lightweight quick change ballhead wanted

Good question. I'm about to take a long photo trip through the

Midwest, but I'm getting frail in my dotage, mostly working less than

100 meters from the car. I recently bought a Slik Pro 700 DX

(titanium, 5 lbs.) but don't like the head that came with it, and

also use a modified Gitzo Totalux. Cameras are Leica M, Canon EOS,

and 4x5 Linhof Super Technika.

Arca B1 - Manfrotto is comparatively crude, and the QR plates don't

lock positively; Gitzo is ok but quirky (best legs in the business

though); Arca plates are primitive but RRS make the world's finest QR

plates to fit Arca, and another US firm Kirk makes sort of

RRS-rip-offs which (I gather) some people like.

Wilhelm, Sure Arca etc are good but they are expensive. For the money

you might look at the Gitzo centre ball head. It can be bought with

two types of quick release system. The "quirky" Gitzo heads mentioned

above are probably the off-centre ball heads. Another option might be

the Giottos bal heads (not the smaller ones!). Regards Paul

Not a very sophisticated ball head, and possibly too cheap, but I find it great for hiking and using with Pentax

67 and 4x5 camera: Manfrotto 168 with hex. release plate. Allows working vertical with reflex cameras. Weight

750g

There is a new ball head called Areotech... looks very well made and

priced right...you can read review here...

<p>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/arcatech.htm

I'll second the Manfrotto 168, it's solid, and I've used it with

35mm, medium format and now a Arca Swiss Discovery without any

problems. I'd rather a 3way head for LF though - but I'm still using

the 168.

B&H doesn't list Manfratto. What is the Bogan model (if there is

one)?

I use a Gitzo 375 ballhead with Linhof Quickfix system-reliable

sturdy and fast. For my 4x5 and 35 mm. On a Gitzo 1228 tripod.

<p>

Hans B.

Wilhelm, US number for MA 168 is BO 3055. Cost should be a little above $100. The current model has a safety

lever for the quick release. Again, one of the benefits of this ball head compared to low profile ball heads is

that you can turn a Pentax 67 vertical without having the tripod in the way.

<p>

http://www.manfrotto.com/products/metric/botfot3.html?menu=botfot2.html&menu1=botfot2.html&sectionid=2

&subsectionid=3&categoryid=8&subcategoryid=34&man_code=168&company=MNO&doc_from=gerarchia&con

tatore=primo

Novoflex has the best ball head I ever used (not cheap!), comes in two

sizes, larger one fits large format just fine.

alternatively, why don't you use a tripod with a buit-in ball-joint? I

mean a tripod such as Berlebach which has a ball joint at he base of

the column, you can fit a quick shoe (many brands available) and in so

doing saving a lot of unnecessary weight. Unless you need to tilt the

camera vertically the ideal solution

I use a Manfrotto Pro Ball 308, purchased at B&H. I bought it to

use with an M6, but I've also used it with lightweight field

cameras. It's solid, simple and inexpensive. I initially bought a

Giotto but exchanged it for the Manfrotto because I didn't trust the

design of the Giotto.

There is a US designed, made in China, ball head named Giottos that

comes in several sizes with or without a quick change plate. I got

mine, model MH-3000, from Linhof & Studio in London. I see that B&H

sells it for $150 although I am not sure it is the same model. It is a

very smooth item that works well for my Technika's both 6X9 and 4X5.

Giottos is available in 5 sizes.

<p>

MH 3000 is the same world wide. It is also the newest of the

large size Giottos heads

"There is a US designed, made in China"

<p>

We appreciate that inference but we recommended and

suggested but Giottos designed the heads themselves. And they

did an excellent job at doing so. If you look at their other items

like Q-Pods, Ball Pods, Q Pod II, Ball Pod II, I Pod, the MH 200

and MH 100 Quick Releases, etc you will see that they have a

very active design group at their headquarters in Taiwan.

Arca-Swiss b1. Can't be beat for weight to strength to stability or

controlability. Over the long haul, a very good value for money,

biut read the instructions first. Other prime choice: Linhof. The

Giottos I tested sucked for LF or medium format work.

What do you mean by "lightweight" ? For sub 10oz ball heads,

see:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005HVZ

<p>

I haven't seen one (they are a small operation and the product is new)

but from the reviews the Acratech, less than 1 lb, looks like the

lightest general purpose ball head suitable for LF. It was designed

specifically to support a 4x5.

Thanks, everybody. I've read the posts, reviewed the specs and

prices of all the recommended heads, paid me money and hope for the

best. For anyone interested I settled on a #%$#%^$&! model #$%#^

(oh, damn illegible keyboard).

Congratulations Wilhelm - I hope you invested in something good. I

have to say it's a continual source of surprise to see people, some of

whom I know for a fact use very expensive cameras, recommending second

or third rate camera mounting equipment. Spending 2000 UKP / 3000 USD

plus on a camera, then fitting it onto some Taiwanese item or the

solid but flawed Manfrotto heads, is stupid, full stop. The Manfrotto

168? No, please! Those hex QR plates are like medieval instruments of

torture and they DON'T WORK! Mounting a camera like a P67 on one of

those, for vertical shots especially, is so absurd it's almost

sublime... You cannot lock them tight to a camera, and if you try you

will break something. Anyone who invests in a good camera, do yourself

a favour and spend at least the equivalent of around 500 USD on legs

plus a head. That is, if you actually want to produce critically sharp

pictures rather than just flounce around showing off your fancy

camera. My cameras are just regular professional workhorses, Nikon and

Mamiya; my Arca ballheads, though, are the best of their type in the

world. I second Ellis Vener: Arca, or Linhof.

Anthony, thanks for reminding me. It's amazing how easy I tend to forget! I fully agree on me being sublimely

stupid, but despite what you say, I find the hex plates are not that bad. I have used them for over ten years

and preferred to fit a Manfrotto mount over my Linhof Pro III ball head instead of the original Linhof quick mount

that I found really too difficult to use and too flimsy. When you have a heavy, large camera in your hands, there

is no quick mount as easy to fit in as the Manfrotto. I agree, there were some flaws, in particular if you were

not cautious you could think the camera was clamped when in fact it was not properly seated. But this and the

risk of unwanted release has been corrected in the new generation and they are nearly 100% safe now. As for

the vertical reflex and rotating plate, Manfrotto has a serie of special plates, one with a L shaped positionable

slider that

won't allow the camera to move from it's setting. I use one with my Nikon and it's great, even with heavy

lenses. Now, if you want to make yourself a pleasure and spend more money, or get some sort of exotic

design, go for it! There are better systems I'm sure. As for the MA 168, you are right, certainly not the

dayly workhorse for a serious large format photographer. But as a spare or for the lighter hiking tripod, I think

it is

fine. In fact I am looking to replace mine right now (after ten years of hiking it has developped some play and I

want the new safety release). Although I could spend a little more if I wanted, I will certainly go for the same.

Stupid, I know...

Doesn`t anyone else use the latest Hasselblad quick release? I`ve

been using one mounted to a Linhof ball head for several years now

and it works very well indeed with a Horseman FA. Haven`t tried this

combination with the 5X7, but I imagine it`s a little too light...

Lee Frost,one of the best landscape photographers around IMHO,uses

the manfrotto hex system with his p67-it is excellent but the only

caveat is that it is heavier than other q-r systems.