RRS or Gitzo high-end head, narrowed down to two specific choices

RovingEyePhoto

I have another string going regarding tripod legs and heads, but this is dealing only with heads. I've narrowed down between Gitzo Center Ball line xx780 (not to be confused with its Classic Center Ball line xx77/78) and the Really Right Stuff line. I've read brochure material till blue in the face, would be big help to hear what actual owners/users think. It's been my experience that both names ensure stellar quality, ridiculous prices certainly suggest it, so that's assumed. Real battle, then, comes down to weight, load capacity, features, and usability (the last being the tough one, touch/feel/flexibility/ease). Gitzo's hollow ball (amazing tech!) seems to give it a sizable weight advantage as well as load-capacity-relative-to-weight advantage. And its 4-leveling bubbles when coupled with quick release (fourth in stem, neat trick) seems mighty useful, and it's large diameter locking knob possibly easier in the fingers. RRS, however, seems to score by having plates designed for specific camera bodies, so "cup" the body to avoid any possible loosening and twist of plate against body. And its lever operated QR system seems to allow easier access/removal to/from clamp. A big part of my problem is that I've never much used tripods, my work is mostly hand-held on-the-fly, and only heads I've ever had were cheapie three-way models (not ball nd not quick-release), so am having trouble separating fact from hype. I have seen others using both Gitzo and RRS heads over the years (although never the newer Gitzo xx780 model), so physically can relate to them, but when comes to usability (touch/feel/flexibility/ease), I'm mostly in the cold. In terms of pure weight/capacity/features, the Gitzo seems to have the advantage, but in terms of actual use I just don't know. Both are at prices that are ridiculous, but I have the dough set aside and determined to spend it, one of those pamper-myself deals, so just trying to gain first-hand knowledge here to tilt me the right way.

My equipment is Oly E-3 (about same weight as D-300 or 50D I think). I shoot mostly wide and macro, so no out-sized lenses. If I do eventually succomb to long, largest I expect will be Zuiko's 50-200 (equiv 100-400), f/2.8-3.5, about 1,000 grams (2.2 lbs). Always a possibility down the road I'd swithch to fullsize sensor Canon or Nikon, not that much invested at this point in 4/3 lenses, and lots of fullsize-sensor models beginning to show themselves with undoubtedly more to come, so certainly looking for margin in load capacity, can't say I'm forever married to 4/3, although relative weight/speed advantages still have me singing. That's part of the fun of the sport, the future's always a mystery, the treasure hunt never ends.

Thanks for taking the time to read, and even more for responding. My guess is I can't go wrong either way, but DigGrin input has been very helpful in the past, hoping it can make a difference again. Always best to come away with that proud feeling accompanying a choice based on practical use/function considerations rather than just numbers and hype.

Andy

RRS BH-40

kdog

Simple answer is that Gitzo tripod legs and RRS ball-heads are pretty universally accepted as being best of breed. Gitzo ballheads on the other hand? I've never seen anyone using one, nor have I seen one reviewed. In fact I've never seen them discussed before in this forum before, or any other forum. Now maybe folks who are using them will chime in here and set me straight. We'll see.

Knowing nothing about the Gitzo hollow ball, intuitively the idea doesn't seem so hot to me. Yes, it might save a pound. But in interference-fit mechanical devices, mass almost always equals smoothness. I myself use an RRS BH55 on Gitzo 3530 ESV legs. The smoothness of the BH55 is simply astounding and makes me happy every time I use it.

I did google for some Gitzo ballhead reviews, and found one that called the movement "herky-jerky".
Link: http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/tripods/tripod-heads-and-accessories/gitzo/PRD_83948_3134crx.aspx
Granted, that's not the exact model you mention. However, you'll never see anybody call any of the RRS ballheads "herky jerky". To me, that would be wasted money.

But if the value and the design seems good to you, then go for it and let us know how you like it. Just remember, "you can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs."

Scott_Quier

Andy wrote:

RRS BH-45

Andy - am I missing something? Based on this clear statement I went looking for the BH-45. The RSS site does not list it, just the 55, 40, and 25. Using their search engine for the 45 also came up empty.

Help - please

Richard

Scott_Quier wrote:

Andy - am I missing something? Based on this clear statement I went looking for the BH-45. The RSS site does not list it, just the 55, 40, and 25. Using their search engine for the 45 also came up empty.

Help - please

Andy's always ahead of the curve.

Andy

BH-40 not 45

RovingEyePhoto

kdog wrote:

Simple answer is that Gitzo tripod legs and RRS ball-heads are pretty universally accepted as being best of breed. Gitzo ballheads on the other hand? I've never seen anyone using one, nor have I seen one reviewed. In fact I've never seen them discussed before in this forum before, or any other forum. Now maybe folks who are using them will chime in here and set me straight. We'll see.

Knowing nothing about the Gitzo hollow ball, intuitively the idea doesn't seem so hot to me. Yes, it might save a pound. But in interference-fit mechanical devices, mass almost always equals smoothness. I myself use an RRS BH55 on Gitzo 3530 ESV legs. The smoothness of the BH55 is simply astounding and makes me happy every time I use it.

I did google for some Gitzo ballhead reviews, and found one that called the movement "herky-jerky".
Link: http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/tripods/tripod-heads-and-accessories/gitzo/PRD_83948_3134crx.aspx
Granted, that's not the exact model you mention. However, you'll never see anybody call any of the RRS ballheads "herky jerky". To me, that would be wasted money.

But if the value and the design seems good to you, then go for it and let us know how you like it. Just remember, "you can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs."

Very helpful, and thanks for taking the time. I keep hearing pretty much what you say, that the RRS heads are near faultless, and not too much input on Gitzo model I'm looking at. The link you provided is to a model not in their catalog, but style is same as some that are there (Off Center Ball they call it), so can't be too outdated. Anyway, comment about herky-jerky is significant, I know, just one guy's opinion, but never have heard that about RRS. And your comment about ball mass influencing smoothness of movement, not just ball size, seems logical, hadn't thought of that. Less weight vs. less mass, I'll chew on that. Will be interesting to see what others here have to say.

You're right about pioneers, been there, done that. Did it with the early Audi in this country (think it was a 100LS, something like that), looked and feld great, but what an over-engineered mess! Don't want to do it with tripod head, so lets see if others have anything to say about the Gitzo. Its design and tech seem innovative and very much on point, just don't want to be the first on the block to own one.

Again, thanks for taking the time.

RovingEyePhoto

Andy wrote:

BH-40 not 45

Thanks, Andy, figured that's what you meant. Appreciate the help, no matter what those other guys say about you.

Scott_Quier

jimphotog wrote:

Thanks, Andy, figured that's what you meant. Appreciate the help, no matter what those other guys say about you.

Me too, but I'm in the process of trying to tool up for the '09 shootout and wanted to get the best I could afford and didn't want to waste a lot of time chasing a mistake.

Thanks Andy.

RovingEyePhoto

kdog wrote:

Simple answer is that Gitzo tripod legs and RRS ball-heads are pretty universally accepted as being best of breed. Gitzo ballheads on the other hand? I've never seen anyone using one, nor have I seen one reviewed. In fact I've never seen them discussed before in this forum before, or any other forum. Now maybe folks who are using them will chime in here and set me straight. We'll see.

Knowing nothing about the Gitzo hollow ball, intuitively the idea doesn't seem so hot to me. Yes, it might save a pound. But in interference-fit mechanical devices, mass almost always equals smoothness. I myself use an RRS BH55 on Gitzo 3530 ESV legs. The smoothness of the BH55 is simply astounding and makes me happy every time I use it.

I did google for some Gitzo ballhead reviews, and found one that called the movement "herky-jerky".
Link: http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/tripods/tripod-heads-and-accessories/gitzo/PRD_83948_3134crx.aspx
Granted, that's not the exact model you mention. However, you'll never see anybody call any of the RRS ballheads "herky jerky". To me, that would be wasted money.

But if the value and the design seems good to you, then go for it and let us know how you like it. Just remember, "you can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs."

Was just wandering around RRS site, and guess what, BH-40 and BH-55 balls are hollow, same as the Gitzo models mentioned. Interesting. As you observed, not getting response from anyone here who's used the Gitzo. Of the RRS models, I'd probably be going for the BH-40, mostly on-the-fly so every pound matters. Given that I'm shooting 4/3 and nothing massively long/fast, I can't imagine the 40 wouldn't do for me. Thoughts?

Andy

jimphotog wrote:

I can't imagine the 40 wouldn't do for me. Thoughts?

It's precisely and exactly why I recommended it to you in my first reply after you posted.

RovingEyePhoto

Andy wrote:

It's precisely and exactly why I recommended it to you in my first reply after you posted.

Damn, your icon just winked at me!

I thought you were making the point before that Gitzo's hollow ball maybe wouldn't be as smooth handling as a solid ball, so assumed the RRS had a solid ball. I should have figured from its weight that it was hollow, but didn't put 2 and 2 together.

kdog

jimphotog wrote:

Was just wandering around RRS site, and guess what, BH-40 and BH-55 balls are hollow, same as the Gitzo models mentioned.

Are they really!? Shows how much I know.

Well, they feel solid, and heavy! Really heavy. Must be the cast iron base. Sorry to have mislead!

Cheers,
-joel

RovingEyePhoto

kdog wrote:

Are they really!? Shows how much I know.

Well, they feel solid, and heavy! Really heavy. Must be the cast iron base. Sorry to have mislead!

Cheers,
-joel

Oh yeah, these guys have gotten about as close to cast iron as I have to Marilyn Monroe. Always interesting putting $$$ into this stuff, the true techies always have an edge over the rest of us.

Candid Arts

Yeah I'm still going to have to go with the RRS one. I don't know how many milimeters are in an inch, but it seems as though the 55 has a bit bigger ball, and I really do prefer the dial vs. the lever on the 40.

Scott_Quier

Candid Arts wrote:

Yeah I'm still going to have to go with the RRS one. I don't know how many milimeters are in an inch, but it seems as though the 55 has a bit bigger ball, and I really do prefer the dial vs. the lever on the 40.

Couldn't resist --- there's 25.4mm (more or less) in an inch:D

Candid Arts

So:

Manfrotto 488 - 31.75mm
RRS BH-40 - 40mm
RRS BH-55 - 55mm

Do we know the diameter of the ball for the Gitzo GH2780QR?

I think the RRS ball head my buddy had that I played with that I was telling you about was about 2-2.5" in diameter, which is closest to the BH-55. It was fairly lightweight for it's size, 15 years old, and was smoother than a babies bottom. It was amazing. I would definitely go with the BH-55 if it were me, but that's me. If I had the money, GO BIG OR GO HOME! Haha.

RovingEyePhoto

Candid Arts wrote:

So:

Manfrotto 488 - 31.75mm
RRS BH-40 - 40mm
RRS BH-55 - 55mm

Do we know the diameter of the ball for the Gitzo GH2780QR?

I think the RRS ball head my buddy had that I played with that I was telling you about was about 2-2.5" in diameter, which is closest to the BH-55. It was fairly lightweight for it's size, 15 years old, and was smoother than a babies bottom. It was amazing. I would definitely go with the BH-55 if it were me, but that's me. If I had the money, GO BIG OR GO HOME! Haha.

Thanks, all helpful. Please take a look at my latest reply on other thread I have up. Make sense to you?

Candid Arts

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

Thanks, all helpful. Please take a look at my latest reply on other thread I have up. Make sense to you?

Yeah for sure. Makes good sense. I'd say you'd be plenty happy with that combo.

190CXPRO3 and BH-40. Definitely jealous of that ball head. It's a gorgeous one.

Although...I might even go to the BH-55, just because of the knobs vs. levers. I think that'd be a huge deal for me. But I'd have to play with each of them to make sure. Even though you may not need the extra capacity that it can handle -- for me at least I'd prefer the knobs.

RovingEyePhoto

Candid Arts wrote:

Yeah for sure. Makes good sense. I'd say you'd be plenty happy with that combo.

190CXPRO3 and BH-40. Definitely jealous of that ball head. It's a gorgeous one.

Although...I might even go to the BH-55, just because of the knobs vs. levers. I think that'd be a huge deal for me. But I'd have to play with each of them to make sure. Even though you may not need the extra capacity that it can handle -- for me at least I'd prefer the knobs.

Interesting, we all have favorites. I also go for knobs rather than levers, so called RRS on that. Response I got was perfectly logical, as one would expect from them. Apparently the 40 is of so small a size that a proportioned knob would be too small a diameter to comfortably handle, thus the lever. The 55 is enough bigger that a full-size knob works.

I also would prefer Gitzo's turning collars instead of tne 190CSPRO3's levers, particularly now that Gitzp has non-turning legs, and they do have a Challenger model that does give a centerpost that can be easily tilted to horizontal without removing, but a lot heavier than the 190 and no where near as elegant an engineering design.

So there we are. A world full of compromise.

Thanks for your help on this. A lot of dgrinners got my head working, sometimes that's what it takes.

davidweaver

BH-55L I went with the bigger one. The 40 would have probably done me fine too.

Take your pic of Gitzo tripods. Yes the Carbon Fiber ones are even more expensive and they are worth it. Get some extra feet as I lose feet all the time.

My Monopod is a RRS MH-01 Monopod head and a Gitzo 2541 Monopod. $500 bucks to support about 4 grand of gear (a D300 and a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 lens)

RovingEyePhoto

davidweaver wrote:

BH-55L I went with the bigger one. The 40 would have probably done me fine too.

Take your pic of Gitzo tripods. Yes the Carbon Fiber ones are even more expensive and they are worth it. Get some extra feet as I lose feet all the time.

My Monopod is a RRS MH-01 Monopod head and a Gitzo 2541 Monopod. $500 bucks to support about 4 grand of gear (a D300 and a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 lens)

Thanks again. I'm on my way.