Ball head for LF. Diameter

[Ardpatrick]

I shoot ‘urbanism’ and a little landscape with a Canham DLC 4x5. I’ve mostly used a Manfrotto 410 geared head - which has been great over nearly 20 years of ownership. But it’s heavy at over 1.2kgs and bulky. I started leaving it home and relying on a very basic Gitzo 75mm leveling base on my systematic tripods. It’s light at 600gms and very low profile. But it’s so spartan in terms of control that it’s not precise enough for architecture.

So I’m finally looking at ball heads as a compact, but friction dampened option. In particular I’m drawn to the FLM CB 48/58 FT II heads. Sure there are both cheaper and even a few more expensive options - but I’m not looking for advice on brands.

What I’d like to know is if there is any operational advantage in using a larger diameter ball head like the 58mm over a slighter lighter ( minus 200gms) 48mm head, or even a 43mm diameter ball. They each have sufficient load capacity for my uses, and are otherwise identical. Cost difference is modest. So would a larger diameter ball be easier to make controlled adjustments on, or is that a negligible advantage?

This is coming from a geared head user, looking to shoot lots of buildings etc in the field. I shoot 72 - 210mm focal lengths.

 

[Alan9940]

Personally, I don't like ballheads for LF because they're hard to control even when dampened down. I'd be willing to bet, especially shooting architecture, that you'll learn a few choice new words, if you go with any ballhead. As for the size of the ball itself, I believe the larger it is the better the head will clamp down on it. I can tell you that my RRS BH-55 ballhead won't budge when tightened down, while small ones I own are less reliable in this regard.

 

[djdister]

If you are gong to use a ballhead for LF, definitely go for the larger ballhead due to a larger clamping area.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Thanks both. I also do appreciate the skepticism - I’ve resisted the ball head scenario myself for decades. But I’m feeling the weight of the geared head option as I slow down a little.

The higher end FLM heads appear to be very secure, dampened & precise. And they have a unique (?) feature of being rotationally lockable except along a single pivoting axis - I guess it’s some means of pinning the ball itself along an axis that leaves it to just move around that pin / pivot point. So I guess used correctly that could be handy for front / back levelling etc.

I’m not so worried about any of these heads locked down. But I do wonder how well each of them do when dampened - for fine adjustment. I’m guessing that the larger circumference of the biggest 58mm head might be advantageous for these fine adjustments.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Interestingly I just found this little video of the tilt lock function of the FLM ballhead, used with an 8 x10!

 

[Vaughn]

I have used ballheads for 4x5 and 5x7 for decades ( a couple older Gitzos). I like them, but it is a matter of personal tastes and practice.

I do not think you will see a significant operational advantage with the 58mm ball over the 48mm. But if the extra half-pound (200gm) weight is not a factor, then one might also consider if one will be moving up in format (or camera weight) someday, and possible resale value.

Just bought a new tripod (Leofoto LS-365CX) and ballhead for my 4x5 . A 40mm ball for a camera weighing a kilo with lens. The pod/head should also work well with my heavier 5x7 also (Eastman View No.2). No handles sticking out is one of nice feature with ballheads, especially when traveling -- I am taking the 4x5 to Japan in a few weeks.

The tripod model is one of the few w/o center column that is actually tall enough for me . It is 62.5" to the top of the ballhead -- then add camera...my eyeballs are about 70" above ground level. The tripod is short enough to fit into luggage (22"). Good for 44 pounds, so I will not be stressing it.

 

[Ardpatrick]

I have used ballheads for 4x5 and 5x7 for decades ( a couple older Gitzos). I like them, but it is a matter of personal tastes and practice.

I do not think you will see a significant operational advantage with the 58mm ball over the 48mm. But if the extra half-pound (200gm) weight is not a factor, then one might also consider if one will be moving up in format (or camera weight) someday, and possible resale value.

Just bought a new tripod (Leofoto LS-365CX) and ballhead for my 4x5 . A 40mm ball for a camera weighing a kilo with lens. The pod/head should also work well with my heavier 5x7 also (Eastman View No.2). No handles sticking out is one of nice feature with ballheads, especially when traveling -- I am taking the 4x5 to Japan in a few weeks.

The tripod model is one of the few w/o center column that is actually tall enough for me . It is 62.5" to the top of the ballhead -- then add camera...my eyeballs are about 70" above ground level. The tripod is short enough to fit into luggage (22"). Good for 44 pounds, so I will not be stressing it.

Thanks - a very helpful insight Vaughn.

 

[AZD]

I was in a camera shop last year and came across some random 2” (or so) ball head, made in England, for $45. I bought it, naturally. It goes between my B&J 8x10 and a big survey tripod ($20… no expense spared!).

While there’s some potential for wobble during initial setup I have come to expect it and control it without thinking. Large movement is very fast. Finer movement can be accomplished via the tripod. It works.

It’s also very stable, as good as anything else. I have a huge (as in HUGE) 20” process lens that must weigh over 5 pounds. Still rock solid with that thing making the total weight close to 20 pounds.

One unforeseen advantage of the ball head: for extreme up or down viewing angles I can let the ball go slack then rest the camera bed against/between two tripod legs, then tighten the ball. Makes for a very stable setup.

 

[xkaes]

The ball heads that you suggest have controls that look too small to me -- and too expensive for me, too. Gitzo made/makes some great ball heads of various sizes -- and "used" they are pretty cheap in comparison. You should check out their 075, 175, 275 and 375. The 175 (I use this) weighs 7 oz. and holds 12 pounds. The 275 is 16 oz. and holds 16 pounds.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ball heads are the root of all evil when it comes to large format stability. Just how much needless extra weight do you want to tote around, just for sake of inferior results? ANY wobble or vibration should be unacceptable. Yeah, I'll admit I'm the forum Godfather of going "headless" with respect to view cameras, especially 8x10. But at least look into those newer scooped out half-ball options, which are way more realistic than any full wobble-bobble ball head system.

The ballhead example in the video flick looks like a ridiculously toyish setup to me. All the stress is concentrated on a very slender over-length neck, atop an undersize tripod platform, just begging the legs to inordinately flex. Throw away any center column too, if you expect reliable results with a big camera out in the field devoid of high speed strobe usage.

Dead weight ratings are meaningless. You have to factor all the torque vectors in play, which geometrically increase with more camera bed width or bellows length extension. Then you've got wind etc to potentially contend with, plus the need for even greater leg mass if you've got a top-heavy tripod arrangement.

 

[MTGseattle]

I will only say this regarding ball heads or other heads modified to take "Arca-style" plates. While there is a standard width , not all plates are made to the same specification, so be mindful of that aspect. I've purchased one or 2 expensive duds that wouldn't lock into the head because they were a millimeter or so narrow.
The funny thing is that I have 3 different Colorado tripod company plates that are really inexpensive, and lock into the RRS just fine.

 

[Alan9940]

Though I don't follow the "no tripod head" philosophy of Drew, I've bolted my 8x10 Deardorff to Ries A100 sticks with the A200 head for 40+ years, shot in all manner of weather and have never experienced any issues with stability, vibration, etc. Yeah, the A200 is a head, but that 6" square steel plate that the camera sits on is pretty solid, regardless of bellows extension. I do still block the wind with my longer lenses as these larger cameras are more sail-like than rock!

 

[Vaughn]

For big cameras -- Ries legs are hard to beat...I have the A250 head on A100 legs for the 8x10 and the 11x14.

In the redwoods, the ground is usually not very solid -- this haunted EW's photographic attempts in the redwoods during his trip through the West -- his tripod would sink into the duff during the required long exposures. Also my camera placement is often dictated by inches, so I find having a head on the pod allows me an easier time to make the compositions I want.

Other than getting there, the wind, lightning, and such, photographing the grand landscape from the top of a ridge or mountain sounds a bit easier without a tripod head than deep in the forest.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Amen to that, Vaughn. I sure appreciate my larger Ries with its spike feet on spongy ground in the redwood cloud forests, or in snow. There is simply no substitute for sheer bully mass. But I am also glad I bought a solid enough CF tripod for 8x10 use due to the
inevitability of old age. Of course, for all those many long treks in the high country with 4x5 gear, I've been using a smaller CF tripod for many years. When 4X5 dayhikes are involved, I prefer my lighter weight "J" wooden Ries instead, even for MF work.

Alan, yeah, if I did have to go back to a head, it would be the platform Ries-style one, or else the Sinar tilting head for monorail usage. But I learned on a 1930's maple tripod and transit, headless. It became completely intuitive. I do use a solid Gitzo pan-tilt head for most of my MF needs, not all - I necessarily go headless with my big Pentax 6X7 300 tele, which is even more finicky to stabilize than an 8x10 on even my bigger wooden Ries. But that's another story for another day.

I have had my entire 8X10 setup, including heavier Ries, picked up like a kite and tossed by sudden wind gusts. Fortunately, each instance there was a soft landing in soft foliage. Now I just don't use my view cameras under such conditions - too risky.

 

[xkaes]

Since Ardpatrick is talking about a relatively small, lightweight 4x5, a lighter weight head (and tripod) makes the most sense. I would never consider dragging a 10 pound tripod up a mountain for my four pound camera.

 

[blee1996]

I think for your lightweight 4x5 setup, 48mm diameter ball head should be sufficient. I am not familiar with FLM models, but you should look for low profile or neckless ball heads so the center of gravity is low.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Thanks all.

Indeed mobility is one of my needs. It’s interesting to realise there is a subtle but distinct difference between shooting 4x5 vs 8x10. I will often move around a situation - shooting a range of compositions etc. I think with 8x10 I’d shoot less exposures and move a lot less. And weather is a factor - In Ireland / Northern Europe it rains a lot. I need a setup that can be fast.

I’ve tried Drew’s ‘headless’ approach many times. It’s super rigid & light-weight, but every small adjustment to framing / position on uneven ground requires re-levelling the whole rig. And given I opt to use the wider outer tripod sections on my Gitzo systematics for max rigidity it means adjusting collars closer to the ground. I often shoot from height -about 200cm whilst standing on my light ikea plastic step that I carry. So getting up and down and up again, whilst rain clouds are gathering - doesn’t work. And the Canham's spirit levels are on top of the standards - so invisible from below. Headless is not a viable approach.

I’ve also tried the “half-ball’ levelling base - I have the systematic one. it’s great but there is no dampened adjustment with it. It’s simply locked or loose. So again an exercise in frustration when used alone. Granted in combination with leg adjustments levelling isn’t bad, but if you need to turn the camera 5 degrees left or right you’re going back multiple steps!

A geared head is optimal. I have one. But a more portable ball head can be useful - hence my enquiry.

Thanks for the comments re FLM and the various alternative ball heads. Insightful points. Like others I already own many heads of various shapes and sizes from video fluid heads on down. Never bought a large ball head before! I’m not springing for a high end arca Swiss cube / D4, but likewise I don’t need yet another ‘kinda works’ type solution.

Apart from anything else one thing I like about FLM heads is that they are made in a small town business and they don’t steal others I.P. They develop their own designs. And as ‘originators’ - people who develop their own ideas rather than stealing other people’s copyrighted imagery, whether in photography or engineering, that I.P. Issue matters to me when I pick up a piece of gear. Sorry if this last bit is digressing but I’m trying to explain the nuance of my particular interest in these heads vs cheaper alternatives.

 

[Besk]

I own and use a 410 head and a heavier metal 300 series Gitzo for architecture type photography but when doing a lot of walking and for general photography I carry a 2 1/2 pound carbon fiber tripod and a Acratech GV2 head. The head is an open design, lightweight and strong enough for a Busch Pressman which weighs a little more than the Canham.

What is irritating with some heads is that the camera moves slightly when the head is tightened down.
With good adjustment of the pretension screw I haven't found this to be a problem with my Acratech GV2.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Thanks Besk. The Acratech looks interesting.

 

[MTGseattle]

I was curious if the FLM heads were a small manufacturer or not, just scrolling through the website I saw a few knobs that look identical to knobs on the RRS heads (and a few knock-offs) I guess there's not a lot one can do in making a ball-head look different and function well. Adding colors would simply bog down the product line with items that would likely not sell.

 

[Ardpatrick]

I was curious if the FLM heads were a small manufacturer or not, just scrolling through the website I saw a few knobs that look identical to knobs on the RRS heads (and a few knock-offs) I guess there's not a lot one can do in making a ball-head look different and function well. Adding colors would simply bog down the product line with items that would likely not sell.

Not sure about the relationship with RRS either way, but I’ve read several online reviews that profile FLM as a small operation. I’ve had direct email contact with their in-house sales guy who was very responsive as I was considering visiting their factory near Stuttgart. I got busy and didn’t make it, but they welcomed me to visit.

What is a bit of puzzle is that there is a Canadian FLM operation that sells a different ball head - that indeed does resemble RRS. But what I’m looking at is very different and I don’t see anything else quite like it:

CB-58 FTR II

FLM CB-58 FTR tripod head for photography.

english.flm-gmbh.de

For starters the ball head has more knobs than I’ve ever seen on another head (not necessarily a plus).

The final puzzle is that the RRS style FLM Canada heads are not sold on the German FLM site above.

 

[Ardpatrick]

I was curious if the FLM heads were a small manufacturer or not, just scrolling through the website I saw a few knobs that look identical to knobs on the RRS heads (and a few knock-offs) I guess there's not a lot one can do in making a ball-head look different and function well. Adding colors would simply bog down the product line with items that would likely not sell.

I just looked at the Canada site - Indeed pretty much as you describe but very different to the German offerings. I guess the Canadian distributor of FLM tripods sources Chinese ball heads and brands them “FLM”.

The higher end German made FLM ball heads are not sold on the FLM Canada site. That ambiguity might explain why some commentators here are a little skeptical of my fixation on FLM ball heads. They’re looking at the Canadian/ North American offerings - which are not of interest to me.

 

[MTGseattle]

Ah. That link makes quite the difference. I was a bit curious that I didn't see the model number you had referenced before.

It seems they have made a double knob out of the main in that the inner ring acts as the drag or tension adjustment for the primary movement.
I have no idea why they chose to add that small knob for the tilt function
I wonder if that 15 degree small knob activates click stops as one moves through 360 degrees of panning?

It looks like a decent product, and the specifications seem decent compared with other ball heads that are used by large format folks.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Ah. That link makes quite the difference. I was a bit curious that I didn't see the model number you had referenced before.

It seems they have made a double knob out of the main in that the inner ring acts as the drag or tension adjustment for the primary movement.
I have no idea why they chose to add that small knob for the tilt function
I wonder if that 15 degree small knob activates click stops as one moves through 360 degrees of panning?

It looks like a decent product, and the specifications seem decent compared with other ball heads that are used by large format folks.

The tilt knob pins the ball so that it pivots on a single axis only. The 15 degree knob does activate or not click stops. Whether it’s good or bad, it’s definitely distinctive, and their own design.

That Canada operation is quite confusing though.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

If I can offer another alternative: the Linhof Profi III ball head. It is super solid. New, it costs >$1200 in USA, but they occasionally show up on the 'Bay much much cheaper. Some versions have the Linhof QuickFix release, which is solid, too.