A new ball head for my Manfrotto tripod

<p>I'm looking to replace my ball head and am asking for help/suggestions. My tripod is a Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 and the ball head I have now is the Manfrotto 496RC2 (I think - I'm at work; I'll double check later). My camera is the Nikon d7000 (currently) and I don't have any lenses longer than the kit 18-105 (yet). I may eventually, as in a year or so, be upgrading my camera to something like a used d750 and may eventually purchase a 70-200. My interests are landscape and portraiture (outdoor, right now).<br>

I'm looking at the BH-40PCLR and appropriate clamp from Really Right Stuff. I don't want to say my budget is unlimited, but I am willing to pay for the right thing. My questions are:</p>

<p>Should I consider any other manufacturers?<br>

Is there an advantage to getting the L-plate (vs turning the camera vertical on the ball)?<br>

What other factors should I consider when choosing a ball head, especially for my interests and current/future equipment?<br>

Thanks, Renee</p>

<p>The RRS BH-40 and BH-55 are very competent ball heads. They will hold considerable weight even at an angle, and exhibit almost no shift when the ball is tightened. The larger head is pretty big, perhaps suited to a larger tripod. I have one on a #3 sized Gitzo, and it seems about right. The Manfrotto 190 is much smaller, roughly the size of a #2 Gitzo, and I would probably prefer to use a BH-40. A BH-55 has a separate tension control knob, but not the BH-40. This is a minor point, and I don't make much use of it.</p>

<p>If you think you might go to a larger camera (medium format or built-in vertical grip) or long lenses, pay a little more and get the BH-55.</p>

<p>You can't do better for quick release systems than the Arca style wedge plate and clamp employed by RRS. It is solid and secure, and the plates are small enough to remain attached to the camera. Furthermore the plates are fitted to the camera so they cannot turn or twist under load.</p>

<p>One of the first things I buy for a new camera is an L-plate (RRS). It centers the weight of the camera directly over the head and tripod in both positions. If you change your mind about orientation, the lens is still centered on the subject. I suppose it helps protect the body, like a roll cage on a Jeep. I don't find that it interferes with the way I hold the camera with my left hand. It can interfere with attaching cables or accessories to the camera, but RRS is very good about designing around this issue.</p>

<p>If you use RRS plates exclusively, I suggest you get a lever actuated clamp. It is much quicker to use, and you are less likely to attach the camera crooked in an insecure manner. If you mix plates, it's better to get a screw operated clamp. RRS knobs can't come unscrewed and lost accidently.</p>

<p>The panorama clamp is expensive, but handy, not only for panoramas (which I do a lot), but to re-orient the clamp switching between a camera plate (lateral) and a long lens plate (fore-and-aft). It is also good to have a leveling joint between the tripod and head for panoramas. That allows you to pivot accurately with the horizon higher or lower than center.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Should I consider any other manufacturers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes; the RRS stuff might be very good, it's also quite expensive and not the only game in town. Kirk, Markins, Arca-Swiss or Acratech - all have great ballheads, and quite some of them cheaper. I've spent months (yes, seriously) reading up on ballheads before biting the bullet, and every review for these brands mentioned is positive. User reviews - hard pressed to find really negatives one. And most people have no comparison, so that limits the comparitive value. But it gave me the strong impression you cannot go wrong much.<br>

I've ended up with a Markins Q10 (with Kirk and Markins A/S quick release plates) - all in all it was the cheapest choice where I lived. It's rocksteady with a D700 with 300 f/4, which is a heavier combo than what you mention, under any angle. Other ballheads I considered were the Kirk BH-3 and Arca-Swiss Z1 - the RRS was out for me because (at least over here), it's just that bit more expensive and nothing I read convinced me that it was worth the extra money <em>to me</em>. Probably all of them would have worked fine for me. So, I would consider the other manufacterers as it can save a pretty penny possibly.</p>

<p>I have the BH-40 head for use with a Manfrotto 055CXpro3-so a little bigger than yours. I use it with a FF Canon and lenses to 70-200 , so again a bit bigger than yours, and maybe close to where you might end up.. I have no issues with my set-up , though I have to say that having a more rigid CF tripod is helpful in several respects but doesn't help a lot when the wind's blowing strongly or when you're set up on springy grass. Not every type of camera movement can be overcome by a good CF tripod and a great head. Sometimes you just need a lot of weight. Sometimes you just have to take the camera off the tripod and rely on IS- as I had to in Iceland over last winter, where nothing I can carry would stop the whole assembly from blowing over. </p>

<p>If I lost my RRS head I'd buy another . That said I'm sure there are other brands that would do the job pretty much as well-maybe just as well. One or two might be a little cheaper. I'm thinking Arca Swiss/Kirk/Acratech/Markins all of whom have their followers whose opinions are every bit as valid as mine. What I would say though is that if you're attracted to RRS , no-one can ever say you bought an inferior product, and I don't think anyone could point to another broadly affordable product that is hands down better. </p>

<p>Couple of other things</p>

<ul>

<li>I like lever clamps. Other people like screw clamps. Its a feel thing</li>

<li>I like and use L plates. they save a lot of time and hassle turning a camera on its side. And good for accurate positioning too. Wouldn't be without mine. Flapping around trying to make sure that you're level after a switch to vertical is a pain. </li>

<li>You can get a BH-40 much cheaper than the PCLR. If you need really accurate panning then fine; if not you can save some money. </li>

</ul>

<p>Reminds me of something I read on Photo.net when I first started coming here and which stuck in my head...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"You can judge how good a bunch of photographers are by what they are talking about.</p>

 

<p>Really bad photographers debate the merits of the Nikon F4 and the Canon EOS-1. Somewhat better photographers debate the merits of the Yashica T4 and the Contax T2. The best photographers, though, talk tripods, tripod heads, and quick releases."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(from <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/">

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/</a>)</p>

<p>I agree that the BH-40 and BH-55 are excellent ball heads, beautifully made, although I prefer the Arca-Swiss Z1 to those from RRS. Arca-Swiss heads have progressive resistance that increases as the camera is moved away from the vertical position. It can save you (and has saved me once) because it prevents a lens from swinging down violently and striking against the tripod if you happen to get distracted and let go of the camera before tightening the head. It is also lighter than the massive BH-55, despite being just as solid.</p>

<p>For landscape and portraiture, you could also consider a three-way head or even a geared head. They can make the adjustments for these two areas of photography easier. Both tend to be heavier and less compact than ball heads, except for the lovely but outrageously priced one from Arca-Swiss.</p>

<p>As to whether to get an L-bracket instead of just a plate, I think it's a good idea, but the plate from RRS for the D7000 becomes an L-plate with the addition of the second part of the L-bracket. There is no cost benefit to buying the two separately, so you could buy the standard plate now and decide on an L-bracket later.</p>

<p>Regarding the discussion of your tripod, it is solid if you are fortunate to be short enough that you can use it comfortably with the center column all the way down. I recommended it to a photo.net friend who is five-foot one, and she has done beautiful work with it. If you have to raise the center column, you may want to get a larger tripod when you start to use longer lenses.</p>

<p>Colin, I remember that old quote by Philip Greenspun from ages ago, when I was shopping for a tripod and head. Phil tended to make very strong statements, and I don't entirely agree with this one. Some of the best photographers I know don't talk about equipment at all.</p>

<p>Thanks all for your helpful comments! I have lots of reading/comparing/thinking to do, as I will investigate all suggestions. I don't know anything about geared heads. I'll have to look into that as I'm not exactly sure what that means. I was hoping to get one ordered Thursday to potentially have it for the weekend, but that is not looking like a possibility! That's ok though. And Hector, it's funny you mention that about my tripod. I have thought about replacing it also (sort of a one-and-done deal). I'm 5'3", and I do in fact raise the center column just a couple inches. I think that unless there is some advantage financially to getting the legs and head together at once though, I'm going to do just the ball head right now.</p>

<p>Oh, and my current ball head is the 49<strong>8, </strong>not 496. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Renee, the last thing I wanted was to write anything that would keep you from going out to shoot, just thought it was useful for you to have the complete picture. A couple of inches on the center column should have a minimal effect on the stability of your tripod. If you have not experienced camera motion blur while using your 190 and your old ball head, don't worry about it. With geared heads, you turn a crank or a knob to adjust the position of the camera. They give you wonderful control over camera position, but they're slower to maneuver than ball heads, so that they're not the best for wildlife or bird photography. Come to think of it, since some of your portraits are of children, the speed of use of a ball head could be very useful. (Lovely portraits on your PN portfolio, BTW.) If your Manfrotto head isn't working, and isn't keeping you from shooting this weekend, you wouldn't go wrong with a BH-40 or BH-55. I'm sure that if you get either, you will join those above (and many others) who recommend them enthusiastically.</p>

<p>Oh, no, don't worry, you aren't going to keep me from shooting, Hector :) A side benefit of this is that I'm learning more about what is out there, which is always a good thing! Though you all may have made it harder for me to decide on my new ball head, as I have chosen one from each manufacturer! I can say with confidence that I don't think a geared head is in my budget right now, even though I may have said I'd pay for the right one...And thank you for the kind words about my teeny gallery here at PN. I need to expand that...I've come a long way since those photos!</p>

<p>I’ve read through three times and maybe I’ve missed it, but, I’m keen to know specifically WHY you want to replace the Manfrotto 498? e.g. it’s worn out; I can’t perform [insert task] easily; it is too sloppy and too cumbersome to adjust when I want to do [insert task]. . . etc</p>

<p>In any event, for the purposes you outline, I too think that you should investigate a geared head.</p>

<p>You’re looking at a Nikkor 70 to 200? Do they all have a Tripod Mount ring available? If so, then the question of vertical orientation realignment is redundant for that particular lens. </p>

<p>It’s good that you outlined what you do and where you think that you are heading in The Craft, but I still think that you might be defaulting to ‘buying up to a new ball head’ without fully considering what is the best and most suitable piece of equipment to fulfil the tasks now and expected.</p>

<p>If your present Ballhead is actually in good working order, then whilst not an absolute justification, it is still a reasonably strong suggestion to consider alternative Heads (for example a Geared Head) to suit other purposes. I have a 496RC and a 486. Their payload capacity is a couple of kg less than your head. For general work, my two Ballheads manage a Canon 5D Series (usually with Battery Grip) and a 70 to 200/2.8 – but (I hasten to add) for specific, arduous, detailed, panoramic or exposures longer than about 1/320s, I’ll use my Geared Head for those purpose. Also the Tripod I usually use with my Geared Head is rated for an heavier payload than yours.</p>

<p>My main point is a caution to you about simply defaulting to buying a replacement Ballhead, maybe simply because you've only ever used a Ballhead.</p>

<p>I suggest that you consider ALL styles of Tripod Heads which are available and then compare and contrast each Head’s usefulness against a list of the TASKS and the EQUIPMENT that the new head will need to support.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>A very valid question, William. I would like to replace my 498, as I have started to notice trouble with the springs and levers not easily and confidently locking themselves (and thus my camera) into place when I mount or dismount the camera. The levers and springs seem "sticky," if that makes sense. Last week I was on a trip where I visited a few state parks full of waterfall photo opportunities, all surrounded by concrete/natural stone walkways. I had more than one close call of thinking the camera was either free or firmly in place, but was not - and a drop in those places would have been disastrous! Now I am spooked. </p>

 

<p>Thanks.<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>"sticky"</em> makes sense to me. (assumed meaning = 'sticky in places of their movements and not smooth and freely moving, like it used to be'<br>

<em>"now I am spooked"</em> also makes sense to me. <br>

Totally understandable that you want a replacement for it.</p>

<p>BTW - Was the location where you had these close calls unusually cold and/or very moist?<br>

And if yes, does the Ballhead's levers and springs work OK now, in more moderate climatic environs?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I would say you are on the right track. My husband and I like to travel via motorcycle, and there's a spot on his bike where my tripod rides quite conveniently. It has seen some rain while riding - I'll bet that's the culprit. I never once gave this a thought.</p>

<p>So now I know for future reference, to have a different travel plan for the tripod (I'll get a dry bag for it), especially once I get the new head.</p>

<p><strong>ONLY If you are going to dispose of the old Ballhead anyway</strong>:</p>

<p>Plan A:<br /> Cook a nice roast dinner. When it is cooked and out of the oven, after about 10 minutes, when there is no power to the heating of the oven and for the rest of the period of time the over is cooling down - drop the ball head onto the middle shelf to dry it out and to 'warm-up' the springs.<br /> I do that now, without thinking twice, but I am less cavalier with gear that is not mine.</p>

<p>Plan B:<br /> Maybe there is a bit of oxidization in on the surfaces of the moving parts - very carefully a FEW selective drops of WD-40 and lots of wiggling - but I'd do Plan A first.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>The main problem with Manfrotto heads is they don't have an Arca type clamp and can't be adapted. Once you use the Arca QR system, there's no going back. Nothing else works as well. They also tend to slip and stick as they age.</p>

<p>The best use of a ball head is to keep it under a little tension while you point the camera. It should move smoothly without sticking, and lock up without changing the point of aim. To do this, ball heads have to be made rather precisely, which runs up the cost. There are few, if any, ball heads costing under $350, worth your time and money.</p>

<p>I like Arca Swiss heads, and I have a model B1 which I've used for about 10 years. It looks like it's been run over but still works smoothly and locks up tight. Besides the egg-shaped ball, the Arca has a single knob which engages very gradually. It's easy to set just enough tension to point, then a little more to lock it up. Mine is sticking internally, and must be whacked on top to free it up. They're made in one of those 49 employee French factories near the Swiss border, and repairs are slow. (The French have rules comparable to Obamacare, which impose huge financial burdens on companies with 50 or more employees.) RRS heads are made in California, which is almost in the United States ;-)</p>

<p>The main problem with Manfrotto heads is they don't have an Arca type clamp and can't be adapted. Once you use the Arca QR system, there's no going back. Nothing else works as well. They also tend to slip and stick as they age.</p>

<p>The best use of a ball head is to keep it under a little tension while you point the camera. It should move smoothly without sticking, and lock up without changing the point of aim. To do this, ball heads have to be made rather precisely, which runs up the cost. There are few, if any, ball heads costing under $350, worth your time and money.</p>

<p>I like Arca Swiss heads, and I have a model B1 which I've used for about 10 years. It looks like it's been run over but still works smoothly and locks up tight. Besides the egg-shaped ball, the Arca has a single knob which engages very gradually. It's easy to set just enough tension to point, then a little more to lock it up. Mine is sticking internally, and must be whacked on top to free it up. They're made in one of those 49 employee French factories near the Swiss border, and repairs are slow. (The French have rules comparable to Obamacare, which impose huge financial burdens on companies with 50 or more employees.) RRS heads are made in California, which is almost in the United States ;-)</p>

<p>I'll try your suggestions, William. I did think about WD40 but I'd never think of the oven! Geared heads do seem intriguing - is it my imagination, though, that only 2 or 3 companies make them? Does anyone have experience with one?</p>

<p>Just an opinion</p>

<p>I used Manfrotto heads for years, with a 6x6 medium format system where you never had to turn the camera on its side. As soon as I switched to Dslrs and bought relatively longer lenses, I realised why some people voted to spend more. The likes of RRS (and others) offer a far different experience in terms of keeping your rig in place and avoiding creep, especially with the camera pointing up or down, or on its side. </p>

<p>Geared heads are precise but they are slower to use. My idea of hell is jumping out of the car in dramatic but transient light and missing the best shot because I'm too slow. I prefer to use a ball-head for landscapes for that reason. I can see that a geared head might be useful for outdoor portraits, especially fairly formal in nature and require a pretty level camera.<br>

So whilst I'm using a relatively expensive head, and understand why I'm doing it, I do have to agree that its not compulsory and that millions of people with relatively simple needs quite happily use Manfrotto ballheads and 3 way/geared heads in perpetuity. For me though, I shan't be going back.</p>

<p>The main advantage of a geared head is that adjustments can be made without handling the camera. If you grip the camera to point it, as with a ball head, it will spring back a little when you let go. This is annoying when using a long lens or shooting extreme (e.g., 1:2 or closer) closeups. For a long lens, the best solution is probably a cantilever head (e.g., Wimbley), but a geared head will work better for closeups, precise compositions or long exposures.</p>

<p>Every geared head I've tried has a way to disengage the drive pinion to make quick adjustments. This includes a couple of Manfrotto heads and the ultimate geared head, the Arca Cube. The Arca Cube is fabulously expensive ($1700), but is the go to head for precise work. There are some Asian knockoffs for half that price or less that have good reviews too. (If you shoot pro level video, $1700 doesn't seem like a lot for an head.) The Cube is popular for technical and view cameras.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/629979-REG/Arca_Swiss_8501000_1_C1_Cube_Geared_Head.html</p>

<p>Renee, there are a lot of ways you could go here and we all have our favorite products and suggestions. I'm sure it's confusing but I'd still like to add my 2 cent's worth. I still have my D7000 with grip (and a new D7200) and shoot frequently with my 70-200 f2.8 (since it's the longest lens I have). I've been through several tripod and head combinations and currently have two tripods, one light weight one for travel and one heavy one for birding (with a gimbal head). <br>

I chose an Acratech GV2 ballhead for the lightweight combo and it's plenty of head for the camera and 70-200. The GV2 is worth consideration for a couple of reasons. It uses Arca Swiss-style plates, it's very light for its weight capacity and it is <em>very</em> easy to maintain. Acratech is unique in its open ball design and should it ever get grimy or dusty or dirty, it can be rinsed and cleaned very easily. On top of a 3.5# tripod it remains pretty unobtrusive and keeps the overall weight of your rig down. It also doubles as a poor man's gimbal head due to a crafty design feature that allows for vertical panning. Acratech uses smaller balls than some other competitors but the lockup is still solid. You are looking at premium heads and Acratech is worth a look. It's a good match with my Induro CT214 and your Manfrotto is similar in size and weight. Good luck with your search.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>I would add that it is actually pretty easy to buy an Arca adapter and attach it to a Manfrotto QR plate, so if the only reason for disliking Manfrotto heads is that, then it's pretty easily solved. There are some decently made adapters that are quite cheap. When I switched from a perennially sticky and jerky older Manfrotto ball head to a Kirk, I bought one of those adapters so I could still use the 3-way head on another tripod, and it works fine.</p>

<p>Even the Kirk BH1 is a little dodgy with a 500 mm. lens on it, so I have the second tripod with a Manfrotto 3039 head. That's like the old 3047 but with adjustable drag. Note that the adaptor needs a little spacer above the hex plate, so that the screw clears the head in any of its six orientations. </p><div></div>

<p>I have disassembled several ball heads and found that most of them use a grease for that "silky movement". I wonder what the oven treatment will do to the internal grease. At worst, it will carry metal flakes (by-product of inexpensive locking mechanism design/implementation) into places where they should not be and seize the panning mechanism. I use an Acratech ballhead because it is light weight and the locking mechanism is direct, observable, and cleanable.</p>

<p>Sorry for coming a bit late to this thread. Apologies while I hop between topics...</p>

 

<blockquote>I would add that it is actually pretty easy to buy an Arca adapter and attach it to a Manfrotto QR plate, so if the only reason for disliking Manfrotto heads is that, then it's pretty easily solved.</blockquote>

 

<p>This is true, but then you have a movable clamp component attached to another movable clamp component. Not that it'll obviously wobble, but I'd sooner try to replace the Manfrotto clamp (which is easier in some cases than others). But I absolutely agree that, if at all possible, Arca-Swiss compatible is the way to go, so you're not locked into a system.<br />

<br />

Ball heads pretty much all have a problem if you're trying to position the camera exactly: they're not taking the weight of the camera and lens while you're positioning them. This is generally absolutely fine if you have the centre of gravity of the system over the top of the ball head (because then they <i>are</i> taking the weight), and certainly fine if you don't care about being off by a degree, but if you want absolutely precise framing, there tends to be a sag between you positioning the camera and the tripod/head taking up the weight. This is true even on some very high-end kit - although the sag won't be much. 99% of the time, you shouldn't care. If you do care, that's when a geared head is handy, because it's taking the weight itself while you position it. The obvious choices are something like a Manfrotto 410 (which is moderately cheap but takes time to get into position), a Manfrotto 405 (which has a clutch system so you can position it as fast as a pan/tilt head and then engage the gears, but which is big), or the one I own, an Arca-Swiss d4 (which also has a clutch so you can treat it like a weird ball head and then engage gears, but it's stupidly expensive and the pan axis isn't geared). There's also something called a "KPS T5" that I've never seen in person, which appears to be a ball head with an integrated geared base (which therefore has a limited range of gearing, but is otherwise fast - still expensive, though). If you're looking at this kind of thing, you might also be interested in the Arca-Swiss Z2 and the FLM Centerball 58 FTQR, both of which are ball heads until you clamp them and turn them into tilt heads. Of all these, the Manfrotto 410 is by far the cheapest, but also the one that will be slow to use. (If you don't mind slow to use, there's also the Arca C1 cube for silly money, or possibly the Photo Clam Multiflex knock-off version, as Edward mentioned.) Or you could just accept that the framing being very slightly wrong (or taking longer to set up while you try to compensate for the sag) isn't the end of the world, and get a ball head. (Or a pan/tilt, but I've never really got on with them!)<br />

<br />

Back to the realm of "normal" heads. I'd point out that the D750 is very light, the 70-200 range all have tripod collars and aren't <i>that</i> heavy, and that therefore you may not need top-of-the-line support. Yes, the listed ball heads are all extremely good, but they'll mostly make your rig heavier and cost a lot of money. They'll all hold a much bigger lens than your 190-series Manfrotto, too.<br />

<br />

I'm going to preach the opposite of what I've learnt here: I got a cheap Giottos head (because I preferred the feel to the Manfrotto one) to use with my (at the time) 150-500 lens and D700, which were substantially bigger and heavier than what you're talking about. They were fine, until I got more into photography and discovered I needed an upgrade (in my case, legs as well as head). If you think you'll do the same by all means get a BH-55 or a Z1 or similar, but bear in mind they're big. (Aside: Normally I end up as a broken record recommending the little-known Triopo RS-3 to people; it'll hold a lot of weight and it's small and cheap, but it's not all that refined, and I actually wouldn't suggest it here unless you're looking at very big lenses.) The Acratech heads - with which I've had no experience personally - are generally thought of as being pretty good for the weight, although they're still not cheap. Otherwise, I'd not be scared of being a notch down from the top of the line from each range with what you're talking about, and it'll likely save you ache in the back as well as the wallet. If you want to go Arca-Swiss, it might also be worth looking at the P1. If you get one, though, you want the classic Arca-Swiss clamp, though, not the "monoball fix" version (unless you're replacing the clamp).<br />

<br />

Incidentally, I hate the Arca-Swiss lever clamp - I've only tried them in stores, but they've shredded several nails. Others may be better, or you may have the knack. Personally, I've always found knob clamps perfectly fast enough to use, and they avoid any of the compatibility problems you might otherwise have with variations on the clamp. The Arca one on my d4 seems fine, but so does my cheap Triopo one from eBay, and the one on my Joby Ballhead X (there's only so much engineering in a knob). Lever clamps may be more worthy of preferences!<br />

<br />

I'd get a QR plate for the 70-200 when you get one (if you're talking the f/2.8, Really Right Stuff sell one that replaces the removable foot). You don't need an L-plate if you plan to use this a lot, because you can just rotate the lens, but I'll add another vote in favour of an L-plate for the camera. I have an RRS L-plate for my D810 (it's actually the one from the D800 I replaced), and it mostly lives on the camera, even though it shoves my nose to one side a little and is a bit heavy. The Kirk ones also looked fine. Arca-Swiss make an interesting adaptable one, too, with pegs to avoid rotation (but check for compatibility). All these should avoid the problem of a generic QR plate coming unscrewed from the camera, and they'll keep the centre of mass over the top of the ball head (and the viewfinder at roughly the same height when you switch landscape to portrait).<br />

<br />

I think of tripod heads and camera bags as personal things. I'd suggest going into a big store and trying some. They differ in a number of subtle ways, and some may seem "backwards" to you when you try them in person. I'm not sure I've added much that hasn't already been said, but if there's anything, I'd say don't panic about buying whatever head makes you feel comfortable. Unless you go for something particularly tiny (like the aforementioned Joby) you'll probably be fine for the kit you mention.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your help and responses! I learned a lot from you (as I do each time I ask a question here). I have decided that I want the expensive geared head...but that will have to wait! Therefore, the order I placed today is for...</p>

<p>(drum roll, please)</p>

<p>The Acratech GP!</p>

<p>Since starting this thread, I promised I would evaluate all suggestions. I kept coming back to the Acratech heads, as their funky look and open-concept design really interested me. As you may or may not have guessed about me, I sometimes have a hard time making decisions (no, really.). So, I called the company, not knowing what to expect. Well, a person answered. (point #1 scored) The heads are made here in the USA, I believe right there where I called. (point #2) And - she had a "cosmetic second" sitting on the shelf that just needed a lever clamp put on for me - she believes it to be a customer return that will be gone over in the shop to ensure its working order - that she sold me for 10% off the cost of a new one. Hey, I'll take a perfectly fine return for 40 bucks less, especially when it got me a pretty robust ball head with a 10-year warranty. (I was going to get a different model.) The deal was cinched. I'm pumped to get it! I also ordered a Kirk L-bracket from B&H. Thank you all again!</p>

<p>Renee</p>

<p>Returning to one of your original specific questions, I'd encourage you to look at other manufactures: I meant to state that earlier.</p>

<p>Regarding the oven treatment - yes Manfrotto Ballheads use light grease. I have 'warmed up and dried out' my older Ballhead, as I described above. Note that one is not 'coking it' just drying out the moisture and it seemed to me to have no noticeable effect on the grease/lubricant and certainly the head moved more freely afterwards. I often work (in winter) quite early, quite cold and in high humidity and sometimes in light rain: whilst the camera and lens are contained in rain bags my older Ballhead and the Monopod are not - so I have dried the Ballhead out, several times using the warm oven treatment. Obviously one person's experience is not a big sample group and that's why I gave the caveat with the advice.</p>

<p>I agree that Manfrotto Ballheads tend to get stickier with age. Mine have too. But, as mentioned earlier I presently have two and I've had about ten years work out of the older one (486), which presents very good value for money for me. Others' opinions will obviously vary depending upon their own needs, but I would rather put the big dollars into a better quality Geared Head and run with a 'very good' Ballhead for general use. Also I probably would not be easily as 'spooked' as you, because I tend to tighten the Ball to 'Gorilla Proof' tension as a matter of procedure; and I have become accustomed to the wear factor. </p>

<p>On the point of <strong><em>your</em></strong> uses, that if your thinking is a 70 to 200, then, I just want to re-iterate, there's most likely a Tripod Collar for those Nikkor Lenses, so swing to Vertical Orientation is not a question for consideration.</p>

<p>For Portraiture, if I am using a Tripod, I generally use a Manfrotto 128LP. Although this is marketed as a Video Head, it works for me because I usually only use it with my longer lenses all of which have a Tripod Ring Mount. I didn't buy this Head for Portraiture, but I now find that it is the best Head that I have, for that particular job, with a lenses at or longer than FL = 100mm. I find that solid Ballhead is quiet suitable for Portraiture when working with shorter FL lenses (shorter than FL = 100mm) because I tend to shoot a bit wide and crop in Post Production anyway, so, if there is any little slippage after the ball is locked, it does not matter.</p>

<p>You asked about personal experience with Geared Heads. I use a Manfrotto 405. I use this Head when precision is paramount. I don't do a lot of Landscape Photography but when I do, it is usually either an Opportunity Shot or an Exercise / Workshop, so for the former I am usually Hand-held and for the latter I have a lot of time; but I understand and appreciate David's "description of hell" - my solution to that would be to make the shot hand held and then set up the tripod (if I had one) for round two: but as mentioned I don't purposely go out looking for landscapes and equipped specifically for that task.</p>

<p>I suppose that (comparatively) I have a lot of Manfrotto equipment, the reason is, that for me, their Tripods, Monopods and Heads represent good value for money and perform to a level that I require. Also Manfrotto are better represented than some other companies where I live; although the surge in on-line purchases has changed the availability for purchasing a wider range of gear, it does not allow for the handling and testing of that gear, save for taking advantage of some suppliers (mainly USA) who allow the customer to return of goods for a refund if the customer changes their mind.</p>

<p>It is quite a personal choice, and even more than camera or lens, probably predicted on your uses and, possibly, even some idiosyncratic features that appeal to you or to your techniques.</p>

<p>WW</p>