Manfrotto Ball Head

[CatherineA]

I bought a Manfrotto Xpro ball head (BHQ2). I try to lock the camera body and lens in place but there is always sag. Tightening the friction knob doesn't help with this. There is this sagging even when the weight I add is as little as 3 pounds. I find this frustrating but I wonder whether this happens with all ball heads and whether pano heads are any better on this score.

[DanK]

Yes, that is typical of ball heads. I compensate by aiming a bit higher than I want it to settle.

When even small amounts of sag would be a problem, as in studio macro, I use a geared head, but that is a big, heavy beast that you would not want to lug around.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

Any ball head will have a bit of sag, but the better ones will have very little sag and will stay that way over time, but the amount really depends a lot on how well your camera is balanced on the head. If the camera is perfectly balanced, then you won't need a lot of clamping force to keep the camera steady. If you are using a long lens, the situation can be a bit tricky.

Pano heads have a different use and generally have a lot of lever arms, so mechanically they are a bit weak, unless you go in for some of the higher end stuff that has a reasonable load rating.

My RRS BH-55 is quite steady and is conservatively rated at 50 lbs load capacity. If I load it incorrectly, it will sag. If I load it properly and compensate for the sag I anticipate it will be very steady (I've had pixel level alignment with exposures taken over several hours).

[Manfred M]

Yes, that is typical of ball heads. I compensate by aiming a bit higher than I want it to settle.

When even small amounts of sag would be a problem, as in studio macro, I use a geared head, but that is a big, heavy beast that you would not want to lug around.

A friend who uses a geared head tells me that he has problems with gear lash, so it takes a bit of to and fro to get the positioning 100% where you want it. Do you find this as well?

[DanK]

A friend who uses a geared head tells me that he has problems with gear lash, so it takes a bit of to and fro to get the positioning 100% where you want it. Do you find this as well?

No, the lash is very small. At magnifications of around 1:1 (which gives you an approximate scale for the significance of motion), I don't find it a problem. I'll have to watch to see how often I have to back off an adjustment, but if I do, it is minor enough that I don't recall doing it.

The cost of this is that the beast is very large, very heavy, quite expensive, and awkwardly shaped. The one I use is the Manfrotto "junior", and if this is junior, I would hate to see the senior. It weighs 1.22 kg (2.7 pounds). Moreover, it comes with a Manfrotto quick release, so if you use anything acra-swiss compatible, you have to either swap plates every time you use it or buy a replacement clamp. I bought the Hejnar replacement clamp, which is high quality but large and not cheap. The whole setup, at current prices, is about $350 US. I use it solely for table-top work; I find it too awkward and heavy to lug around.

What this doesn't offer is front-to-back adjustments. To make those easier, I added a rail. I bought a good one because I hadn't yet read enough to realize that at the magnifications I use, a rail is inferior to using the lens barrel for changing focus to create a stack. Given that I use it only to frame the subject, I probably could have used something cheaper and lighter. In any case, here is the entire rig:



Re ball heads: good point about balance. I was thinking of the sag as lash, but it isn't.

[CatherineA]

Yes, that is typical of ball heads. I compensate by aiming a bit higher than I want it to settle.

When even small amounts of sag would be a problem, as in studio macro, I use a geared head, but that is a big, heavy beast that you would not want to lug around.

I do try to aim higher but it is always a guessing game as to where the tripod head will settle and often I do not end up with the composition that I was after. I will probably get something else but I am doing a lot reading first. Thank you for your answer

[CatherineA]

My RRS BH-55 is quite steady and is conservatively rated at 50 lbs load capacity. If I load it incorrectly, it will sag. If I load it properly and compensate for the sag I anticipate it will be very steady (I've had pixel level alignment with exposures taken over several hours).

I will look into what loading properly means in this context. Thank you for your reply

[DanK]

I will look into what loading properly means in this context. Thank you for your reply

Just weight and how you position the weight. For example, if you have a long lens but attach the tripod head to the camera body rather than to a tripod ring on the lens, the weight will be off-center, and the camera will tend to sag downward. Re weight: tripod and head vendors usually give a maximum weight, but that is the weight it can safely handle, not the weight it can handle without sagging.

[CatherineA]

For example, if you have a long lens but attach the tripod head to the camera body rather than to a tripod ring on the lens, the weight will be off-center, and the camera will tend to sag downward. Re weight: tripod and head vendors usually give a maximum weight, but that is the weight it can safely handle, not the weight it can handle without sagging.

Thanks, that makes sense but it is disappointing to realize that a lot of the angles that I hoped to capture are unattainable - at least, not attainable in a reasonable length of time. Last night I was using a long lens to point downward to capture a close-up of a flower. It was the angle that I was after. That, as it turns out, was a real nuisance. I can see that there is a torque involved, but I still thought that it would be do-able.

In the spring I was using a long lens to photograph an alligator that was across the street. I tried to have my tripod low enough that the camera was not too far off the horizontal, but even with that I couldn't get the composition I was after because of the droop.

[pschlute]

As others have pointed out having a head that can handle the weight at all angles is an important consideration.

I use a Gitzo GH3382. Rock solid. I think it could support my Land Rover ! Gitzo and Manfrotto are the same group now.

[Manfred M]

Catherine - the best indicator of clamping power of a ball head is its diameter. The larger, the better. My RRS BH-55 has a 55mm diameter ball. My Libec video head has a 75mm diameter bowl. A lot of the lighter duty tripods come with balls that are closer to 25mm (if that) and their clamping strength is relatively minimal, when compared to the heavy duty ones.

When it comes to ball heads, the ones that have the best reputation tend to be RRS (Really Right Stuff), Markins, Novoflex and to a lesser extent Kirk. I understand that both Cullman and Arca-Swiss also make excellent heads, but they tend to be quite expensive.

[CatherineA]

I use a Gitzo GH3382. Rock solid. I think it could support my Land Rover ! Gitzo and Manfrotto are the same group now.

thanks! One for me to consider!

[CatherineA]

Catherine - the best indicator of clamping power of a ball head is its diameter. The larger, the better. My RRS BH-55 has a 55mm diameter ball. My Libec video head has a 75mm diameter bowl. A lot of the lighter duty tripods come with balls that are closer to 25mm (if that) and their clamping strength is relatively minimal, when compared to the heavy duty ones.

When it comes to ball heads, the ones that have the best reputation tend to be RRS (Really Right Stuff), Markins, Novoflex and to a lesser extent Kirk. I understand that both Cullman and Arca-Swiss also make excellent heads, but they tend to be quite expensive.

thank you! that helps a lot!

[DanK]

I'm not an expert on tripod heads, but this thread puzzled me, so I just did a little test, and I don't think I agree with some of the things here.

I incorrectly assumed that the problem is lash (the wiggle room between the boundaries of a physical system, like the two sides of the groove on a screw), but that's obviously not right. By the same token, it isn't slippage of the ball. Both ball heads I have, including a cheap one, lock solidly when the adjustment screw is firmly tightened, but the camera sags. So this raises the question: where does this sag occur?

So, I mounted a telephoto lens on my 5 DIII and put it on my Markins Q3i ballhead, which was attached to a lightweight Oben carbon fiber tripod. I deliberately mounted it out of balance, attaching the camera body rather than a tripod ring in order to increase the tendency of the lens to pull the camera down. I focused on a line, cinched the ball head, and looked for sag. It sagged, although not a huge amount.

Then I stood back, put the weight of the camera in my hand, and let go. I could see the system distorting--the entire ball head casing tilted slightly--as the weight shifted from my hand, which had the camera pointed where I wanted, to the tripod and head. I think that is the major source of sag, at least with my equipment.

Note that once the sag has happened, the system is stable. If one has a panning ball headhead, one can leave the ball locked and rotate using the panning mechanism. If one does that, the sag is constant.

This also suggests a second reason why balance matters. The first is that the better the balance, the less rotational force. The second is that the better the balance, the less your hand will be working against gravity to hold the camera pointed up, so the less the shift should matter.

If I am right, a large ball per se would have no effect on this, but a larger, heavier ball head assembly and a larger, heavier, more rigid tripod might.

So, why doesn't this happen with a geared head? How is a geared head different? one way that it is different is that the weight of the camera is not shifted--it's on the head the entire time. Whatever flex there is in the system is essentially constant.

A large ball does have other advantages. One is smoothness of motion, all other things being equal. Unfortunately, not everything is equal. I have two ball heads of approximately the same size, the Markins I mentioned and a much cheaper Induro, and the motion of the Markins is far smoother.

[Stagecoach]

Another theory is that between the ball and socket there's grease and on initial tightening this is compressed but will continue to thin and flow until friction balances the forces.

[DanK]

Another theory is that between the ball and socket there's grease and on initial tightening this is compressed but will continue to thin and flow until friction balances the forces.

maybe, but it looks to me as though the whole housing is moving. However, the motion is so slight that I could easily be wrong.

[Stagecoach]

maybe, but it looks to me as though the whole housing is moving. However, the motion is so slight that I could easily be wrong.

Sorry Dan, I had meant this as a general comment regarding the sag/movement from some ball-heads not specific to your testing described.

[Manfred M]

Dan - some of this is basic mechanics, but let's start at the beginning. If the camera /lens combination is perfectly balanced on the tripod, then nothing else is needed as the whole assembly would just sit there in equilibrium. Unfortunately, this is virtually never the case, so the camera with a lens sticking out front applies a downward force some distance along the moment arm. This force (measured in N-m or ft - lbs) has to be resisted, hence the ball head (or other type of head) on the tripod. It applies a resistance equal to the force that is trying to rotate the camera / lens assembly.

Our camera / lens assemblies are not perfectly balanced so we do need to apply some level of force to overcome the torque put on the tripod head from our unbalanced setup.

This is where are larger diameter ball head has an advantage over a smaller one because both the force applied and the distance from the centre line of the ball come into play. Because a 2" / 50mm ball head has twice the radius of a 1" / 25mm ball head, we only need half the force to overcome the same amount of torque on the larger ball head than the smaller one. The larger ball head has a far greater surface area for the clamping, so the force per unit area will be smaller, resulting less deformation and wear and tear on the ball head mechanism. Bigger is better, but heavier and more expensive to manufacture.

Geared heads are a bit of a different beast and gear lash is related to "play" in the system. This is primarily due to the tolerances between the two gears that engage. Tighter tolerances (which is generally related to precision in the design and manufacture of the gear train) and its components (small diameter axles can exacerbate this issue).

When it comes to the smoothness of a ball head, this is related to design and manufacturing (materials and tolerances). Ball heads have three main parts; the ball, the cup it sits in and the liner (or bushing) that separates the ball from the cup. The liner is responsible for the smooth operation and when pressure is applied to it, it elastically deforms during the clamping process. This elastic deformation (i.e. it returns to its former state when clamping pressure is removed) is where a large part of the sag comes from. The friction from the clamping action is what holds the camera and lens assembly steady. Other issues in the construction of the tripod and head can also contribute to the the droop. The screw that attaches the head to the tripod can be fairly small in diameter and any force on it can cause a minor amount of deformation. This can show up as sag as well.

The focusing collar on long lenses primarily serves one main purpose; it provides better balance to the camera / lens unit so less force is required to hold the lens steady.

[rpcrowe]

As Manfred mentions, size. weight and price are often pretty fair indicators of the stability of a ball head. A larger, heavier and more expensive ball head made by a reputable company will often be what a photographer needs for locking the camera/lens into a shooting position with the minimum of sag...

I found a ball head that I like quite a lot. This is a German-Made Kaiser 6011 which has a 40-mm (as close as I can measure it) ball and with a 17-pound manufacturers weigh capacity. It is no longer available but can be found used on some internet sites. The problem with purchasing a used ball head sight-unseen is that it could easily be worn out.

One way to ensure that the camera, lens has more stability is to use an Arca Compatible L bracket to mount the camera with an Arca Compatible clamp. I replaced the standard 1/4" x 20 tripod screw of my Kaiser 6011 with an Arca Compatible clamp. When using an L bracket with the A/C clamp, you don't need to cantilever the camera hanging over on it side when shooting a vertical composition. The weight of the camera/lens is always sitting atop the ball head. Of course if you are using a lens with a tripod ring, this is a moot point.

I always take the manufacturer's weight capacity recommendations with a large grain of salt and prefer a head that is listed for at least 2x and preferably 3x the weight of the heaviest camera/lens combination I plan to shoot with.

Along those lines, many-many years ago Navy photo labs generally had Tiltall Tripods which were old school, pretty heavy but, quite solid. I think that they were made my Leitz but, I am not sure. However, I do understand that the quality of these tripods deteriorated as the years progressed...

[Rufus]

I always take the manufacturer's weight capacity recommendations with a large grain of salt and prefer a head that is listed for at least 2x and preferably 3x the weight of the heaviest camera/lens combination I plan to shoot with.

Although it won't adress the problem of "sag" mentioned previously, many people suggest hanging something below the tripod to increase its stability. Should one take that additional weight into consideration when a manufacturer's weight capacity recommendation is a criterion for purchase?