Kirk bh-3 or arcatech

[thomas_vanagt]

Hello,

 

I can't find the exact specifications of the Kirk bh-3 ballhead: I

think it weights 560g. but I don't know what it can hold.

 

The Kirk is slightly cheaper than the arcatech. I have the

impression that the specs and quality are equal, so is the Kirk the

better buy? The equipment I use are Canon eos 1n with flash and

400/5.6 and Mamiya 645.

 

Another thing: since this will be my only ballhead, will I be able

to use it on my gitzo tele studex? I can't use my current ballhead

in vertical position because the 'ground plate' of the tripod is too

large.

 

The reason I don't want to buy an arca or kirk Bh-1 is because I do

a lot of hiking.

 

Thanks

Thomas

[nodrog]

Go to www.kirkphoto.com OR do a search in photonet, "kirk bh-3". You will find numerous answers

[thomas_vanagt]

I've done both, and couldn't find the answers on my questions.

 

Thomas

[luther_berry]

Thomas,

 

I have two Kirk BH-3 ball heads and like them very much. I use them on Gitzo 1224 and 1340 tripods with no problems. The ball head weighs 20 oz and will hold my Leica R8 with Leica 280/f4 lens plus 2X extender at any angle without slipping. This is a heavy lens and camera. Check the Leica website for exact weights. LB

[craig_bridge]

With any ball head, the only spec that really matters to me is what is its comfortable working torque limits. With a flash extender and lens hood you are probably pushing the limits of what is comfortable on either head. Their balls are just too small a diameter to be able to fine control pretension at the torque involved when you aren't perfectly ballanced in a horizontal position.

 

Macro focusing rails and sliders are another consideration when picking a ball head. Slide the same load out 4 or 5 inches and the torque goes up dramatically.

[markrupert]

One significant difference: The kirk has a tension setting to prevent the head from flopping while you make fine adjustments to your framing; the acratech does not.

 

Mark

[chris_loffredo]

I went through the same process a few months ago.

Found many favorable comments on both.

Decided to buy the Acra Tech.

All I can say is it holds my 500mm f4.5 solid as a rock.

If you go with the Acra Tech the limiting factor for stability will be your tripod.

[justin_ames1]

This is a letter I posted to the AcraTech people; prospective buyers may find it useful.

 

Sir:

 

 

 

I purchased your ballhead around a year ago, and only recently have begun using it. While it�s light weight is an advantage, it remains very difficult to use for a number of reasons.

 

 

 

The panning set screw (the base screw, allowing rotation in a 360 degree circle around the tripod base plate plane) is very small, and difficult to torque sufficiently to fix in position�and nearly impossible with gloves on in cold weather.

 

 

There is no identifiable purpose for the adjustment knob at the top of the transverse retaining ring/clamp: the user cannot determine the rate of slew when the knob at the base of the retaining ring/clamp is disengaged, which is the primary purpose for their inclusion. This makes minute adjustments to the composition EXTREMELY unwieldy and difficult to perform given the weight of camera and large glass. In the field, cold, uncomfortable, often cramped and dangerous conditions are intensified by the need to stabilize and control this slew by hand. Additionally, the adjustment knob (not that it matters, it does not affect the clamping of the ball anyway) suffers from the size/torque problems listed in observation 1.

 

 

Finally, there is the constant unpleasantness of adjusting the orientation of the base plate when flopping the camera to a vertical position--already difficult to do, given the panning set screw problem mentioned in number 1 above, but necessitated by the transverse nature of the retaining ring. In effect, one has to reorient the entire apparatus to flop the camera to the other side--and change one's habits when looking through the view finder, as now all the knobs are rotated 180 degrees.

 

 

When I purchased your ball head, I did so as a neophyte to ball head use, and on the basis of the recommendations of the Luminous Light article. I find my purchase was an error, and an egregious one. To be honest, I wish I had my money back, as I would more likely purchase a Kirk.

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely Yours,

 

Justin Ames

 

 

 

It is my intention to post this comment at the varying sites where photographers access the criticisms and critiques of equipment users.

 

 

In summation, if your primary concern is weight, this is a very good answer. And it does seem to be adequately made, it will hold your camera, once locked. However, the purpose of a ball head is manifold, and the Kirk at 20 oz. is no monster.