Do I need a stronger ballhead?

PilotBrad

I had a Canon EF 100-400 L attached to my 7D for the first time, and I noticed that the camera would sag or flex about 1 focus point (@ 400mm) once the ballhead was tightened and my hand came off the camera.

Is this sag normal, or is it an indication that I need a stronger ballhead?

BTW... I have a Manfrotto 488RC2 ballhead.

Thanks.

catspaw

are you attaching the ball head to your camera body or the lens? lenses that large typically have tripod mounts for specifically those reasons - quick release plates can be found for them as well. Usually you'll see folks using those for 70-200mm and larger lenses.

PilotBrad

catspaw wrote: »

are you attaching the ball head to your camera body or the lens? lenses that large typically have tripod mounts for specifically those reasons - quick release plates can be found for them as well. Usually you'll see folks using those for 70-200mm and larger lenses.

The QR plate was attached to the lens.

trevor

Yep, you need a stronger ballhead. The ballhead shouldn't move at all once it's locked down. I'd go with the Really Right Stuff BH-55.

Zerodog

Or is it your QR plate twisting? This is why the Arca Swiss mount and a camera plate rocks. It is SOLID and the only way to go.

BTW that is what you would be using with Really Right Stuff products.

PilotBrad

Zerodog wrote: »

Or is it your QR plate twisting?

No, I don't think so. I used the german torque specification when I installed it on the lens... gutentight!

Sigh... somehow I knew RRS was going to be mentioned by someone.

Thanks!

Richard

PilotBrad wrote: »

Sigh... somehow I knew RRS was going to be mentioned by someone.

Yeah, there's a reason for that.

If that's the heaviest combo you foresee, you could probably use the BH-40.

20DNoob

I'd take a peek at the Markins line also, slightly cheaper but heaps lighter.

Dan7312

I use a Kirk BH-3 ballhead (their smaller ballhead) with a 7D+180L Macro + Kirk lens adapter plate, and nothing moves at all. With the drag set right I don't really have to hold the weight of the camera while I'm getting it pointed.

The 180 macro is a bit lighter than the 100-400, but not all that much (2.6 vs. 3.1 lbs.).

Dan

pathfinder

Acratech makes some nice, lighter tripods heads as well if you are allergic to RRS and Wimberly.

For long glass this one is interesting too.

For a 100-400 I usually just use a bean bag.......

ivar

are we sure this is a ballhead problem? even the rrs heads sag a little if the plate is mounted out of cg once you let the camera go. the ballhead the op is using now has a max load of 17.6lbs and it is not like the camera/lens *keeps* sagging/moving...

PilotBrad

pathfinder wrote: »

...if you are allergic to RRS and Wimberly.

I'm not, but I think my wallet may be.

Thanks guys... I'll check out your recommendations!

PilotBrad

ivar wrote: »

are we sure this is a ballhead problem? even the rrs heads sag a little if the plate is mounted out of cg once you let the camera go. the ballhead the op is using now has a max load of 17.6lbs and it is not like the camera/lens *keeps* sagging/moving...

Thanks for bringing this up... I hate to spend a lot of $ only to find the same thing occurred.

Don Kondra

Have you considered a gimbal mount ?

The Jobu Jr 2 is ~$250.

I like it so much I've made an adapter to use all my small non collared lenses on it too



Cheers, Don

PilotBrad

Don Kondra wrote: »

Have you considered a gimbal mount ?

Oh great, there goes another $250!

Seriously, I would like to get a gimbal head one I choose a telephoto to buy. Thanks for the recommendation!

borrowlenses.com

A gimbal would work for pretty much anything but they are very large, much more so than a ballhead. But a high-end ballhead like the BH-55 or the Kirk BH-3/1 will do the job.

pathfinder

PilotBrad wrote: »

Oh great, there goes another $250!

Seriously, I would like to get a gimbal head one I choose a telephoto to buy. Thanks for the recommendation!

For 300mm f2.8 or less, a Wimberly Sidekick will do you just fine if you have a good ballhead to start with.

A gimbel head is big, large, heavy and expensive, and unnecessary for anything less than 400 f2.8. For 500f4 and larger, you need a gimbel mount.

DAMHIK.....

Don Kondra

Unnecessary perhaps, but a lot easier/convenient to use than a ball head.

Jobu Design gimbals are no more expensive than a quality ball head.

Weight ?

The Jobu Jr 2 is 1 1/2 pounds, the Manfrotto 468MGRC2 Ballhead is the same price/weight.

The Wimberly Sidekick is 1.3 pounds @ $280 and it attaches TO your ball head.... that adds up to roughly double the weight of a gimbal alone.

Can you tell I Love my gimbal

Cheers, Don

travischance

ivar wrote: »

are we sure this is a ballhead problem? even the rrs heads sag a little if the plate is mounted out of cg once you let the camera go. the ballhead the op is using now has a max load of 17.6lbs and it is not like the camera/lens *keeps* sagging/moving...

I agree. My Acratech GP seems to sag about one focus point as well when the 70-200 is mounted (and its rated at 25 pounds). Now I simply set the camera higher to compensate for this lag.

ziggy53

Some amount of mechanical "lash" or "play" is typical in a mechanical system that has to move. In a finely engineered system, primarily smoothness and tolerance in this case, the lash should be minimal. If you have a separate tension/drag control, you might try adjusting that first to see what impact it has on the system lash.

A longer focal length will obviously seem to magnify the effect of the lash.

Predictable and repeatable behavior can be compensated for using the technique that Travis just mentioned.

PilotBrad

Thanks everyone. That's exactly the method I deployed... setting the camera higher to compensate. I think I'll keep my current ballhead for now, and move up to something stronger once I upgrade my tripod.