Balls!

[gordon g]

I currently use a manfrotto 3 way head (cant remember the number - it's very old) for general photography on manfrotto 055 legs ,and a 393 'gimbal' head with my sigma 500mm f4.5. My camera body is a 1DsII, so all in all it's a heavy load for the head.
I have been looking around for a head which could do a reasonable job at everything, and have seen various ball heads. I have a manfrotto focussing rail for macro that I'd like to be able to mount on a QR plate for ease of use, and it does fit well on the QR plate of the 393 - but unfortunately at right angles to the orientation of the supports.
I have seen the 486 ball head with the same QR assembly as the 393. Would this do for general photography, as well as macro with the focussing rail, and also be OK with the big lens? (I'd probably keep the 393 for dedicated birding/wildlife trips, but for more varied days/trips away a single head would be a lot more convenient)

[yelvertoft]

Gordon,

I have the 486RC2 head, I use it on my monopod where a ball head is ideal. For macro work, I'd steer clear of a ball head, they are just to uncontrollable as they move in all orientations at the same time. I have only used the ball head with a big lens on my monopod at airshows where you are panning with the ball head fixed (pivoting around the single foot). For use with a big lens and a tripod, I'd imagine it's a bit tricky keeping the direction you're pointing under control.

I have different heads on my monopod and tripod (and scope for that matter, sometimes used for digiscoping, but not often these days), each has a different purpose, each head is better suited for the job it has to do. They all have the RC2 QR plate though.

Duncan

[postcardcv]

I have one of these Manfrotto ball heads and use it for portrait and product shots, as well as the odd macro. I have tried mounting a long lens on a ball head, the head holds the weight without any problem, but it was not easy to control. I'd stick with the 393 for long lens work, it's more than capable of handling the load. You could alwasy buy a quick release adapter for one of your heads so that you don't need to swap plates.

[Gidders]

I'm with Duncan on this one. I have the same 486RC2 ball head which I also use on my monopod, or on my tripod when I want to pan. But for macro work I have a 804RC2 three way head which gives separate control of each plane of movement. Both use the same QR plate which I leave on the camera permanently

[gordon g]

Thanks for the opinions so far. So the consensus is ballheads are good for general stuff - landscapes, portraiture etc, can take the weight of a big lens but are hard to control, and are a bit of a pain for macro.
Does anyone have any experience of geared heads - they would seem great for macro, landscape etc, but obviously not good for anything needing quick adjustments. Cant you disengage the gears on some, giving you in effect a heavy duty 3 way head? That might be ok for occasional wildlife use, though as Peter suggests, the 393 is fine when I know I will only be doing long lens stuff.

[yelvertoft]

Gordon, I'd disagree that balls are good for landscapes, again, they are just too difficult to control. I've never done portrait so can't say from first hand experience but would suggest this is the same. You can't move just one plane at a time with a ball. Straightening a horizon whilst keeping the composition you want in a landscape using a ball head can be frustrating.

For general stuff, go with a three way head such as the 804RC2 Clive uses, or the 460RC2 I use. The 804 is quite a bit sturdier but the 460 is considerably more compact and easier to pack. These are not ideal for fast moving long lens wildlife work where a pan/tilt head such as the 128RC is well suited - I digiscope now and again with one of these. It's also half the price of the 393.

I'm sure geared heads are great for super fine adjustment, close in macro, but I've never found I can't get the finesse I need doing some very close work with the 460. Unless you want to specialise in macro/still life I'd suggest a geared head is overkill.

[gordon g]

It's hard finding the right compromise. What I want is a single head which will be good for landscape and macro, but can handle the long lens on occasions. I intend to keep the 393 for wildlife sessions with the long lens, but dont really want to carry two heads on trips away when I'm likely to be doing a variety of subjects, or on long days out in the hills, when again, I might well be using the full range from 17mm to 500mm lenses.
After posting yesterday, I went back to the manfrotto website, and in the light of all your advice looked harder at the 3-way heads. There are some that look like they would handle the long lens in terms of weight. The 229 would easily cope, but is quite heavy, so the 329RC4 looks it might be worth a look. The combined weight of my heaviest combo - 1DsII, sigma 500 and 2*TC is a little under 5kg, and the 329 is rated at 9kg capacity.
I think I might have found the general purpose head I was looking for. Thanks for all your advice everyone. All I need to do now is find one I can test!

[Don Hoey]

I have a geared head Manfrotto 405 and just love it .......... in a home/studio environment attatched to my big Slik tripod.

When I got it I was so impressed I took it on a day trip.
My tripod for the ocassion 055 mag fibre so not heavy, with the head mounted slipped out of the car and fell all of 16 inches onto the ground landing on the QR plate release. The impact was sufficient to damage the gears on the vertical orientation. After a 50 quid repair bill this head now stays at home.

Don

[gordon g]

Ouch! I must admit, my gear does get heavily used - I'm the only person I know to have worn through the foot of a tripod - so delicate gearing probably shouldnt be in my kit bag!