Anyone Recommend a Good Tripod Head?

[compuwar]

The ball head is not your best choice for wildlife. Setting the friction high enough to prevent accidental movement will restrict quick movement that may be needed and too loose...what's the point. A gimbal head works around this problem.

I disagree, while I now shoot 100% off a Wimberly, I shot a ball head for years, and a good heavy-duty ball head is fine for wildlife, it loses to a gimball for birds in flight, and heavy lenses, but it's just fine- it doesn't take much to lock a good ball down quickly and grab the shot.

The key is finding one that's (a) heavy duty and (b) not going to wear its locks out in 3 years.

Paul

 

[MiniD3]

This is what I use,

View attachment 458882

 

[egis]

I am an avid shooter - nature, landscapes, macro, BOF, natural architecture. I too agree with commenters - use Arca-Swiss standard equipment. As for ballheads, I use Acratech equipment and am very happy. The ballhead is mounted to a Manfrotto carbon fibre tripod. I have no relationship with them - but simply am a satisfied customer since 2010. I have not encountered problems using a gimbal ballhead for wildlife.

If you plan on any kind of travel long distance or short- be sure to think about the size and weight of the ballheads and their sundry accessories that make up the complete set up for the intended application - Wedding, Portrait and Landscape. Acratech is lighter in weight than others, more easily maintained, very versatile for a variety of shooting situations with the same equipment (portrait, pano, and macro), less expensive, but equal quality to the 'Really-based' equipment. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKoNUPilNy4&feature=youtu.be)

Given that good ballheads and the accessories are expensive, they need to be treated as a long term investment in your photography. Thus, the high cost can presumably be written off over a long term. From this point of view and so you make the right decision for you, suggest checking out discussions in other threads here as well as in Canon Rumors Forum, Canon Digital Photography Forum, Fred Miranda, DPReview and Luminous Landscape.

Also check out youtube - there you will find quite a few video face-offs between RRS and Acratech. One that I found particularly useful was for macro settings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1k-8O7d6aQ. Both RRS and Acratech have loads of good videos on youtube, I spent a good deal of time watching them before I made my purchase. Both manufacturers provide their instruction videos on youtube.

Since you are in the UK, there is an Acratech dealer in the UK. Hope this gives you some good advice and criteria to consider.

 

[Mr.Noisy]

@ TheDrift-, I was in your shoes a while back, I needed a stable tripod head, I wanted a general purpose head for all occasions to replace a manfrotto 498 rc2, I wanted a more stable platform, with an Arca style plate system, I liked the RRS heads but after shipping it was looking expensive, so after some research and a link provided by a fellow forum user over at POTN I eventually chose the feisol CB50dc Carbon head, it's solid, light and looks good and comes complete with plate, it cost about £130 then, they have a few different ballheads, worth a look.

feisoluk

good luck

 

[compuwar]

I have not encountered problems using a gimbal ballhead for wildlife.

Just to clarify, a ball head isn't a gimbal head. While you can get lightweight gimbal heads that sit on top of ball heads, and smaller gimbals (such as the Wimberly Sidekick,) they're two different things- gimbal heads have a point of balance and are great for tracking birds in flight, race cars and motorcycles. Ball heads are okay for those things, but not as easy to manipulate for large super-telephotos where even a 400/2.8, 600/4 or 800/5.6 can be easily moved by a single finger. Also, once you've locked one axis, you can smoothly pan. This is becoming less important as image stabilized lenses start to take over.

Wimberly is the king of full-sized gimbal heads, and any full-sized head capable of handling almost any super-tele (except that Sigma 500/2.8 monster, AFAICT) will run between $520 and $630 other than one manufacturer who makes or made a full-sized carbon fiber gimbal (don't recall who, I've only seen one and that was in a store, I think it was around $1000.) The sole exception is generally the Manfrotto 393 for about $175 which will support 44lbs of gear.

If you never intend to go with a big gun mated to a full-on pro camera with an L bracket, then for small lenses like a 200-400 or 70-200 and the like, the "sits on a ball head" and side mount gimbals are a cheaper choice.

My normal rig is ~15.5-16 lbs of gear when shooting with the super-tele and a flash, and I wouldn't trust it to a side mount, let alone a stacked head.

Unlike every $80-200 ball head I've ever owned, my Wimberly II is still going strong after ~5 years, and if I hadn't gotten it, I'd have gone with a RRS, Markins or Kirk. I've spent way more than the most expensive of those over the years on Bogen/Manfrotto, Gitzo and other ball heads that never lasted. If I was shooting smaller lenses constantly, then Acratech would also make my list.

Paul

 

[egis]

Just to clarify, a ball head isn't a gimbal head. While you can get lightweight gimbal heads that sit on top of ball heads, and smaller gimbals (such as the Wimberly Sidekick,) they're two different things- gimbal heads have a point of balance and are great for tracking birds in flight, race cars and motorcycles. Ball heads are okay for those things, but not as easy to manipulate for large super-telephotos where even a 400/2.8, 600/4 or 800/5.6 can be easily moved by a single finger. Also, once you've locked one axis, you can smoothly pan. This is becoming less important as image stabilized lenses start to take over.

Wimberly is the king of full-sized gimbal heads, and any full-sized head capable of handling almost any super-tele (except that Sigma 500/2.8 monster, AFAICT) will run between $520 and $630 other than one manufacturer who makes or made a full-sized carbon fiber gimbal (don't recall who, I've only seen one and that was in a store, I think it was around $1000.) The sole exception is generally the Manfrotto 393 for about $175 which will support 44lbs of gear.

If you never intend to go with a big gun mated to a full-on pro camera with an L bracket, then for small lenses like a 200-400 or 70-200 and the like, the "sits on a ball head" and side mount gimbals are a cheaper choice.

My normal rig is ~15.5-16 lbs of gear when shooting with the super-tele and a flash, and I wouldn't trust it to a side mount, let alone a stacked head.

Unlike every $80-200 ball head I've ever owned, my Wimberly II is still going strong after ~5 years, and if I hadn't gotten it, I'd have gone with a RRS, Markins or Kirk. I've spent way more than the most expensive of those over the years on Bogen/Manfrotto, Gitzo and other ball heads that never lasted. If I was shooting smaller lenses constantly, then Acratech would also make my list.

Paul

Paul - I agree...I mistakenly assumed they are the same. But I also wish to point out to the OP that there remains a good deal of discussion as to which type of head is best...for example see http://tonybynum.com/wildlife-photography-camera-heads-ball-head-or-gimbal/

At the end of the day it depends on the how the shooter is setting up and what are his/her targets of imagery. The article makes good sense on what type is most appropriate for particular set-ups and shooting environments.

 

[TheDrift-]

Thanks for all the help everyone..I managed to find a Uk stockist for the RRS,

Right now its a toss up between the RRS BH55 vs the Arca Swiss Z1, if by any chance anyone had used both I'd appreciate your view!

Thanks