Ball or Three-way for MF

[SodaAnt]

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.

 

[GregY]

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.

Personally I prefer the 3 way. I just find it easier to adjust the 1 plane i need to tweak. Also it's got to be a hefty ball head under an RB67.... otherwise you loosen it off & the whole camera shifts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I too prefer a 3 way head. I tested several ball heads and when set to be moveable they can be to floppy or just hard to control.

 

[Pieter12]

I mostly use ball heads from Leofoto and RRS. Buy the largest model. A good ball head will have a friction knob that can be adjusted so the camera moves with little effort but does not flop around. Be prepared to spend $400 or so for a RRS ball head, one of the best.

I will add that it really depends on the situation. For studio and architectural work (or at least where I want precise control) I will use something like an Arca Swiss P0 geared ball head. If the camera is suspended above a still-life set-up, I might use a 3-way locking geared head like a Manfrotto 410 or Leofoto GW-01.

 

[xkaes]

What do you guys prefer for medium format, a ballhead or a three-way head?

Everyone will give you a different answer. One is not better than the other. Either takes time to "get used to". Each has its PROS and CONS.

I'm a 35mm, RB67, and 4x5 user. I own both, but prefer ball heads. Why? You can control everything at once with only ONE lock -- instead of three. E-Z-P-Z.

My biggest/heaviest ball head -- a Gitzo -- (much smaller and lighter than most 3-way heads) cost about $100 used.

 

[Rick A]

The decision is entirely yours to make. You asked for opinions and that's all you'll get, not facts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The real question is how does each feel to use when you try them out? Others opinions including post #3 are useless when personally tested by the buyer.

 

[MattKing]

I chose a good, heavy duty ball head because it is easier to store and transport the tripod and ball head combination in the small space in our cars that I use for that purpose. Three way heads are more likely to catch on things.
But clearly that criteria is important to me - it may have little importance to you. Or perhaps you intend to travel a lot with the tripod, which may mean that criteria will be just as important to you.

 

[juan]

Don't forget that you might like a gimble. Or be like @DREW WILEY and use no head at all.

 

[BrianShaw]

For me it’s not really a factor of just film format, but viewing system and total gear weight. Ball head works with waist level finder as long as it’s low enough to see. With eye-level prism finder I find ball heads to get confusing. So with prism finder and/or heavy lenses I’ll use a 3-way.

For a RB, I definitely gravitate toward a 3-way head.

 

[DREW WILEY]

For strenuous backpacking trips, I forego even a pan-tilt head even with light MF gear like my Fuji 6X9 RF. To switch from horizontal to vertical usage, all I need is a secure L-bracket weighing only about a hundred grams. And with view cameras, you've got reversible backs anyway.

Or I guess one could resort to being a square, and cropping 6X6 shots either way; but that's a terrible waste of 120 film.
I had a friend who did it that way, and the mountain god version of Neptune finally punished him by allowing him to slip on a rock, dunking his expensive 6X6 in ice water.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Three-way all the way, especially with an RB67. But with the RB, you might as well ditch the head and screw the camera directly on the center column. That way you do portait/landscape with the back, and to pan you just move the damn thing. If you need to point up or down, shorten a leg or two.

 

[GregY]

For me it’s not really a factor of just film format, but viewing system and total gear weight. Ball head works with waist level finder as long as it’s low enough to see. With eye-level prism finder I find ball heads to get confusing. So with prism finder and/or heavy lenses I’ll use a 3-way.

For a RB, I definitely gravitate toward a 3-way head.

Using a ball head w a TLR drove me crazy...but that's me. As an aside, I do mostly landscape work in the mountains & using the Mamiya RB67 led me to sell it and buy a view camera. No kidding.

 

[SodaAnt]

I had a friend who did it that way, and the mountain god version of Neptune finally punished him by allowing him to slip on a rock, dunking his expensive 6X6 in ice water.

If that mountain god were really nasty it would have been salt water.

 

[DWThomas]

There are many factors at play with this stuff. I have a ball head and in theory it allows pointing the camera where you want it in one action -- very efficient. In my real life, when I decide "uh -- OK but a little to the right" the act of releasing and moving may throw everything off. As such, you will generally find me working with a 3-axis head.

With a light, compact camera that can be totally positioned easily with one hand the ball head is OK. As the camera approaches several pounds, even worse with a front end heavy longer lens on it, that positioning is a bit more taxing. (OK, yeah, maybe I need more gym workouts ... ) My Bronica SQ-A with the 110mm 1:1 macro on it is about 4.5 pounds and front heavy.

I'm vaguely aware there are some ball heads with pistol grip handles and various "features" that might be helpful (or not), but experimenting gets expensive. Mayhaps finding some brick and mortar places to experiment a little might be helpful.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh gosh, I'd wear even different boots around salt water. So yes, the real Neptune has a far more nasty disposition than the mountain equivalent. In the case of that mountain incident, it was pure snowmelt, so when we finally got back to the car a week later, I put his affected $2500 Zeiss lens in a sealed desiccation box containing fresh silica gel for a couple of weeks, and it cleared up fine without need to send it out for repair. And the camera body itself cleared up just sitting in the sun on the dashboard driving back, with no residual mineral stain.

Saltwater versus fresh water also separates the men from the boys when it comes to tripods. Serious camera tripods like my Ries wooden ones have nonferrous hardware, while survey tripods have susceptible steel. But I've been out on desert canyoneering shoots where a single drop of water falling from the cliff and hitting a lens would have so much natural silicate in it, that it immediately and permanently bonded to the lens silica glass itself, just like artificial sodium silicate waterproofing compounds.

 

[GregY]

There are many factors at play with this stuff. I have a ball head and in theory it allows pointing the camera where you want it in one action -- very efficient. In my real life, when I decide "uh -- OK but a little to the right" the act of releasing and moving may throw everything off. As such, you will generally find me working with a 3-axis head.

With a light, compact camera that can be totally positioned easily with one hand the ball head is OK. As the camera approaches several pounds, even worse with a front end heavy longer lens on it, that positioning is a bit more taxing. (OK, yeah, maybe I need more gym workouts ... ) My Bronica SQ-A with the 110mm 1:1 macro on it is about 4.5 pounds and front heavy.

I'm vaguely aware there are some ball heads with pistol grip handles and various "features" that might be helpful (or not), but experimenting gets expensive. Mayhaps finding some brick and mortar places to experiment a little might be helpful.

Yes, A 250mm lens on the RB67 changed my life.... Ries tripod...Ries double tilt head & 5x7" field camera.

 

[DREW WILEY]

DW Thomas - the problem with ballheads is that if they're strong enough to support the multiple torque vectors of a heavy camera or long unbalanced lens, then they themselves not only become prohibitively expensive, but might well themselves exceed the weight of the camera itself, or the legs under it, further accentuating the torque and torsion issues up on the top! It's a lose-lose situation.

People who think they are successfully arguing against this reasoning, and have visual evidence to back it up, are typically studio types who don't give a damn about cumulative weight, and who also use high speed strobe exposures.
For the rest of us, who can't afford the luxury of an elephant and it mahout carrying our gear in the field, it makes sense to have a Plan B.

This also applies to big teles. I don't shoot an RB, but do often shoot a big 300EDIF tele on my Pentax 6X7, and it requires just as much support as my 8x10 camera. And ditto - it's spelled RIES. But fortunately, that lens has an integral strong rotating collar mount, so no tripod head of any kind needed in that case either. For smaller lens 6x7 purposes, I do bring along a basic old Gitzo pan/tilt head. Never for long backpack trips, however; a simple L-bracket substitutes there.

 

[btaylor]

Like most here, I have both types. If the camera is mostly balanced at the tripod screw, and its' medium format or smaller I like the ball head- its easy to set the drag so it doesn't flop around and then tighten it once its in position. For view cameras or off balance smaller cameras I prefer a 3 way head. Whatever you decide, I would suggest buying a head that will support the largest camera and lens you think you're likely to use.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't forget that you might like a gimble. Or be like @DREW WILEY and use no head at all.

Well some of his posts show that at times he does not use his head.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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

 

[xkaes]

I like the ball head- its easy to set the drag so it doesn't flop around and then tighten it once its in position.

I don't understand why so many people have trouble figuring out how simple this is. I use my 4x5 with my three pound RB67 37mm fisheye without any "flopping around" on a simple, compact, lightweight Gitzo ballhead.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Even though the RB has a rotating back, you still need to be able to move it left to right to make the horizon level whcih is easier using the three way head rather than messing around with the tripod legs. I've used a gitzo with gitzo three way head for 40 years with my RB67 and now my 4x5. Get a strong tripod. My handles unscrew to make the head small for packing. also get heads with friction to contol the movement of the head so it doesn't move wildly when you intend to move it slightly. if you intend to use an eyelevel viewfinder, get a tripod high enough to accomodate the higher viewing position. If you get a carbon fiber tripod, don't use it on deep dives.

 

[itsdoable]

Ball head for most stills

Fluid 3-way for video

Geared head for precise adjustments (high magnification, long telephoto landscape or astro, etc...)

The right tool for the job.

Cheap ball heads flop easily, so do 3-ways. My favourite ball head is an old Gitzo 2780 with the big dial, tighten it half way, it locks out pan and roll, but allows tilt, all the way locks solid. Smooth with no flop.