Ball or Three-way for MF

[Sirius Glass]

Then there are those who can't even make up their mind whether the composition should be horizontal or vertical, so shoot square format, then ironically think they need a tripod head for that too, but still can't conceive of a picture being diamond-shaped instead. Sheesh! Somebody loan them a film stretcher.... Pleeez

They use it tripod for long exposures. You hate of the square format, messes up your thinking. Take a break.

 

[DREW WILEY]

So that's it - either silly-heavy or else wobble-bobble? I can outdo all of em, when it comes to lab gear. The yaw-correctible focus support for my huge 14 ft tall 8x10 color enlarger employs a precisely machined micrometer-driven forged bronze three-way clamping device that would probably cost at least fifteen thousand dollars to make today.
My cost? Zero. It was a discarded military surplus sight mount for a huge WWII ship gun. Want solid? That's it. But nobody in their right mind would tote that into the field.
But talk about luck. The scope it was designed for, which passed through the MIDDLE of it (not atop it like a ball head), is almost precisely the same diameter as a standard Sinar monorail rail. Jerry-rigging heaven!

 

[MTGseattle]

I also own both. I do like square images though so maybe I've been dropped as an infant? The ball head I own is an older model from Cullmann which isn't made anymore. I've never had it slip on me, but I've never really tested it to any of the extreme torque type situations that Drew talks about. I like the fast-panning ability the ball head gives me.
I went with a 3-way for my 8x10 work.

You really need to get your camera setup on one of the heads you're considering and see how you like it. Finding it weird in your living room or in the store is way less trouble than finding it weird on location.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I’ve got an RB67 on the way and need to get a head for my tripod (Bogen 3051) to accommodate it.

What do you guys prefer for medium format, a ballhead or a three-way head? The RB67 has a rotating back, so there’s no need to flip it on its side to take vertical shots.

This will be used out in the field for landscape photography.

I always preferred the fine control and stability of the three-way head

 

[joe bosak]

I went with Manfrotto and ended up moving from the 804RC2 head that came with a tripod I bought secondhand (3 way but not geared, fiddly to adjust and doesn't hold position well) to a 410, then 405 and finally a 400, in order of increasing weight, stability and price when new. For a big camera, I'd go for 405 or 400 in that brand. My use: still life, astro/lunar/solar with big lenses. Oh, and collecting tripod heads...

 

[xkaes]

It's all basic torque-vector physics. A 37mm fisheye represents a very limited amount of bellows extension. Try the same amount of lens weight on a 400 mm extension and you've got a far greater leverage issue. And ball heads have stems by design, at exactly the worst spot imaginable in terms of vibration resistance. I have trouble figuring out why they even exist. It makes about as much sense as a one-legged chair.

I guess I should have used my hefty 600mm Fujinon T in my example, but you probably would have had the same response anyway.

 

[faberryman]

So that's it - either silly-heavy or else wobble-bobble? I can outdo all of em, when it comes to lab gear. The yaw-correctible focus support for my huge 14 ft tall 8x10 color enlarger employs a precisely machined micrometer-driven forged bronze three-way clamping device that would probably cost at least fifteen thousand dollars to make today.
My cost? Zero. It was a discarded military surplus sight mount for a huge WWII ship gun. Want solid? That's it. But nobody in their right mind would tote that into the field.
But talk about luck. The scope it was designed for, which passed through the MIDDLE of it (not atop it like a ball head), is almost precisely the same diameter as a standard Sinar monorail rail. Jerry-rigging heaven!

Here we go again.

 

[abruzzi]

for small cameras, I'm og with the speed and convenience of a ball head, but I don't like ball heads on a camera where the view isn't "corrected", i.e. a large format where the image is upside down or a medium format with a WLF where the the image is mirrored. In those cases its always a 3-way head. I find it somewhat funny that Arca-Swiss the company makes LF cameras and ball heads. A ball head on a view camera is a non starter for me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I even have one of those old monster Bogen (now Manfrotto) cast heads, and even atop my bigger set of Ries legs, a simple tap test instantly tells me the big Tele, or 8x10, or even Sinar 4X5 at long extension, is nowhere near as stable as direct connect of camera to tripod platform. And yes, it certainly can make a difference in the print, especially a big one. But whatever.... I just found all kinds of heads to be redundant unnecessary weight for backpacking purposes, and downright disadvantageous in a number of applications (not all).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, I even have one of those old monster Bogen (now Manfrotto) cast heads, and even atop my bigger set of Ries legs, a simple tap test instantly tells me the big Tele, or 8x10, or even Sinar 4X5 at long extension, is nowhere near as stable as direct connect of camera to tripod platform. And yes, it certainly can make a difference in the print, especially a big one. But whatever.... I just found all kinds of heads to be redundant unnecessary weight for backpacking purposes, and downright disadvantageous in a number of applications (not all).

I'm too old to backback more than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You must have been reading a tour guide written by Yogi Bear. He'll be waiting for you and your sandwich.

 

[Eff64]

I’ve got an RB67 on the way and need to get a head for my tripod (Bogen 3051) to accommodate it.

What do you guys prefer for medium format, a ballhead or a three-way head? The RB67 has a rotating back, so there’s no need to flip it on its side to take vertical shots.

This will be used out in the field for landscape photography.

For medium format I hate a ballhead. On smaller cameras they are ok, but I’ve tried them on a film Hasselblad, and it is maddening to try a little move in one axis. Invariably the whole composition changes. For me 3-way is it.

 

[SodaAnt]

I've never tried a geared 3-way head. Can the gearing be disengaged to make large movements, or do you have to crank the knobs to make any movements at all?

 

[GregY]

For medium format I hate a ballhead. On smaller cameras they are ok, but I’ve tried them on a film Hasselblad, and it is maddening to try a little move in one axis. Invariably the whole composition changes. For me 3-way is it.

Same on a Rolleiflex......easier to work a 3way head in concert with the vision without overloading the
brain......

 

[joe bosak]

I've never tried a geared 3-way head. Can the gearing be disengaged to make large movements, or do you have to crank the knobs to make any movements at all?

Some like the Manfrotto 410 and 405 you can disengage the gears to move each crank quickly, then re-engage for finer adjustment. The 400 doesn't have that ability but has fold out handles on two of the cranks so you can turn pretty fast anyway (the third axis doesn't really need that). I don't know about other brands.

 

[GLS]

I've always used an Arca Swiss Z1 ballhead. In terms of stability I've had no issues with it on 6x6, 6x7 or 4x5 systems. Making very fine adjustments to a composition would no doubt be easier using a geared 3-way head, but with a small amount of patience it's still doable with the ball.

 

[Pieter12]

The Arca Swiss P0 is a unique combination of ball head and geared head. Expensive, as all A-S equipment is, but well made an well thought out, giving the advantages of both systems.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What's the advantages of a geared head?

 

[Pieter12]

What's the advantages of a geared head?

Precise, fine movements along one axis at a time. Great for architectural work or anytime you need to precisely square or line things up in the viewfinder. Holds the position during locking in place.

 

[SodaAnt]

A quick search of the garage turned up a Bogen 3047 head I forgot I had. I’ll use that initially, but am seriously considering replacing it with a geared 3-way head, perhaps a Manfrotto 410.

 

[BrianShaw]

3047 is a really good head. Mine is one of the early models and has been in continuous use for decades. A couple of years ago it was getting difficult to lock one of the axis so I took it apart and re-greased with a damping grease. There are a couple of YouTube videos that show how. It now works as good as new and is almost as smooth as a fluid head. A good match for your 3051 tripod. Over the years I've been tempted to replace with a geared head but every time I thought about it I couldn't find enough rationale for why a geared head would be that much better for me.

 

[SodaAnt]

A couple of years ago it was getting difficult to lock one of the axis so I took it apart and re-greased with a damping grease. There are a couple of YouTube videos that show how. It now works as good as new and is almost as smooth as a fluid head.

I’ll look up that video and clean and re-grease my 3047. It’s been sitting in a hot garage for probably 30 years and is due for some maintenance. Thanks.

Edit: If anyone is interested, here are some links to YouTube videos on servicing 3047 heads:

 

[Philippe-Georges]

The Manfrotto geared 3 way #410 might do very well, I have it for my Hasselblad...

 

[JerseyDoug]

I've tried several ball heads and a Manfrotto 3-way head with my Hasselblad but I keep coming back to my Gitzo GH2750 offset ball head with a separate pan function. It lets me quickly level the camera and then pan to fine tune the composition.

 

[250swb]

A good quality heavy duty ball head is fine for the majority of medium format and including a typical 4x5 wooden field camera. The problem of weight isn't the weight itself but how far the centre of gravity is from the axis of the ball. So a Hasselblad is close to the axis of a ball head, so unless you are using massive lenses it imparts little leverage on the ball clamp (there is no delicate way to describe this). A large light camera such as a wooden 4x5 is also fine, the weight is still mostly around the base and near the axis. The problem comes with increasing the leverage on the ball and if you get a tall camera like an RB67, a heavier 8x10 field camera, or even a tall and heavy 6x6 such as a Mamiya C330 the higher centre of gravity overcomes the tension you can put on your ball clamp. Which is when you need a three way.