Sunwayfoto ball head recommendation.

[chuck]

I've narrowed my ball head choice down to Sunwayfoto FB-36 MK-2 and FB-44 Mk-2. Both Sunwayfoto and Sirui seem to offer qualities

competitive with Arca Swiss, Kirk, and Acratech, or so close to competitive as to make no difference. Both cost 1/2 to 1/3 as much as

those other brands. What settled me on Sunwayfoto are:

 

1. Sunwayfoto head has elliptical balls like Arca Swiss, Sirui doesn't. Having progressive increase in resistance as the ball head tilts

away from vertical seems like a sensible and useful feature.

 

2. Sunwayfoto offers double panning feature which Sirui does not, at least not without paying significant margin for a separate panning

clamp. I envision taking and stitching panoramic photos, so double panning feature seems handy because it does not require the tripod to be level.

 

 

I have a couple of questions.

 

1. Has anyone used either FB-36 or FB-44? If the heaviest lens I would ever use is likely to be the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 zoom, is

the lighter FB-36 sufficiently stiff? Or would you recommend I go for the heavier rated FB-44?

 

2. Many ball heads, including the afore mentioned Sunwayfoto and Sirui, claims load rating of 60-70 lbs. who loads small ball heads like

these with 60-70 lbs?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Load ratings are fairly meaningless numbers - at best they provide an indication how much load the ball can handle without breaking when used upright; don't expect it to hold that much when set at an angle. There doesn't seem to be a standard for those numbers - so it's entirely possible that one with a low but conservative rating will hold a load at an angle better than a head with a high but rather optimistic rating.<br>

Nikon 200-500: you don't say what you are going to use that lens for - but you may want to consider a gimbal head for a lens like that if you intend to shoot action. And if you are planning on using something like the Wimberley Sidekick, then definitely get the larger ball head.</p>

[chuck]

I will use the 200-500 f/5.6 for wild life. That lens is a telescoping zoom. Would the change in balance as the lens zoom

effect the use of the gimble?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Would the change in balance as the lens zoom effect the use of the gimble?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It might - not having handled that particular lens yet, I can't tell. The fact that it extends doesn't necessarily mean that there is a large movement of the center of mass. Besides, a gimbal is rather easily and quickly re-balanced (not that it necessarily has to be perfect anyway). With a gimbal, with the exception of the lens foot, nothing is usually locked down and you are having your hands on the camera/lens at all times.</p>