Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2011, 07:01 PM
 
Location: on top of a mountain
6,994 posts, read 12,738,798 times
Reputation: 3286

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i use it on both the monopod and my tripod and been using it for 4 years..... not only does it support the 80-200 but my d300 with flash mounted at the same time.
that's one of my camera set ups soooo....I have a nice Manfrotto ball head that I am gonna slap on my monopod and give it a try!
EDIT: It is not so much as "supporting" the weight I was told it would wear out the ball head quick due to the weight!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2011, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,654,362 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyoNewk View Post
That's nonsense. A good ball head will support any lens you'll ever need. As an example, a Kirk BH-1 is rated to hold 50 pounds.
There's a catch to the load ratings though, that needs to be understood when making a decision on what to purchase.

The rating given is for "safe" use, in that it won't break. Hence it is absolutely correct that a Kirk BH-1 ball head will "support" virtually any DSLR type camera and lens combination. The question is though, would you want to use that? And the answer is definitely not.

Figure about 1/3 of the load rating is the largest reasonable weight that is functional. That is, the controls still work, to some degree. For that reason one typically does not want to exceed about 1/4 the load rating. For the BH-1 then, probably about 13 pounds is it, and up to 18 or so in a pinch. (It's good for a pro model camera and up to maybe a 300mm f/4 lens.)

But it's also necessary to consider whether that functionality is the most versatile too. A couple of examples will help to see the point.

There are DSLR/lens combinations that hit right at 20 pounds. It just would not be a smart idea to use a ball head (Kirk or otherwise) for a Nikon D3 with a 2x TC and a 400mm f/2.8 AF-I lens. Even the lesser gimbal heads won't handle that without being just a pain in the whatever to deal with! That is the heaviest of Nikon's long telephotos, but I wouldn't use a ballhead for any of their lenses from 300mm f/2.8 on up.

Another case in point would be doing photomacrography at greater than 1:1 magnification. For example with a reproduction ratio in excess of 2x, using perhaps a 200mm macro lens and a 2x TC. There is just no substitute for a gearhead! And once again the smaller available models won't even do well in critical cases. I really enjoy being able to use a Majestic gearhead that would still work with ease even if I did actually put 25 or 30 pounds on it.

Those are two instances where a ballhead, even with a huge load rating, just is not the right tool. And obviously by the same token there are many many situtations where a ballhead like the BH-1 is just a suburb tool for dealing with a typical DSLR and "normal sized" lenses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 01:48 AM
 
106,676 posts, read 108,856,202 times
Reputation: 80164
the thing about the 80-200mm is that the lens has a tripod mount so the weight is balanced . if i had to mount the camera on the tripod and have the whole lens over hang the ball head doesnt work so well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 02:42 AM
 
1,809 posts, read 3,192,137 times
Reputation: 3269
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueflames50 View Post
wow....a ball head will support the weight of an 80-200mm?? I have always been told not to use a ball head as it can't hold up to the weight...hummm...
The 80-200 is not a heavy lens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 02:51 AM
 
106,676 posts, read 108,856,202 times
Reputation: 80164
about 46 oz.. thats more than i enjoy carrying all day without support. some of those big high power zooms to me are useless unless your operating out of the car. marilyn wanted that big sigma 50-500mm until someone out in the field had one . she held it for 5 minutes ,tried it and the thought never came back to her again to own one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Wyoming
9,724 posts, read 21,237,878 times
Reputation: 14823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
There's a catch to the load ratings though, that needs to be understood when making a decision on what to purchase.

The rating given is for "safe" use, in that it won't break. Hence it is absolutely correct that a Kirk BH-1 ball head will "support" virtually any DSLR type camera and lens combination. The question is though, would you want to use that? And the answer is definitely not....
Agreed, except that I was responding to whether a ball head could be used with an 80-200 f2.8, and I think it's a fine head for that lens, provided you seek what a ball head is good for -- quick adjustments over fine adjustments. I use a smaller ball head for my Canon 1D with 70-200 f2.8IS, and it works great. I have other heads, but the ball head is my normal pick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 01:43 PM
 
Location: on top of a mountain
6,994 posts, read 12,738,798 times
Reputation: 3286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brill View Post
The 80-200 is not a heavy lens.
Don't know why I wrote 80mm as it is a 70-200mm AF-S ED f2.8 and it is heavy an add the D300 body...heavy..similar to this photo


Last edited by blueflames50; 05-10-2011 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 04:00 PM
 
106,676 posts, read 108,856,202 times
Reputation: 80164
at 52 ounces its a drop heavier
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:09 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top