Ballheads vs Gimbals

[Pao Dolina]

Other than Gimbals being more ideal for 400mm or longer lenses that weigh more than 8 pounds what gives ballheads an edge?

The ballhead would be used in conjunction with a 200/2L IS or 300/2.8L IS lens that weighs about 4 kilograms with a pro body.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Pao no real edge for the big glass. And you know I would use a gimbal with those other lens you mentioned, 200/2 and 300/2.8. I started using the gimbal with my 300 2.8.

[Tony Whitehead]

2 different beasts for 2 different jobs. Gimbal if you need support while retaining the ability to follow a subject. Ball head if you want to lock off on a stationary subject. Gimbal much safer with long, heavy glass as the lens is balanced if attached correctly. With a ball head you need to remember to lock the head to prevent it flopping and causing potential damage to lens/camera/tripod. Gimbal can be locked so is the safest and most versatile for anything 200 2,8 and over IMO. Ball head is great for shorter lenses especially wide-angles for landscapes

[Arthur Morris]

2 different beasts for 2 different jobs. Gimbal if you need support while retaining the ability to follow a subject. Ball head if you want to lock off on a stationary subject. Gimbal much safer with long, heavy glass as the lens is balanced if attached correctly. With a ball head you need to remember to lock the head to prevent it flopping and causing potential damage to lens/camera/tripod. Gimbal can be locked so is the safest and most versatile for anything 200 2,8 and over IMO. Ball head is great for shorter lenses especially wide-angles for landscapes

With all due respect, I disagree. With any heavy telephoto there are only disadantages with a ball head. (I know; I used and recommended their use with big lenses out of ignorance for well more than a decade...)

We recommend the Mongoose M3.5 for those who are able to support their rigs with one hand for 15 seconds (while mounting it) or the Wimberley head for the 12 pound plus lenses or those who cannot support their rigs. The Wimberley head is way overkill for everything up to and including the Nikon 200-400. I have been using the M3.5 with my 800 f/5.6 for almost a year now with great results.

You can learn more about the M3.5 here: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=30

For those doing serious landscape work with smaller lenses, we recommend a good pan-tilt head.

All ballheads feature ballhead flop. Period.

[Doug Brown]

I'm not a big fan of ballheads, and will second what Artie and Tony said. For glass that size, a full Wimberley is overkill. Either a Sidekick or a Mongoose should do the job.

[Arthur Morris]

I'm not a big fan of ballheads, and will second what Artie and Tony said. For glass that size, a full Wimberley is overkill. Either a Sidekick or a Mongoose should do the job.

The Sidekick/ballhead combos are far heavier than either Mongoose (note: the 2.3 may be unavailable) and operate far less efficiently than the Mongeese. The only folks who should even consider a Sidekick are those who routinely and often switch from being a landscape photographer to a wildlife photographer on the same walks. I have never had anyone claim to be in that category.

[Greg Basco]

I'll guess I'll be the first then, Arthur. I do switch very often from a telephoto to a macro lens to a wide angle from a tripod within the space of a couple of hours. Do I get a t-shirt or something? :-) Perhaps this is because of the great diversity of photo subjects we have here in Costa Rica or maybe it's just me.

But in any case Pao, if you are strange like me and do find yourself constantly switching from telephoto stuff to macro or landscape during the same shooting session, I find the RRS BH-55 head with a Sidekick to be a great combo.

If not, then you have lots of good advice from everyone else.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Arthur Morris]

Please supply address for t-shirt....

[Alan Lillich]

The Sidekick/ballhead combos are far heavier than either Mongoose (note: the 2.3 may be unavailable) and operate far less efficiently than the Mongeese. The only folks who should even consider a Sidekick are those who routinely and often switch from being a landscape photographer to a wildlife photographer on the same walks. I have never had anyone claim to be in that category.

I'm another who routinely switches, for similar reasons as Greg. Until we got 2 long lenses, my wife and I used a Markins M-10 plus Sidekick. We still use that, and have a dedicated tripod plus Wimberly for using both long lenses at the same time.

I also think saying certain folks should not even consider a Sidekick goes too far. Consider lots of options, understand the tradeoffs, and make the right choice for *YOU*.

Consider someone who routinely wants to do either macro or landscape work on some walks, and bird work on other walks. It might be very reasonable for them to consider a Sidekick as a less expensive way to have a ball head for some walks and gimbal for others.

My wife has rather weak hands. She can add and remove a Sidekick. No way could she remove a head that was properly (tightly) attached, or attach one tightly enough. Yes, for the same reasons she has a bit of trouble attaching a 7 lb lens to the Sidekick - but that is just one of the many factors for her to consider.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Alan, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Most of them make lots of sense. I should have mentioned that on my IPTs over the years I have loaned a Mongoose head to about 200 folks who were using ballheads. About 197 of them bought one immediately. Many folks using either ballheads or ballhead/Sidekick combos aer simply ignorant of the light weight, elegant handling, and greater efficiency of a Mongoose. I am glad that you and your wife have found something that works for you both. At times I may generalize a bit too much

[Tony Whitehead]

With all due respect, I disagree. With any heavy telephoto there are only disadantages with a ball head. (I know; I used and recommended their use with big lenses out of ignorance for well more than a decade...)

You can learn more about the M3.5 here: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=30

For those doing serious landscape work with smaller lenses, we recommend a good pan-tilt head.

All ballheads feature ballhead flop. Period.

Not sure that there is too much that we disagree on here, Artie. I suggested gimbals (which I assume includes the Mongoose) as the safest and best option for long lenses. I prefer a ballhead for wideangle landscape work as it requires only one knob to lock off in comparison to 2 controls on a pan and tilt - purely personal preference. I think this link of yours covers and illustrates the pros and cons of different heads for different purposes.
https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=59

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Tony, Thanks for the links and you are of course correct. Though I know that a pan tilt head has the edge for serious landscape folks I go with the tiny Giottos ballhead for its small size and convenience (though nobody would ever confuse me with a serious landscape photographer!) It seemed that you were saying that using a ballhead with a big lens was OK if you are going to lock the tripod down. I would still choose to disagree with that

[Agris Krusts]

I probably do not have such big experience as others but prefer using ballhead for landscape and macro work as well as when using big lens with ground pod. It is much easier to level the rig. For tripod work with big lenses a gimbal head is the best option.

[Pao Dolina]

But in any case Pao, if you are strange like me and do find yourself constantly switching from telephoto stuff to macro or landscape during the same shooting session, I find the RRS BH-55 head with a Sidekick to be a great combo.

If not, then you have lots of good advice from everyone else.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

As much as I wish I were as strange as you the weight of the gear I carry forces me to be a one lens/body guy. I just went island hoping from Mactan Island to the Olango Wildlife Sanctuary on Olango Island (both in the Philippines) and walking around under a hot sun by the shore is crazy. Good thing the park ranger allowed me to store my lens trekker in their office sans the camera gear. 13 kilograms on once's back is crazy weight.

[robkipp]

For those doing serious landscape work with smaller lenses, we recommend a good pan-tilt head.

All ballheads feature ballhead flop. Period.

Hello Art Morris,

In reading you reply above, I am a landscape photographer and very much have interest in a good video head for Landscape photography which has pan/tilt feature as noted by you above. I am sure their are some good ones out there, but I have no ideas which one it might be.

If you could suggest a good Professional Landscape video head, that would be appreciated. By the way, I just ordered a large Kirk ball head that has a small collar you snap in it to prevent Camera ball head flop.

Rob Kipp

[Arthur Morris]

Hello Rob Kipp,

I have no knowledge in that area. Try posting the question in Photography Gear. I believe that the collar that you mention does prevent ball head flop but it also prevents you from using your ball head... In other words, it only prevents a big lens from flopping when the collar is in place and that prevents any movement of the ball. What is the biggest lens that you will be using on the ballhead?

[robkipp]

Hello Rob Kipp,

I have no knowledge in that area. Try posting the question in Photography Gear. I believe that the collar that you mention does prevent ball head flop but it also prevents you from using your ball head... In other words, it only prevents a big lens from flopping when the collar is in place and that prevents any movement of the ball. What is the biggest lens that you will be using on the ballhead?

Hello Arthur,

I will post a question on the Photography Gear forum and thank you for directing me there and being honest about it. You are correct about the Ball head "snap collar". I believe it is more used during carrying (transporting) the camera and lens with ball head on tripod. Seems easy enough to use and appears to work.

I appreciate your help, thank you.
Rob Kipp

[Andy Wai]

[...] I am a landscape photographer and very much have interest in a good video head for Landscape photography which has pan/tilt feature as noted by you above.[...]

So are you specifically looking for a video head (as in fluid head), or are you really looking for a pan/tilt head? If it's the former, I don't know much. If it's the latter, I understanding a lot of the large format landscape people are using geared head these days. Most of them have captive knobs so there is no seperate locks. They stay put as soon as you take your hand off.

As for models, the Arca Swiss C1 is in the stratospheric price range. The Manfrotto 410 and its big brother 405 are much more reasonable. I use a Manfrotto 410 in my studio. I no longer use view camera now, but to give you an idea of the 410's strength, it can handle a 2x3 view camera with ease. 4x5 is also Ok as long as you keep the camera orientation reasonable, e.g. not pointing straight down.

Andy

[Aravind Krishnaswamy]

Don't mean to hijack, but a quick question for Art. If you are getting good results with the Mongoose 3.5 with your 800 (and presumably the 500 as well) is there a use for the Wimberley head? The 600 maybe? I ask because I'm debating selling my Wimberley for the Mongoose (entire for the space and weight savings).

[Nancy A Elwood]

I would love the Mongoose if I could place my 500 and D300 with MD on right side up, not sideways. For me, with smaller hands, and I did try a friends sidekick, it just feels too uncomfortable for me. If you feel comfortable holding your large telephoto lens with one hand and lifting it into position, than the Mongoose looks great.

[Arthur Morris]

Don't mean to hijack, but a quick question for Art. If you are getting good results with the Mongoose 3.5 with your 800 (and presumably the 500 as well) is there a use for the Wimberley head? The 600 maybe? I ask because I'm debating selling my Wimberley for the Mongoose (entire for the space and weight savings).

Hi Aravnid,

Good question. We recommend the Wimberley V2 for fall olks using a 600 f/4 or that 300-800 monster and, in addition, for anyone who is not capable of supporting their rig safely and comfortably with their right hand/arm for about 20-30 seconds. You need to be able to do that while mounting the lens on any side-mounting gimbal head.

[Bruce Miller]

Novice questions, but one I must ask...

Why not use the mongoose with the a small lens for landscape use?

Also, can I use the mongoose (2.3) with my leica 62mm spotting scope (very light)? Really the second use of my tripod (yea some times I just look).

Ok one more. My wife uses the canon 100MM macro. Can she use (when I'm not) the mongoose 2.3?

I have a super heavy old manofrotto 468.

[James Shadle]

To use the Mongoose(or any true Gimbal), you need to use a lens with a tripod collar that rotates.
That is the only way to change from a vertical to horizontal orientation.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Bruce,

re:

Why not use the mongoose with the a small lens for landscape use?

It can be done but it is a huge hassle. We recommend that folks carry the tiny Giotto's ballhead in their vest if they do small lens landscape photography. Here is a link: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=59

Also, can I use the mongoose (2.3) with my leica 62mm spotting scope (very light)? Really the second use of my tripod (yea some times I just look).

Yes, as long as you have an Arca-Swiss compatible plate on the scope--this would most likely be a Wimberley P-20 plate.

Ok one more. My wife uses the canon 100MM macro. Can she use the Mongoose 2.3?

Does it have a tripod collar or do you need to mount the camera?

I have a super heavy old manofrotto 468.

Keep visiting this thread: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...2&goto=newpost

[Bruce Miller]

Artie, Thanks for answering all my questions. The 100mm Macro does not have a collar, so I have to get one or find a different solution. Would the tiny Giotto's ballhead be a good choice for macro?


My wife and I frequently go out shooting together, her with the 100Macro and me with the 100-400. We both mostly hand hold, but I am trying to get away from that and use a tripod more. There are times when she might like to use a tripod too. I’d like to come up with a solution short of having two complete (separate) tripod systems. So carrying the small ballhead might work.

Bruce

[Bruce Miller]

More novice questions, sorry...

I currently am using a bogen 468 (old style and heavy). I am shooting a 40D w/ 100-400.

I never lock the ball head down, except when I am "not" shooting. I keep the tension fairly tight, but loose enough to follow those little birds around. Am I really wacked in how I am using this head?

With a mongoose, does the tripod have to be perfectly level?

[Nancy A Elwood]

Artie, Thanks for answering all my questions. The 100mm Macro does not have a collar, so I have to get one or find a different solution. Would the tiny Giotto's ballhead be a good choice for macro?


My wife and I frequently go out shooting together, her with the 100Macro and me with the 100-400. We both mostly hand hold, but I am trying to get away from that and use a tripod more. There are times when she might like to use a tripod too. I’d like to come up with a solution short of having two complete (separate) tripod systems. So carrying the small ballhead might work.

Bruce

Bruce a ballhead is just fine for macro work and that lens. Also, I think a splash out on another tripod, so that you and your wife will have one makes sense. I have my tripod set up just for me and would not particularly like to keep having to share and readjust things. The small ballhead Artie speaks of would work fine for most things. But, you could have one tripod with the ballhead and the other with the Mongoose and your 100-400.

[Arthur Morris]

Bruce,

re:

Artie, Thanks for answering all my questions.

YAW

The 100mm Macro does not have a collar, so I have to get one or find a different solution. Would the tiny Giotto's ballhead be a good choice for macro?

Yes with lenses that do not have a collar. I use my M2.3 or my M3.5 Mongoose with my 180 macro.


My wife and I frequently go out shooting together, her with the 100Macro and me with the 100-400. We both mostly hand hold, but I am trying to get away from that and use a tripod more.

Good plan.

There are times when she might like to use a tripod too. I’d like to come up with a solution short of having two complete (separate) tripod systems. So carrying the small ballhead might work.

One Mongoose and one tiny ballhead might be perfect.

Sorry to have been so tardy in getting back to you.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Again Bruce,

re:

More novice questions, sorry... I currently am using a bogen 468 (old style and heavy). I am shooting a 40D w/ 100-400. I never lock the ball head down, except when I am "not" shooting. I keep the tension fairly tight, but loose enough to follow those little birds around. Am I really wacked in how I am using this head?

Not at all. It is never possible to lock the tripod head down when photographing songbirds.

With a mongoose, does the tripod have to be perfectly level?

No. You simply rotate the lens in the tripod collar to get square to the world. As described in either ABP or ABP II the only time that I level the tripod platform by adjusting the lens is when I will be doing flight photography from the same spot for an extended period of time when I know that I will not be moving the tripod at all.

[Rocky Sharwell]

Artie, Thanks for answering all my questions. The 100mm Macro does not have a collar, so I have to get one or find a different solution. Would the tiny Giotto's ballhead be a good choice for macro?


My wife and I frequently go out shooting together, her with the 100Macro and me with the 100-400. We both mostly hand hold, but I am trying to get away from that and use a tripod more. There are times when she might like to use a tripod too. I’d like to come up with a solution short of having two complete (separate) tripod systems. So carrying the small ballhead might work.

Bruce

Bruce,
Do you by any chance have the Canon 400F5.6
I am almost sure the Canon 100mm Macro uses the same collar as the Canon 400F5.6--I would check it myself but I cannot find the collar at the moment.

[Ken Crites]

Upgrade potential? I have a 400 f/5.6 now with the 1D mk3. I am thinking about getting the M2.3 if I can find one, but I am also considering upgrading to the 500 f/4 next year and currently rent one on occasion. Does it make sense to go with the M3.5 now and save the trouble of upgrading the mongoose as well next year?

[Pao Dolina]

I'd buy right the first time. :)

[Arthur Morris]

Upgrade potential? I have a 400 f/5.6 now with the 1D mk3. I am thinking about getting the M2.3 if I can find one, but I am also considering upgrading to the 500 f/4 next year and currently rent one on occasion. Does it make sense to go with the M3.5 now and save the trouble of upgrading the mongoose as well next year?

If you might be headed for a 500 I would go with the M3.5b now. We are trying to buy the remainder of the M2.3 that will be assembled... Too bad they are gonna let that one go. We have the 3.5B in stock and will soon have one or two M2.3s...