[Ira]

Wood is good. Even less transmission of any vibrations.

I have this baby, and talk about solid. Heavy, yes, but a pleasure to work with, because it stays where you put it:

Tripod Report 8043 from Berlebach Tripods

[interested_observer]

Heads are a different thing all together, I presently use monfretto ball heads, but may look at a panning head at some time. The issue with panning heads is I have found that when they are loose, you have one allignment and when you lock the allignment changes both in the vertical and horizontal, so I went away from them. ALso, they are no better than ball heads for long lenses, and in fact the number of different parts makes them more prone to high frequency vibrations than a ball head.

I do not disagree with anything that you have indicated. I am not referring to a panoramic head (i.e., Nodal Ninja, etc.), but rather where the panning base is located - below the ball or above the ball, on a "standard" ball head. If the panning base is below the ball, when you pan, you may not be panning horizontally around the true vertical but rather around the vertical axis as determined by the amount or "goodness" of "levelness" as determined by the legs. With the panning base above the ball, when you can adjust the ball for a true level, you have a much better - more true vertical axis to pan around in creation of a level horizontal plane.

So there are really no additional parts, just the order in which they are physically positioned or stacked up. If you are not able to reorder the "stack", then yes - you can add an additional panning base below the clamp, or swap the clamp assembly for a panning clamp assembly. It is all based on the design and manufacturer of the ballhead. Probably greater than 95% of the designs have the banning base at the bottom, with the rest either offering the ability to reorder the stacking of the unit (or inverting it), or offering the a panning clamp or another option.

Here is a link with several ball heads - the first is a ball head with the panning base below the ball, while the last 2 have the panning base above the ball (note - just looking for images that illustrated the concept)....

• ARCA-SWISS | Cathay Photo

The main difference other than functionality, is that there is indeed a bit more mass higher on the ball head unit.

[Wheatfield]

Wood is good. Even less transmission of any vibrations.

I have this baby, and talk about solid. Heavy, yes, but a pleasure to work with, because it stays where you put it:

Tripod Report 8043 from Berlebach Tripods

I have one of these for my 4x5.
Big, heavy and stable. This is the only tripod I found that would tame my Super program at 1/8 second.

[Lowell Goudge]

I do not disagree with anything that you have indicated. I am not referring to a panoramic head (i.e., Nodal Ninja, etc.), but rather where the panning base is located - below the ball or above the ball, on a "standard" ball head. If the panning base is below the ball, when you pan, you may not be panning horizontally around the true vertical but rather around the vertical axis as determined by the amount or "goodness" of "levelness" as determined by the legs. With the panning base above the ball, when you can adjust the ball for a true level, you have a much better - more true vertical axis to pan around in creation of a level horizontal plane.

So there are really no additional parts, just the order in which they are physically positioned or stacked up. If you are not able to reorder the "stack", then yes - you can add an additional panning base below the clamp, or swap the clamp assembly for a panning clamp assembly. It is all based on the design and manufacturer of the ballhead. Probably greater than 95% of the designs have the banning base at the bottom, with the rest either offering the ability to reorder the stacking of the unit (or inverting it), or offering the a panning clamp or another option.

Here is a link with several ball heads - the first is a ball head with the panning base below the ball, while the last 2 have the panning base above the ball (note - just looking for images that illustrated the concept)....

• ARCA-SWISS | Cathay Photo

The main difference other than functionality, is that there is indeed a bit more mass higher on the ball head unit.

the only issue with this arrangement is that the camera is much higher from the ball, on the relitively little post coming out of the ball. This leads to high frequency vibration on long lenses because although you may think this assembly is stiff, it is not. The best long lens support is the one with the mass of the lens and camera as close to the centerline of the head and tripod. For short lenses, and doing panoramics it is fine, but not for long lenses.

[Lowell Goudge]

I have one of these for my 4x5.
Big, heavy and stable. This is the only tripod I found that would tame my Super program at 1/8 second.

but where are the wheels to move it arround?

[Ira]

I have one of these for my 4x5.
Big, heavy and stable. This is the only tripod I found that would tame my Super program at 1/8 second.

NICE HEAD!!!

Ironically, I'm using mine with a fluid pan video head, since I originally bought the tripod for my K3 16mm cine camera. So no portrait orientation.

But it's very possible that because of the positions of DLSR controls and LCD display, I'll just shoot landscape anyway and crop to portrait as needed.

Buying and assessing heads has always confused me. I don't understand how to analyze their quality aspects, and the good ones ain't cheap.

[Charles1]

I just purchased a Slik Pro 700DX. Three leg sections. Great height. I do not need to lean over to see through the viewfinder. Fairly heavy but very sturdy with lots of easy to use adjustments.
Charles1

[interested_observer]

the only issue with this arrangement is that the camera is much higher from the ball, on the relitively little post coming out of the ball. This leads to high frequency vibration on long lenses because although you may think this assembly is stiff, it is not. The best long lens support is the one with the mass of the lens and camera as close to the centerline of the head and tripod. For short lenses, and doing panoramics it is fine, but not for long lenses.

I whole heartily agree with you on all points. Lower is better! Its just that I have run in to several photographers locally over the last year or so, shooting in the evening like me, with tripods. In talking, they get around to saying that a lot of the time when they take shots using their panning base, they wind up going either "up hill" or "down hill", an then there is the "arc", and are unable to figure it out (editorial comment - they obviously did not take any geometry in their math education). So that is the reason why I pointed it out.

... and yes, I do use the shorter lenses, and any long lens is going to have a lever arm just inviting any opportunity to vibrate. I helped design and build a little telescope out in the hill country of west Texas. Vibration was my largest problem, since I did the star tracking system (i.e., the collection point with 20 degrees of freedom).

• Hobby-Eberly Telescope
• Hobby-Eberly Telescope - Gallery