I used to be a member of the bag of the club, I have finally meet someone is a member of the tripod head of the month club
Bh-55 or bh-40 head
- Thread starter BrianBirch
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
To me that looks nicer than the flexshooter people seem to like so much. I think that might be the way to go for a pan/tilt head.
Am I missing something?
Rogereh
Active member
Well w
So do you want to talk about bags?
Well, we are actually talking about 60+ years of collecting equipment. I'm 75 and been shooting since I was around 10. More like Tripod head (and most photography items) of the Decades Club...I used to be a member of the bag of the club, I have finally meet someone is a member of the tripod head of the month club
So do you want to talk about bags?Calson
Well-known member
I prefer the Kirk ballheads for general use and with the Wimberley Sidekick their BH-3 was able to handle the 200-500mm lens with ease. For a 500mm f/4 lens I needed the BH-1 ballhead. For landscape photography nothing compares to the Arca-Swiss D4 GPin performance and overall design and build quality.
I tried the BH-40 but found it was not easy to operate with gloves on and that is important to me for my own use. The BH-55 has the same limitations which is why I use Kirk balleads and the D4 GP instead.
I tried the BH-40 but found it was not easy to operate with gloves on and that is important to me for my own use. The BH-55 has the same limitations which is why I use Kirk balleads and the D4 GP instead.
I was put on a 12 step program to break the habit. I still have too many bags (backups just in case or ordered the same bag because I forgot I ordered it or could not find it). Mostly now try not to let equipment too out of hand (just a little).Well w
Well, we are actually talking about 60+ years of collecting equipment. I'm 75 and been shooting since I was around 10. More like Tripod head (and most photography items) of the Decades Club...
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
I am not a salesman and it sounds like you are happy with your setup. That said, I think you would like the BH55 while wearing gloves especially with a lever release. It has a giant knob for the head, and a fine adjustment knob that is flattened out a bit and easy to turn.
Like I said not trying to push anything...
One comment on load limits. They are good for comparing within a brand, but it's a relative comparison. There is no standard for what a load limit actual means or how it is tested, so you can't place much value on a load limit for two brands with unknown testing methods. The RRS tripod heads and legs will support the weight of an adult male - and there are videos of the company's owner being fully supported by their ballheads. The reality is the weak point in a kit is usually the smallest leg section. The top of the line tripods are normally going to be great in terms of clamping power. Balance will vary - when you overload a small ballhead its a lot more work.
Roy
Well-known member
I'm not a fan of ballheads - especially on long glass.
Although I do also use a BH-55 in the studio and landscape, Its not worth its weight for wildlife and a gimbal head works better.
I wonder if some ball head manufacturers have a method to measure or estimate their load limit. Or do they simply guess or even Pull It Out Of Thin Air (perhaps part of their body)>
I wonder if some ball head manufacturers have a method to measure or estimate their load limit. Or do they simply guess or even Pull It Out Of Thin Air (perhaps part of their body)>
Each of them does have a method. I think I recall RRS used a 50 pound weight mounted perpendicular to the camera plate - completely off axis. It supported the weight with no problem and that far exceeded any gear combination, so they called it a day. They don't test maximum weight.
I've seen others that don't post the weight off axis - it's posted in a normal orientation. So yes - it supports a given weight, but it's largely related to balance and does not stress clamping power or stability.
jhorsch
Active member
I use BH-55 with (heavy) Nkion 200-500 - steady as a rock. Get it.
Roybon
Member
Sorry to raise an old thread,
does anyone of you have used a BH-40 on a 500 f/4 ? I do have a BH-55 right now, and I would like to reduce weight wherever possible in the backpack (mountain hiking in my case) ? thanks
does anyone of you have used a BH-40 on a 500 f/4 ? I do have a BH-55 right now, and I would like to reduce weight wherever possible in the backpack (mountain hiking in my case) ? thanks
Roy
Well-known member
Ball heads work well on shorter lenses.
Although the 200-500 isn't really huge - I use a gimble head with lenses of this size or larger ...
It will work, but not very well. The lens is both big and heavy. You can use the BH-40 with other lenses, but it's really not enough for a large lens like that. I have the 200-400 f/4 which is the same size, and I don't like it on the BH-40. Using a Sidekick or similar gimbal attachment could improve handling since the balance issue is removed, but then it is not centered on your tripod legs. I've used a similar setup in the past with a 4th Generation Design Companion, but that product is no longer produced. It was essentially a flat plate with a swivel clamp and was very light (half the weight of a Sidekick).
For mountain hiking, I'd look at a replacement lens - 400 f/4.5, 500mm PF, or 600mm PF. All of those would save more weight and work on a light ballhead. You could add a 1.4 TC and possibly the 26mm f/2.8 if you shoot the Z cameras.
Roybon
Member
Thank you Eric, I'll keep my BH-55 or Wimberley Gimbal head, both are heavy but well, no compromise on pictures... well I guess I would need to remove other stuff from the backpack, unfortunately, I don't have plan to buy new lens.
This is going to be a rather thorough response.
The ball head and gimbal serve significantly different purposes. The ball head is useful for any still photography where absolute lack of motion is important. I have used a ball head for the following:
-Macro photography
-Focus shift shooting of all kinds
-Night and astrophotography involving long exposure times
-All sorts of special effect photography to show moving lights, moving water, etc as a motion stream
Ball heads are by nature cumbersome to work because they can move easily out of position when loosened. Getting them in the proper position can be cumbersome. quality ball heads have larger balls and better quality knobs which allow easier and more precise control. The BH-55 is a significantly better and easier to use ball head and it is very stable and long lasting. The only drawback with this unit is that it is bigger and weighs more. Definitely get the 55 well worth it. I have had a BN-55 for at least 15 years and I love it.
Gimbals serve a completely different purpose. They are intended primarily to support and stabilize longer focal length lenses. They feature the ability to allow quick and easy adjustment of lens position to track moving subjects. An excellent and well-adjusted gimbal will hold its position without the need to clamp down with a knob This is particularly useful for wildlife or sports where a likely position for a shot is found but a lot of waiting is needed for predicted action to happen. The photographer can stand by and the lens does not move maintaining the intended position on its own.
Several compromise solutions have been suggested here for combining a ball head with a gimbal function.
The classic gimbal is the Wimberly WH-200. It mounts directly onto a standard tripod screw base and would replace the ball head. I have and use one of these, I find its motion is incredibly smooth and easy with the longest of lenses. It also balances well and will hold lenses in position without the need to tighten a control knob. It also supports the camera/lens from underneath which I prefer. I have used side mount gimbals, I am always nervous with them that something may come loose.
It has been suggested getting the WH-200 with a quick release lever. The problem is the quick release lever for the 200 is no longer available so that option is not currently open. RRS makes a gimbal head that includes a quick release. It is significantly more expensive of course.
The Wimberley sidekick is also suggested. It allows you to attach a side mount gimbal mount to a ball head. I have not used one of these but I have used the Wimberley MH-100 which is recommended for monopod use. I presume it works the same. I find the 100 works fine as a gimbal and I use it on a monopod. The only issue is the side mount. I am perhaps paranoid but I feel more secure with the underneath mount. I live in fear that one day one of my expensive lenses will come loose and crash to the ground.
There have also been suggestions about getting the Flexshooter Pro which combines three functions in one, ball head, gimbal and leveling base. Frequently a level base is needed for video panning or a panorama photo series. You can physically level a tripod but a leveling base makes the process much quicker. The flexshooter performs all three functions and as a bonus offers a significant weight savings. They are however not cheap.
I looked into getting a flexshooter pro but I already have the WH 200 and a leveling base on my tripod. I read reviews indicating the flexshooter will not equal the Wimberley 200 in gimbal performance. In the end I could not justify the price and did not get it.
If you plan to travel by air a lot and want the savings of weight it might make sense to try the Flexshooter. I have soured on flying and would be happy if I never had to get on a plane again.
The ball head and gimbal serve significantly different purposes. The ball head is useful for any still photography where absolute lack of motion is important. I have used a ball head for the following:
-Macro photography
-Focus shift shooting of all kinds
-Night and astrophotography involving long exposure times
-All sorts of special effect photography to show moving lights, moving water, etc as a motion stream
Ball heads are by nature cumbersome to work because they can move easily out of position when loosened. Getting them in the proper position can be cumbersome. quality ball heads have larger balls and better quality knobs which allow easier and more precise control. The BH-55 is a significantly better and easier to use ball head and it is very stable and long lasting. The only drawback with this unit is that it is bigger and weighs more. Definitely get the 55 well worth it. I have had a BN-55 for at least 15 years and I love it.
Gimbals serve a completely different purpose. They are intended primarily to support and stabilize longer focal length lenses. They feature the ability to allow quick and easy adjustment of lens position to track moving subjects. An excellent and well-adjusted gimbal will hold its position without the need to clamp down with a knob This is particularly useful for wildlife or sports where a likely position for a shot is found but a lot of waiting is needed for predicted action to happen. The photographer can stand by and the lens does not move maintaining the intended position on its own.
Several compromise solutions have been suggested here for combining a ball head with a gimbal function.
The classic gimbal is the Wimberly WH-200. It mounts directly onto a standard tripod screw base and would replace the ball head. I have and use one of these, I find its motion is incredibly smooth and easy with the longest of lenses. It also balances well and will hold lenses in position without the need to tighten a control knob. It also supports the camera/lens from underneath which I prefer. I have used side mount gimbals, I am always nervous with them that something may come loose.
It has been suggested getting the WH-200 with a quick release lever. The problem is the quick release lever for the 200 is no longer available so that option is not currently open. RRS makes a gimbal head that includes a quick release. It is significantly more expensive of course.
The Wimberley sidekick is also suggested. It allows you to attach a side mount gimbal mount to a ball head. I have not used one of these but I have used the Wimberley MH-100 which is recommended for monopod use. I presume it works the same. I find the 100 works fine as a gimbal and I use it on a monopod. The only issue is the side mount. I am perhaps paranoid but I feel more secure with the underneath mount. I live in fear that one day one of my expensive lenses will come loose and crash to the ground.
There have also been suggestions about getting the Flexshooter Pro which combines three functions in one, ball head, gimbal and leveling base. Frequently a level base is needed for video panning or a panorama photo series. You can physically level a tripod but a leveling base makes the process much quicker. The flexshooter performs all three functions and as a bonus offers a significant weight savings. They are however not cheap.
I looked into getting a flexshooter pro but I already have the WH 200 and a leveling base on my tripod. I read reviews indicating the flexshooter will not equal the Wimberley 200 in gimbal performance. In the end I could not justify the price and did not get it.
If you plan to travel by air a lot and want the savings of weight it might make sense to try the Flexshooter. I have soured on flying and would be happy if I never had to get on a plane again.