Recommended monopod heads

If you leave out the Arca-Swiss requirement, I have found the Manfretto 222 head to be very handy

The 322 works well too.

If you leave out the Arca-Swiss requirement, I have found the Manfretto 222 head to be very handy

[ATTACH=full]1260946[/ATTACH]

The 322 works well too.

Thanks, but those are tripod heads and not monopod heads. Plus Bogen/Manfrotto stuff is not Arca-Swiss compatible, they use a proprietary clamping system instead of A/S. I want to be able to move my camera bodies between my tripods and monopod using the L-brackets on the bodies, and that means A/S compatible.

you may notice that the one in the picture IS mounted on a monopod, and I use them all the time

and I said

if you leave out the Arca-Swiss requirement

The Kirk monopod tilt head (link) is good. The ability to tilt and an A-S clamp is all I've ever needed for a monopod. There was a very inexpensive Manfrotto tilt head, to which you would have to add a clamp, is OK if you never expect to put on a heavy lens--its ability to hold is limited.

Thanks Hector, I will look into the Kirk a bit more. I really like the top end RRS head it's ability to quickly re-orient the swivel direction allowing you to move between camera body mount and collared lens mount. But they're really proud of it. I was hoping to find used, which is not happening. Thing is, I don't know what lens I might want to mount at some point, I have access to a good local rental source if the occasion arises. With that in mind, I'm trying to avoid buying stuff that might not be up to the task in the future. Manfrotto is okay for light stuff, as you say, but larger lenses push it beyond it's limits.

you may notice that the one in the picture IS mounted on a monopod, and I use them all the time

 

and I said

Great JD, if that works for you then wonderful. But a ball head on my monopod will not serve like a swivel head. That pistol grip one would be extremely cumbersome. You may have noticed that I also specified A/S compatibility, which I use all the time.

For a monopod, you need a head that tilts and nothing more. A ball head takes too much juggling to use, and may leave the camera on a tilt and off-center, hence hard to use without tilting the monopod as well. It's like pushing a rope to set up.

I tried the Manfrotto grip shown above. It has all the faults of a ball head and none of the advantages. Any tilt puts the camera off-axis, and you have to find the notch to tilt more than a few degrees. It doesn't hold firmly, and the QR plate slips on the screw holding it to the camera. There are a lot more of these heads on a shelf in a closet than actually in the field.

The RRS head is expensive, mainly because it is machined out of solid aluminum and very precise. It definitely works, in a minimalist fashion, rugged and secure. RRS once had a very small version which had a pivot clamp rather than a clamped sector and pivot. It probably had little holding power in comparison, and was dropped from the catalogue. I see some cheaper knock-off's at B&H, but those with an Arca clamp still push $200 or so.

IMO, you get more for your money if you buy a good tripod and ball head. Use only one leg if it makes sense (e.g., sitting in the bleachers). A monopod is great when you're using a heavy lens for long periods at a time, but has little to offer for actual stability. If you need a monopod, then you need a good head. Pay the money and sleep well at night.

The Kirk clamps the head on its axis of rotation, which will have much less holding power than the slotted sector of the RRS. Secondly it has a knob to tighten the clamp rather than a lever. I find the lever to be more secure and quicker to use. You can't close the clamp if the camera isn't mounted properly (e.g., catching the plate on the edge).

Drag probably isn't as important on a swivel as on a ball head, which moves in all directions. RRS says it has a Teflon bushing, which would facilitate a drag setting, especially if the tightening knob is spring loaded. Eighty buck is eighty bucks, but the features are something to consider.

At least some have actually tried the pistol grip heads before commenting on them.

If your main concern is leveling and such, perhaps no monopod is your best tool.

At least some have actually tried the pistol grip heads before commenting on them.

 

If your main concern is leveling and such, perhaps no monopod is your best tool.

JD, I'm sorry, but, I don't need to try a pistol grip on a monopod to know how cumbersome it would be any more than I need to jump off of a building to know that I would regret it. I did not say anything about leveling, and a monopod is exactly the right tool for some applications. I don't know what your issue is over my choice of a good quality, useable head. I respect your choices for your use, but they are not workable choices for my use.

The Kirk clamps the head on its axis of rotation, which will have much less holding power than the slotted sector of the RRS. Secondly it has a knob to tighten the clamp rather than a lever. I find the lever to be more secure and quicker to use. You can't close the clamp if the camera isn't mounted properly (e.g., catching the plate on the edge).

 

Drag probably isn't as important on a swivel as on a ball head, which moves in all directions. RRS says it has a Teflon bushing, which would facilitate a drag setting, especially if the tightening knob is spring loaded. Eighty buck is eighty bucks, but the features are something to consider.

I know some folks that have had real problems using the lever clamp on a monopod on safari with expensive lenses mounted and the lever clamp screwed up. While I have not had that experience, neither do I want to, so I'll go with the knobs, which are captive anyway. I will move the camera between monopod and tripod, but I don't need to do it so rapidly that I need the lever clamp. I have the lever on my RRS clamp on my A/S B1, but the knob would serve me just as well.

Then there's the guy that had to install some plastic washers in the RRS swivel bolt to take up the lateral slack. That should not be necessary at the prices RRS charges. So, Kirk is still in 1st place here, but thank you for your comments.

Having only a tilt head on a monopod makes the assumption that you never want to use the camera in portrait orientation.

I'm not a fan of ball heads for tripods, but to me having a ball head on a monopod makes perfect sense. It levels and aims easily without having to turn the whole monopod, with consequent yaw of the camera aim.

I really don't like that crazy Manfrotto pistol-ball thingumajig though. I have one that came with a used tripod. It's the most useless and cumbersome head I've ever come across!

No, no. Strike that. It's the best thing since sliced bread, and you can buy mine at a very nice price.:cool:

I've never used one of the pistol grips in anger, partly because they seem to elevate the camera a long way above the pivot point, which never struck me as terribly secure for general tripod use. (Vanguard and others make a pistol grip with the grip off to the side of the ball head, and Manfrotto have a side grip thing, if there's a desire to have leverage on something other than the camera - but I generally assume I'll want a finger where I can put it on the trigger and manoeuvre my ball heads using the camera grip.)

JDM: Out of interest, I'm imagining you holding the monopod upright by the grip (so you effectively move the camera where you want and let the monpod follow), rather than separately holding the upper section - is that right? The vertical grip head seems to have been discontinued, unless I'm just not finding it - I was looking because Manfrotto have finally deigned to make some heads with Arca clamps, and I wondered if this was one. I'm not really a monopod user, so I don't have my technique down; when I'm using heavy lenses I normally need to move around too quickly to want anything encumbering me, but then I don't shoot sports from the sidelines. I assume the convention of using a plain tilt head for monopods is about avoiding the camera flopping to the side when you're holding the top monopod section, but it's always struck me as an unwieldy way of levelling anything without an integrated lens collar.

Anyway; Carl, I guess you're specifically after a tilt head, rather than a discussion about what constitutes a "monopod head"? Checking B&H, there's a Benro DJ90 head with an Arca clamp for $55. If you're on a budget, would that be bad? There's not much to go wrong with it (one reason I like Arca screw clamps), and it didn't sound as though you're planning to put a lot of weight on it (since you mentioned the D7200 rather than a lens). I suspect most pure tilt heads have the clamp in the wrong orientation if you actually want to clamp the body in it rather than a lens, though.

Personally I've always assumed that any time I use a monopod, I'm not going to be very stable anyway, so my only monopods are extreme budget ones with integrated tilt heads (and no QR plates). Even so, they've not really caused me any problems. Good luck.

"Personally I've always assumed that any time I use a monopod, I'm not going to be very stable anyway, so my only monopods are extreme budget ones with integrated tilt heads...."

- I think that's an assumption that underestimates the usefulness of a monopod Andrew. At least as age advances upon one.

A monopod can almost completely eliminate the fast shakes that simple handholding imparts. You're still going to get slow 'wobbles', but any shutter speed shorter than about 1/30th should easily take care of that.

In short, I think a better quality monopod is probably a good investment. I have a fairly old and hefty Gitzo model fitted with a Benbo ball-head. Its strength allows a fair amount of downward pressure to be put on it, and I find that that helps to steady both me and the camera; allowing shutter speeds in the region of 1/30th to 1/60th with a moderate telephoto lens (300 - 400mm) and no VR.

Also, a well-made monopod can double as a walking pole, and be almost instantly ready for use. Unlike any tripod worth its weight to carry.

In fact a decent walking pole with ball-head attached would be a darned good idea!

 

Anyway; Carl, I guess you're specifically after a tilt head, rather than a discussion about what constitutes a "monopod head"? Checking B&H, there's a Benro DJ90 head with an Arca clamp for $55. If you're on a budget, would that be bad? There's not much to go wrong with it (one reason I like Arca screw clamps), and it didn't sound as though you're planning to put a lot of weight on it (since you mentioned the D7200 rather than a lens). I suspect most pure tilt heads have the clamp in the wrong orientation if you actually want to clamp the body in it rather than a lens, though.

 

Personally I've always assumed that any time I use a monopod, I'm not going to be very stable anyway, so my only monopods are extreme budget ones with integrated tilt heads (and no QR plates). Even so, they've not really caused me any problems. Good luck.

Thanks for your response, Andrew. In answer to your question, yes, I'm looking at tilt heads, One can mount any head that they like on a monopod, but that does not qualify it as a monopod head. If you search for monopod heads at B&H tilt is what you will see. But. my original inquiry was for recommended monopod heads, not a pointer to the boatload of heads on the market. There are a lot of knock offs, a lot of inadequate models, and I'm not interested in buying blind, hoping that I won't make a mistake. So, do yoi have any experience with that Benro head that you listed? I am not willing to trust my gear to an unknown mount, and that one is unknown to me. As an example, the Bogen that I had was great, except that was not A/S compatible, and it's weight capacity won't support larger lenses. So, I could use it sometimes, but not all times. Another attempt at "saving money" up in smoke. If I had got the Kirk to begin with we would not have this thread.

Budget, well I'm as averse to spending more than I need to as anyone else, but I have learned that it's better to buy right the first time as opposed to being forced to upgrade later because I failed to do that. I do not often mount large lenses, but I do want to be able to do so at will.

A tilt head allows near instant changes in framing, allowing the user to follow moving target (no, I don't do BIF), while having solid support underneath. A modern and decent clamp allows re-orienting the swivel direction, so that you can go from lens mount to camera mount using the same clamp. A/S compatibility allows me to go from landscape to portrait using the L-bracket on my bodies. I know my needs, I was just looking for the best solution for me.

Looking at the pictures of the Kirk head that Hector linked to; it appears that the axis of tilt is at right angles to the camera body and parallel to the lens axis.

That's not what's needed surely?

Or can the top plate be rotated through 90 degrees?

"A tilt head allows near instant changes in framing, allowing the user to follow moving target"

- How so? The rotation axis will follow the axis of the monopod, whether the whole pod is rotated, or the base of the head. This will describe an arc at whatever angle the pod is inclined at and the camera will point more upwards or downwards as it's moved away from its initial position.

Monopods shouldn't be used exactly vertically, that's their most unstable orientation. They should lean back towards the user's body, forming a tripod with the user's legs.

Sorry, Carl - no experience with that head. The only "monopod head" I have experience with is the Manfrotto 393 - but it's enormous, and I've only put it on tripods; at some point I'll get a knock-off gimbal head just to make travelling with it viable. At the risk of insulting the manufacturers, I was only really trying to suggest that I don't think of a tilt head as a piece of precision engineering (compared with the better ball heads and gear heads), so I was hoping the choice didn't matter over-much. But I'm as familiar with Thom Hogan's article on support (summary: buy the best you can, because you'll throw away everything else until you get to it) as anyone else, and mistakenly ignored it, so I could be wrong.

Joe: The head orientation with the Kirk is what concerned me about most of the other tilt heads I've seen: they seem to be designed to take the foot of a long lens (which is usually parallel to the lens axis) rather than the horizontal base of a camera. I'm not sure if that's what Carl wanted, given that he mentioned the camera but not lens.

I should revisit my monopod situation. As I mentioned, I'm usually either moving around too much to want anything dangling under the lens, or static enough to use a tripod, but I could well be missing a trick that would have been more obvious if I'd ever spent more than £20 on one. I mostly think of them as a way to take the weight of a big lens (and, yes, as a walking pole), although I concede that they must help stability somewhat. I get the impression that sports journalists often hold the monopod vertically specifically to simplify panning, and are using it mainly for load bearing.

Looking at the pictures of the Kirk head that Hector linked to; it appears that the axis of tilt is at right angles to the camera body and parallel to the lens axis.

That's not what's needed surely?

 

Or can the top plate be rotated through 90 degrees?

 

"A tilt head allows near instant changes in framing, allowing the user to follow moving target"

 

- How so? The rotation axis will follow the axis of the monopod, whether the whole pod is rotated, or the base of the head. This will describe an arc at whatever angle the pod is inclined at and the camera will point more upwards or downwards as it's moved away from its initial position.

 

Monopods shouldn't be used exactly vertically, that's their most unstable orientation. They should lean back towards the user's body, forming a tripod with the user's legs.

Yes, on the Kirk and RRS heads the clamp can be rotated 90˚, allowing mounting by camera body or lens foot. I don't hold the monopod straight up and down, it's angled to the ground. Combining the fore and aft swivel of the head with monopod rotation keeps me dead on target. I don't want the head to rotate because it's already swiveled, but I can easily keep everything level as I turn the monopod by way of the camera body while adjusting the degree of offset with the swivel. It sounds way more difficult than it is. I have one hand on the camera body and the other on the lens, while my body motion controls the pan and swivel.

That also allows some different effects using rear curtain sync and flash on moving objects after dark. Below is one of my favorite examples of what I'm talking about, and it's all done in camera, no PP on that subject. I call this one The Coupe from Hell.......

Sorry, Carl - no experience with that head. The only "monopod head" I have experience with is the Manfrotto 393 - but it's enormous, and I've only put it on tripods; at some point I'll get a knock-off gimbal head just to make travelling with it viable. At the risk of insulting the manufacturers, I was only really trying to suggest that I don't think of a tilt head as a piece of precision engineering (compared with the better ball heads and gear heads), so I was hoping the choice didn't matter over-much. But I'm as familiar with Thom Hogan's article on support (summary: buy the best you can, because you'll throw away everything else until you get to it) as anyone else, and mistakenly ignored it, so I could be wrong.

 

Joe: The head orientation with the Kirk is what concerned me about most of the other tilt heads I've seen: they seem to be designed to take the foot of a long lens (which is usually parallel to the lens axis) rather than the horizontal base of a camera. I'm not sure if that's what Carl wanted, given that he mentioned the camera but not lens.

 

I should revisit my monopod situation. As I mentioned, I'm usually either moving around too much to want anything dangling under the lens, or static enough to use a tripod, but I could well be missing a trick that would have been more obvious if I'd ever spent more than £20 on one. I mostly think of them as a way to take the weight of a big lens (and, yes, as a walking pole), although I concede that they must help stability somewhat. I get the impression that sports journalists often hold the monopod vertically specifically to simplify panning, and are using it mainly for load bearing.

Hogan recommends the RRS monopod heads. He definitely does not like the pistol grip ball head on a monopod. IMO, if there was ever a mis-match, that's it. The swivel action of a tilt head is very close to hand holding, except you have added verticle support and that really lightens the load from the equipment. Hogan talks about it here in his article about safari equipment.

How to Think About Equipment for Safari | Cameras and Photography Explained | Thom Hogan

Scroll sown to "How are you going to keep everything steady?".

To be clear, I'm not advocating trying to follow BIF with a huge lens mounted on a monopod. I might die of old age before I ever acquired the target. But if it was perched, or it was not a monster lens, well then, that's another matter. YMMV

Kirk MPA-2 Monopod Head MPA-2 B&H Photo Video

"The quick-release clamp rotates 90 degrees."

You need that feature because you clamp the body (traverse) with short lenses, and the lens foot (longitudinally) with telephotos.

Kirk MPA-2 Monopod Head MPA-2 B&H Photo Video

 

"The quick-release clamp rotates 90 degrees."

 

You need that feature because you clamp the body (traverse) with short lenses, and the lens foot (longitudinally) with telephotos.

Yeah, Ed, I know, but apparently some others were not up to speed about tilt heads.