Cons for RSS / Kirk / Acra ball heads

jcdill

Yes, I searched this forum and read several previous threads on this subject, but I still can't decide!

I have the Kirk L-Plate for the Mark2 as well as a flat plate for my 70-200 lens. I also occasionally rent longer lenses (100-400, 300, perhaps the 500 some day). Tomorrow I'm going to make my decision which ball head to buy, and buy or order it. I'm considering:

Kirk BH1 - #50 capacity, $355, free shipping (thru Monday), 2 week shipping delay (they are built to order)

RSS BH55 LR - #50 capacity, $455 plus shipping, possible ~1 week shipping delay (based on a recent thread from July 2008 - ordered on July 1 and received on July 10).

RSS BH40 LR II - #18 capacity (conservative rating), $390 plus shipping, possible ~1 week shipping delay (based on a recent thread from July 2008 - ordered on July 1 and received on July 10).

I haven't picked which model Acratech I should consider vs the above heads. I'd love suggestions! One big advantage is I can walk in and buy one at Calumet or Keeble & Shuchatt and not have to wait for delivery. :-)

I've read reviews and discussion posts, and everyone seems to love the head they bought. What I need to hear is what you don't love - about the head you bought or about the one you passed on. What are the CONS?

Thanks!

pathfinder

jcdill wrote:

Yes, I searched this forum and read several previous threads on this subject, but I still can't decide!

I have the Kirk L-Plate for the Mark2 as well as a flat plate for my 70-200 lens. I also occasionally rent longer lenses (100-400, 300, perhaps the 500 some day). Tomorrow I'm going to make my decision which ball head to buy, and buy or order it. I'm considering:

Kirk BH1 - #50 capacity, $355, free shipping (thru Monday), 2 week shipping delay (they are built to order)

RSS BH55 LR - #50 capacity, $455 plus shipping, possible ~1 week shipping delay (based on a recent thread from July 2008 - ordered on July 1 and received on July 10).

RSS BH40 LR II - #18 capacity (conservative rating), $390 plus shipping, possible ~1 week shipping delay (based on a recent thread from July 2008 - ordered on July 1 and received on July 10).

I haven't picked which model Acratech I should consider vs the above heads. I'd love suggestions! One big advantage is I can walk in and buy one at Calumet or Keeble & Shuchatt and not have to wait for delivery. :-)

I've read reviews and discussion posts, and everyone seems to love the head they bought. What I need to hear is what you don't love - about the head you bought or about the one you passed on. What are the CONS?

Thanks!

My wife, Nightingale uses an Acratech ball head and loves it. I envy her its lighter weight when hiking uphill. But she rarely uses a lens larger than a Sigma 120-300 f2.8. I think the Acratech head is really a little light for anything heavier than a typical 70-200 f2.8 myself.

I have both the RRS BH-40 and the BH-55. For general shooting the BH-40 is adequate - That is what I took overseas to Mull and I shot tons of panos with a 5D and a 24T&S.

The BH-55 is heavier, and a joy to use. Smooth to adjust, and rock solid once locked down. It really is one of those pieces of gear that you will not need to replace. You will still be using it long after your present camera is history. Mine looks like it has been rattling around in the bed of a pick up for the past year, and works just like it did when it was new. The BH-55 really comes into its own when used with a Sidekick for a 500 f4 or a 300 f2.8

All three items are excellent. To me, the BH-40 is my main head, unless I am using long glass, then the heavier BBH-55 rules.

jcdill

pathfinder wrote:

All three items are excellent. To me, the BH-40 is my main head, unless I am using long glass, then the heavier BBH-55 rules.

Thanks, this was really helpful!

If you had *just* the BH-40, would you feel OK (not perfect, but OK) using a longer/heavier telephoto with that head? I don't own anything longer than the 70-200 f2.8 right now, but as I mentioned above I intend to rent the 300mm, 100-400mm and larger lenses occasionally (e.g. 2-3 times a year). In your opinion, will I run into any serious problems using those lenses with the BH-40 - for occasional use?

gryphonslair99

If you are looking for a good ball head that will handle heavy/long glass then take a look at the Burzynski.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/burzynski.html

Hold onto your wallet though. It is expensive.

Andy

jcdill wrote:

Thanks, this was really helpful!

If you had *just* the BH-40, would you feel OK (not perfect, but OK) using a longer/heavier telephoto with that head? I don't own anything longer than the 70-200 f2.8 right now, but as I mentioned above I intend to rent the 300mm, 100-400mm and larger lenses occasionally (e.g. 2-3 times a year). In your opinion, will I run into any serious problems using those lenses with the BH-40 - for occasional use?

RRS is VERY upfront about this. It'll do fine with a 300mm or 100-400 from time to time.

No need for the BH55 unless you are using those longer/heavier lenses every day.

jcdill

Andy wrote:

RRS is VERY upfront about this. It'll do fine with a 300mm or 100-400 from time to time.

No need for the BH55 unless you are using those longer/heavier lenses every day.

Thanks Andy, I read what RSS had to say but wanted to hear how people who have one or the other (or both) have found it to work in real life.

What ball heads do you have, which one do you use most often?

dancorder

When I was choosing my tripod head about a 1 year ago RRS had a warning that their lever clamps (which I believe is what the LR in the name means) aren't guaranteed to work with Kirk plates (I have one on my camera). I would check whether this is still the case, if it is I think you'll either need to get a head with a screw clamp (what I got) or get some different plates.

The reason was that although the clamps and plates use the same dovetail shape, for a lever clamp the precise size of the dovetail on the plate matters as the lever can only move to one fixed closed position. With a screw clamp you have an infinite number of closed positions.

Andy

jcdill wrote:

What ball heads do you have, which one do you use most often?

BH-40, have owned the BH55 it's not worth the extra 1+ lb. to me.

Ric Grupe

I use a BH-40 for a 1DMKIIN and a 400 DO IS and find it adequate...not rock solid but good enough. Anything smaller...100-400...70-200 f 2.8 IS...300 f/4...etc...it holds very well. Nice and light and extremely well made. I wish everything I bought was this quality. Very refreshing in this world of promises not lived up to.

jcdill

Ric Grupe wrote:

I use a BH-40 for a 1DMKIIN and a 400 DO IS and find it adequate...not rock solid but good enough. Anything smaller...100-400...70-200 f 2.8 IS...300 f/4...etc...it holds very well. Nice and light and extremely well made. I wish everything I bought was this quality. Very refreshing in this world of promises not lived up to.

Thanks Ric, and Andy, and everyone else upthread, for all your comments. They were ALL very helpful, and exactly the type of info I was hoping to receive!

stuffjunkie

jcdill wrote:

Yes, I searched this forum and read several previous threads on this subject, but I still can't decide!


I haven't picked which model Acratech I should consider vs the above heads. I'd love suggestions! One big advantage is I can walk in and buy one at Calumet or Keeble & Shuchatt and not have to wait for delivery. :-)

Thanks!

I have not used the RRS ball heads. I have several of their lens plates and L bracket stuff. Top notch product!

I went with the Acratech GV2 when it first came out. I liked the idea of being able to use the gimbal feature on occasion. I have used it with an old MF 300 f/2.8 and it works fine. For something heavier I'd want something more rigid (I'd need a bigger tripod too). I'm happy with the Acratech it's light and smooth fro what I'm doing now.

davidweaver

I really like the BH-55 with the quick release. I got it over the 40 as I wanted something that would handle future heavier lenses. It is also a joy to work with in a studio with a small lens on it too. I really like the large knob on it. My Ex bought it for me for when we were married as a gift so I didn't feel it in my wallet. I saved that special feeling for the divorce.

rpcrowe

Although I do like ball heads....
And I use an Arca Compatible ball head for a lot of my shooting. However, I am not a great fan of the ball head for following fast moving subjects like race cars or hydroplane boats. I am a great fan of the Manfrotto 3421 (or whatever the heck Manfrotto wants to call this rig now) gimbal head. This head works great either on a sturdy tripod or on a good monopod such as the Manfrotto 681 or 681B. It can handle very heavy loads and can be balanced so that you can move it with finger pressure. At about $183 (with a lens plate), it is the least expensive of the gimbal type tripod mounts. These two sites show the uses of this gimbal mount.

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/manfrotto_393/393_1.html

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone

By the way, another good way to follow moving subjects is with a good and heavy duty fluid head. O'Connor makes excellent ones (like the 30 and 50 models) but they are very pricey and the O'Connor Model 50 is extremely heavy since it is designed for 16mm motion picture cameras. You can pick up a used heavy duty Manfrotto fluid head on eBay usually for well under a hundred bucks. When I use a fluid head to follow moving subjects, I tape a remote release to the pan handle of the head. This makes an excellent setup. After all "panning" is what pan heads are made for and fluid heads give very smooth pans. Many photographers don't consider these for still photography because they are pretty useless for still subjects - especially still subjects that require minute adjustments. However, every piece of equipment doesn't need to be good for every use.

ziggy53

rpcrowe wrote:

...

By the way, another good way to follow moving subjects is with a good and heavy duty fluid head. O'Connor makes excellent ones (like the 30 and 50 models) but they are very pricey and the O'Connor Model 50 is extremely heavy since it is designed for 16mm motion picture cameras. You can pick up a used heavy duty Manfrotto fluid head on eBay usually for well under a hundred bucks. When I use a fluid head to follow moving subjects, I tape a remote release to the pan handle of the head. This makes an excellent setup. After all "panning" is what pan heads are made for and fluid heads give very smooth pans. Many photographers don't consider these for still photography because they are pretty useless for still subjects - especially still subjects that require minute adjustments. However, every piece of equipment doesn't need to be good for every use.

I found that to be my experience as well:

ziggy53 wrote:

Bucking the popular trend, I like using a full tripod and a video fluid head instead of IS. To get the full benefit of IS the lens needs to "settle" for 1/2 second or so before the shot. There were many times when that was not possible. With the tripod the settle time is nil and stability is fantastic. The camera and lens are always up and I keep the lens pointed at the action. It still gets tiring after a full game but nothing like trying to hold a camera and lens up the full game. Keeping the camera level is another benefit. A monopod is a useful alternative to a tripod.

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=836355&postcount=4

geospatial_junkie

I have the Acratech GV2 and it is awesome! Highly recommend it.