Need good travel tripod rev. - have fractured hip.

[Mary Doo]

pretty much any ball head will sag.

In my experience (corroborated with other user experiences), Markins ballheads are probably the best in the non-sag and lightweight department. I have used Markins in a few strengths in accord with load need and they do not disappoint.

 

https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/why-markins-ball-heads

[2Oceans]

Dieter, I remember that review because it was in German and it found that a Bogen/Manfrotto hydrostatic ball head held the best but they all sagged. But what I remember most is that there seem to be a level of magnitude overkill in the level of stress testing. I use a Kirk BH1 because I like its very smooth action and also have a small BH3 as well as the Arca Swiss BI Monoball that has an aspheric ball that works very well in extremely cold weather and a Arca Swiss B2 that is actually a pan tilt in ball head form. I have not bought a new head in over a decade but FLM, Novoflex, Really Right Stuff, Markins all make really great heads that I would love to own. I am certain if you set up any of these heads correctly with a load they are engineered and rated for, that they will not sag. For my big lenses I use action heads with nothing locked down, either a side kick or a full sized Wimberly. I like the familiarity I have developed with my stuff but I still have tripod envy when ever I see some one with something like a Really Right Stuff pod (I use Gitzo) with a Zenelli carbon fiber head. After all Moose Peterson uses one and I am certain no doubt that I would be a better person if I owned one. All-in-all any and all of the heads I mention are used everyday by pros and take good pictures. If you hang enough weight off of any of them they will sag. Stay frosty.

[Mary Doo]

I bought, tried, and sold the RRS BH-55. It looks pretty but bulky and heavy for what it did/does - it paled in in comparison to the Markins M20 that I was using, which claimed a load capacity of 110 lbs - not sure who would need that capacity though.

[Andrew Garrard]

I'll look into Markins. I'd like to try a Burzynski, but couldn't source one. To be fair, any weight balanced over the head shouldn't sag (so a gimbal also generally doesn't sag) - it's when a head is used to cantilever a weight which was previously being supported by the hand that framing goes slightly awry. I wonder if there's a tensioning mechanism that could bring the head to the camera rather than the other way around...

[JDMvW]

Frankenpost or not, I overlooked it earlier.

 

A really sturdy monopod can not only be a highly effectual camera support, but it also serves as a walking stick.

 

Some people don't understand this, but I use a Manfrotto 222 on the monopod for maximum aiming and handling flexibility

 

[Andrew Garrard]

Some people don't understand this, but I use a Manfrotto 222 on the monopod for maximum aiming and handling flexibility

 

Having been on at least one of these threads before, I'm a lot more sympathetic to something like a 222 on a monopod than on a tripod - it adds a lot of length that's cantilevered around the base if you're on a tripod, but as an actual grip where you're holding it and the pivot is about getting the monopod leg in the right place, that makes a lot more sense to me. Not that I've ever tried it. (My monopods are cheap and nasty and have integrated tilt heads. But I do also use them as walking sticks.)

[Mary Doo]

I'd like to try a Burzynski, but couldn't source one.

FS: Unused Burzynski Ball Head

 

Looks like it still needs an Arca Swiss clamp (or other clamp) on top to easily hold cameras or lenses.

 

Interesting. I wonder how heavy it is? Here are some discussion:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=50223.0

Edited October 1, 2019 by Mary Doo

[Dieter Schaefer]

remember most is that there seem to be a level of magnitude overkill in the level of stress testing

I forgot the exact procedure - which he has changed now anyway; the old report I've read is no longer available.

I wonder how heavy it is?

According to Bjorn Rorslett, a little over 1kg: Burzynski Tripod Head

[Mary Doo]

According to Bjorn Rorslett, a little over 1kg: Burzynski Tripod Head

Thanks. The wieght is just about a tiny bit over the Markins M20. Interesting, considering it is in such short supply. Bjorn said $300 but the seller is asking 4x that much just because he can. Btw, I wrote to ask what is his bottom-line price. Let's see... ;)

[2Oceans]

The only camera I flop my ball head with is my tiny Fuji X100f that I use with a simple arca style bottom plate. It does not have much cantilever effect.

With bigger gear I figure if I am going to spend thousands on a body then it should have a proper L-bracket so that it can sit upright on the tripod head with its weight bearing directly down. I started with a gigantic Bogen hexplate L bracket that at the time I thought was amazing because it made my basic N70 film camera look really cool and eventually transitioned to arca style plates/L-brackets and have not looked back. As far as monopods go I have a large Bogen that I use once about every three years. I just like the stability of a tripod. The event photography I have done recently is equestrian dressage from a fixed location using a tripod and action head. Nothing very dynamic where a monopod would work better.

[Mary Doo]

I wrote to ask what is his bottom-line price. Let's see..

OK, here's the response: "Yes, its the new 70mm model. It weighs about 1000gms and in case you have a Gitzo tripod you can remove the top plate and fit this ball head instead which provides more stability. But the beauty is with half a turn of the knob it grips tight ..period. There is absolutely no movement, whatever be the weight of the lens. I can sell it for a Minimum price of USD 1000.00 + PP fees and shipping."

 

$1,000 is still expensive...

[2Oceans]

Mary, I like more familiar designs like the Arca-Swiss Z1g moonball that maintains similar architecture and an aspheric ball on a larger scale compared to the smaller AS B1 and Z1 designs and is slightly lighter than the Burzynski but has a huge capacity. It has managed to stay in production as the B1g and now the Z1g where as the Burzynski is evanescent and for some time now. I do like the Burzynski's unique design. Good hunting.

[Mary Doo]

Arca-Swiss Z1G

I had both the B1 and Z1 (and others) before, panning clamps etc - before the Markins. All good stuff.

[Andrew Garrard]

Thanks, Mary. Hmm. Tempting, but I don't currently have $1000 to drop on the experiment. If I get richer at some point soon, I'll look into it if they're still out there.

 

I've definitely seen the big Arca balls sag with a cantilevered lens (it's not a 90 degree flop that worried me, it was, on this occasion, a 150mm Sigma supported from the body) - but it may not be the head's fault. (Also the Arca QR levers shred my nails; all my heads are screw lock. I have the fortune that several expensive items attack me - like being pinched by Gitzo legs and drawing blood - which puts me off spending on them.) According to reviews, my Triopo RS-3 (with a replacement Arca clamp) ought to have high capacity (the bolt apparently snaps before it slips) - it's not the most refined thing in the world, but I've never thought it was going to drop anything, so absolute capacity isn't everything. The Burzynski had a couple of glowing reviews and very limited manufacture (not that Arca churn their own heads out very fast - I believe something to do with French tax law keeping the company size small), so I guess they can ask what they want. The wider neck does have some appeal from a logical perspective - and I've been considering the 70mm bowl option for my RRS legs while looking at a levelling base anyway.

[Mary Doo]

Tempting, but I don't currently have $1000 to drop on the experiment...

Well, other than the teasing design, $1,000 is exorbitant as it is just a simple ball head - and it weighs 2.2 lb - which is quite heavy for such basic provision.

 

By the way I made a misstatement earlier that it was just a tiny bit heavier than the M20. It's actually 1.2 lbs heavier! The Markins' lightweight was the main attraction for me. Every ounce blends into my decision for photo equipment. Sorry for the senior moment. :eek:

Edited October 2, 2019 by Mary Doo

[Andrew Garrard]

Huh. My Arca d4 is (apparently) 1.8lbs, and I consider it pretty hefty. It also sticks out from the top of the tripod more than the Burzynski would, which doesn't help. I'm sometimes surprised when I've decapitated my RRS for travel (I sometimes put the head in carry-on for safekeeping and hold-store the legs) and realise how light it actually is. I generally assume most tripods would make an effective mace if needed, although the stories I've heard of people defending themselves with tripods have tended to centre on spiked feet.

[mike_halliwell]

I just got an ex-demo Leofoto LH-55 at a very good price.

 

I've never had such a large ballhead to play with and wonder why I'd never got one before.

 

Once the load is fairly well balance there is no detectable droop and movement and lock-up are very smooth.

[Andrew Garrard]

Yes - sorry, to be clear, if everything is reasonably balanced I wouldn't expect droop. But some of us are imbalanced enough of the time to have a spare head with which to manage it!

[2Oceans]

The state of the art is that all ball heads will sag a little, even aspheric ball heads. It really comes down to personal preference. I have been admonished that a certain brand is the best but what I believe is that each brand has its merits. I love my Kirk BH1 because of its smoothness but I firmly believe that there are stronger heads. The Arca Swiss heads I own do not flop very much because the aspheric design prevents much progression once locked. The interesting thing is that the German study that I can no longer find on the internet showed that the Manfrotto hydrostatic head made of cast aluminum sagged the least and had a fairly long connection (cantelever) between the clamp and the ball compared to other heads.

 

Now days if I choose to use a lens larger than a 300mm f4 lens it will be on a gimbal. If I am doing everything right with my ball head set up of this size or smaller it will not sag even on an acute angle, at least enough to be clinically significant. If I put an extension tube on my longer lenses and point them down at my feet on a ball head I will be holding on at all times because the tripod-head-lens assembly will be metastable at best. Of course I can always bring out the vise grips. Now that my interest is piqued I am thinking about looking at other premium brand ball heads to compare with what I have owned now for years to include Markins and Really Right stuff though Acratech and KLM and are interesting. Folks who use those heads are generally happy with them and none of the designs are particularly new. Perhaps something with rhinestones. Anyway what I currently have has worked so well for so many years I view any improvements as incremental and had lost my curiosity. But then I can always use a spare head or six.