it would work with lighter lenses like a 70-200/2.8
