[stormtech]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I'm getting ready to order a new ball head, and want to be sure I do it right the first time.

Will be used on a Manfrotto 190xprob:

Manfrotto 190XPROB Pro Aluminum Tripod Legs (Black) - 190XPROB

The main use will be with a Tamron SP300 2.8 that weighs ~6lbs with a K20D + 2lbs = 8lbs.

I am kind of stuck on this Manfrotto head right now - the 498rc4:

Manfrotto 498RC4 Midi Ball Head with 410PL QR Plate 498RC4 B&H

I like the idea of the RC4 plate as I have a geared head with the same plate. Also, I don't mind taking advantage of the $10 rebate right now. It specs that it will hold 17lbs which should be fine - but are these weight ratings OK to go by?

This seems to be the only ball head that will share the RC4 plate for a reasonable price. I just want to be sure it will hold the camera/lens properly.

[panoguy]

Hey Stan,
From my experience (486 and 498 heads), the smaller Manfrotto ballheads are kinda junky and difficult to use. I know it has the QR platform that you already have on another head (and probably plates for), which is convenient, but the more weight you put on these Manfrotto heads, the harder they are to control and the greater the chance for "flopping" around when you try to reposition them. And, really, your 300/2.8 is actually kinda heavy!

Here is a very good alternative (similarly priced Photoclam), except that it is about 1/3 the physical weight and holds twice as much... but requires different (arca-type) plates.

ADDENDUM: you may ask yourself "how does a much smaller and lighter ballhead (comparing the Photoclam to Manfrotto) have a much higher load weight rating?" It has to do with how they are constructed (cast Manfrotto vs. machined aluminum Photoclam) and how the clamping mechanism is engineered. You also should avoid putting more than *half* the rated load on your head if you want the movement to be smooth under tension!

[stormtech]

Thanks panoguy - this is why I ask before I buy something.

Yeah, the camera lens setup is pretty heavy. I am currently using a Manfrotto 322RC2 but I have days now where I can not squeeze the lever.

Manfrotto 322RC2 Grip Action Ballhead - Supports 11 lbs 322RC2

Also, if I point the lens downward a little, it slips on the ball.

My main reason for trying to get another head that takes the RC4 plate is I like using my gear head for when I do flower shots - I actually have a second stem for my tripod which I have the gear head mounted to for a quick change.

Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head - Supports 11 lbs (5kg) 410 B&H

I just love using that gear head when doing close-up work with flowers etc. I am afraid I might be frustrated with a ball head doing that kind of work.

I like the looks of the Photo Clam head, and another forum member had previously told me that he really likes his. I'm not against changing over to a different system right now. I've never used a regular ball head (only have the 2 heads linked above). If I could be assured that I can get the fine adjustment I get with the gear head with the Photo Clam ball head I would be willing to go with just that one ball head.

Also, I will have to research the arca-type plates as the Photo Clam site doesn't list any plates for some reason.

[Wheatfield]

Check out the Feisol ball heads. They are very well made, and from what I've seen of them (I own 2), they work very well.

[panoguy]

I just love using that gear head when doing close-up work with flowers etc. I am afraid I might be frustrated with a ball head doing that kind of work.

Well, this is why there is no right answer from someone else! I don't think any ball head will be as micro-adjustable as a geared head. Yes, you can ease the tension onto the ball and just "nudge it" by very small degrees, but it isn't the same constrained-to-axis movements of gears.

Also, I will have to research the arca-type plates as the Photo Clam site doesn't list any plates for some reason.

Arca-type plates can be found pretty easily (no need to buy Photoclam-made ones), but they are also sometimes as much as some ball heads (See RRS). I had a Kirk plate on my K20D grip, it was most excellent. That said, I've recently started getting my arca-type plates from a photographer in Illinois, who even makes replacement arca-releases for Manfrotto heads (go all arca without new heads?) at very reasonable prices.

Check out the Feisol ball heads. They are very well made, and from what I've seen of them (I own 2), they work very well.

I have 2 Feisol tripods, and agree that they make good stuff, and will have to trust wheatfield on the ball head judgements. I've never actually tried one (but I have tried Photoclam, Markins, RRS, Acratech, and Manfrotto heads).

[stormtech]

Well this all is just awesome!

I'm going to go with the Photo Clam - I think I am going to jump up a size or two to the 36 or 40.

And knowing now that I can convert my gear head to use the same plate is great! I agree in that now that I am used to the gear head for certain situations, I would be frustrated without it. This past summer I made do with switching the plates when I went to use the gear head - not that big of a deal I guess. I will have to see if it is worth $110 to not have to switch plates. It is sure nice to know that I can if I want to.

Thanks so much for all the info!

[GaryH]

If you are using a macro lens with the gear head, youy can leave the plate forr it on the camera body and the lens plate on the lens. I can suggest a plate for you......

[snostorm]

Another late-to-the-game post, but I think when considering a ballhead to use with a heavy lens, the Acratech GV2 should be at least a consideration. With 300/2.8 class lenses and longer, it's extremely convenient to use the ballhead in "faux gimbal" mode, by dropping the ball's shaft into the head's portrait groove so you only have to deal with vertical movement with ball rotation, and horizontal movement with the panning base, this eliminating camera tilt as a consideration when shooting. This mimics the action of a gimbal head, and if you also balance the camera/lens on the head with a long lens plate, handling the big lens is very easy. You can, of course do this with any quality ballhead, but the Acratech GV2 and GP series heads have a bearing sleeve around the ball's shaft, and a reinforcing pin at the bottom of the ball, so you have only two bearing surfaces, instead of the ball surface bearing against the top of the ball housing for vertical movement, and the ball's shaft rubbing against the portrait groove. One caveat to using a head like this is that it will unbalance your tripod setup, and if you're using a relatively narrow leg angle, with a heavy lens, the whole thing can tip easily if you leave it unattended (you need to get into the habit of centering the camera directly over a leg if you walk away, even momentarily). Also, with less expensive heads, you may find that the panning action is not very smooth as the offset weight will not be handled well by the panning base, or the panning friction cannot be set precisely since primitive screw locks can actually damage the bearing surface.

The GV2 or GPs are pricey, but worth it, IMO if you're going to shoot the big glass a lot. At the very least, I'd consider a long plate to balance the camera/lens on the ballhead, even if used as a normal ballhead. It will make shooting the big lens a lot easier since you won't be fighting the lens' weight as much.

Relatively inexpensive long Arca type plates can be found on Ebay from rainbowimaging. They are a good US seller, ship quickly, and the plates are of good quality.

Here's a link to one of the longer plates, a 150mm :

Lens Plate Quick Release Arca-Swiss Nikon 200-400MM VR | eBay

@ $25.99 it's close to half of what you'd pay from Acratech, Wimberley, or Kirk. They also offer both longer and shorter lengths

Scott

[pxpaulx]

Well this all is just awesome!

I'm going to go with the Photo Clam - I think I am going to jump up a size or two to the 36 or 40.

And knowing now that I can convert my gear head to use the same plate is great! I agree in that now that I am used to the gear head for certain situations, I would be frustrated without it. This past summer I made do with switching the plates when I went to use the gear head - not that big of a deal I guess. I will have to see if it is worth $110 to not have to switch plates. It is sure nice to know that I can if I want to.

Thanks so much for all the info!

I love my photoclam head, it is a great choice. Smart decision to go with a slightly larger head too. I got the 32ns a few years ago and it still works great - handles a larger body/grip and 50-135mm (very off balance lens) without problem. I got mine from reallybigcameras.com - the site owner Kerry recommended getting at least the 36 at the time and I should have listened! A larger head would distribute the weight across a larger ball surface and give more precise friction movement with heavier loads. The panning base also works very well and locks down tight. I've posted in a few threads before about the photoclam and plate setups in general, probably shouldn't be too hard to find...if you start using some generic plates it keeps the pricing reasonable (some of the bigger names like kirk and RRS can get expensive in that department!).

[stormtech]

Thank you snostorm for your in depth opinion.

While I know I said I want to do it right the first time, spending $325 for a head is a bit out of my reach right now. I understand now why it would work well with this heavy lens thanks to your explanation. And thanks for the tip about the long plate - makes sense.

I'm not totally discounting the Acratech head yet - I need to put this all through a process of justification of sorts with myself first - a kind of pros & cons vs price thing.

I'm very happy to have all the contributions here - this is why I ask!