My saga to purchase a mount is ongoing and I wont elaborate here.
Thinking ahead for when that is resolved, I decided to purchase a ball head to mount my camera on. I decided on a ball head because I figured that it would give me a bit more flexibility in fine tuning the alignment of my camera with the mount.
OK, coming from a photography background I know a little bit about ball heads and know that 'a good, cheap ball head' is an oxymoron.
However my needs in this instance were quite specific and to this end I ordered a cheap ($60ish) iOptron job from the States.
I thought that being in the telescope and mount game iOptron would have their act together from a precision point of view. Wrong !!!
As you can see from the attached picture, when you drop the clamp down into the slot it goes several degrees past the perpendicular. Even the bubble level shows that.
What this does is introduce an area of unnecessary adjustment to bring the clamp face back to the perpendicular plane.
However the more concerning aspect is that to set the clamp face perpendicular, the weight of the attached camera and lens now has to be contained by the two ball head lock knobs, instead of the clamp shaft being supported at 90° by the bottom of the slot. With the specified maximum load of 20lb it will be almost impossible to stop the dreaded droop.
I would have thought that precision would have been high on iOptron's design brief but feel that this has slipped under their radar.
OK, it's a $60 ball head, but I don't think it would have cost any more to have designed the thing correctly. I can probably bodgie it up by packing the bottom of the slot but sheesh, I shouldn't have to.
This was my first iOptron purchase and to be brutally honest it has made me very wary of purchasing any more of their products.
I think you are expecting too much. Ball heads are made to lock in any
position. As long as it can reach a horizontal position the manufacturer will be happy. Horizontal is just one of an infinite number of possible positions. I use mine in many positions, depending upon where in the sky the target is; much easier to move the camera than the scope.
If you want to mount it horizontally permanently, why do you need a
ball head at all? Just mount it on a simple right angled bracket.
With a specified load of 20Ibs it shouldn't droop. If it does, THEN you have been short changed.
Incidentally, ball heads are mainly made to be used on photographic tripods, which are often not level, and the shafts are often made
to go beyond horizontal to allow for this.
raymo
I have a very good Manfrotto one, which can carry 15 kg. It allows you to do exactly as you wanted (90 degree stop) and also has a portrait photographer's setting to stop at the angle as shown in your image.
I too am in the iOptron Avoiders bunch - my one and only experience with them with a $700 GOTO system was pretty abysmal to put it lightly. Quality of manufacture was terrible. Certainly has put me off considering one of their mounts - I will just stick to Vixen, Takahashi and other KNOWN quality products.
Mate, I might be very new to the astronomy scene but I do know a little bit about photographic gear.
A well designed ball head should drop to 90°, not 87° or 94° or whatever, but spot-on 90°, the standard portrait orientation, no ifs or buts.
Yes, in a perfect world all ball heads would support your gear at all angles, however that reality doesn't apply in the real world. Most manufacturers stated carrying capacity is based on the ballhead being upright. Tilt it a bit off-centre and it is a different story.
Your assertion that "ball heads are mainly made to be used on photographic tripods, which are often not level, and the shafts are often made to go beyond horizontal to allow for this" is way off the mark.
Most quality tripods have a built-in spirit level. Try telling an architectural, or landscape photographer, that their tripod doesn't really need to be level because their ball head is designed to compensate and they will give you a look of incredulity.
And just for the record, my photo tripod is a Markins Q10, and on today's market I wouldn't get enough change from $600.00 to buy a Schooner.
Just to clarify, the last line in my post reading "And just for the record, my photo tripod is a Markins Q10, and on today's market I wouldn't get enough change from $600.00 to buy a Schooner, should have read "my photo ball-head is a Markins Q10" but i don't seem to be able to edit my posts.
John, all I was expecting from this ball-head was the very basics, that it do what ball-heads are supposed to do, carry your gear, and drop to 90° in portrait orientation.
The weight carrying capability is a bit of a mixed bag but that didn't concern me because in portrait orientation that didn't come into my equation.
This ball-head doesn't deliver on it's basic requirements, end of story.
Mate, I might be very new to the astronomy scene but I do know a little bit about photographic gear.
A well designed ball head should drop to 90°, not 87° or 94° or whatever, but spot-on 90°, the standard portrait orientation, no ifs or buts.
Yes, in a perfect world all ball heads would support your gear at all angles, however that reality doesn't apply in the real world. Most manufacturers stated carrying capacity is based on the ballhead being upright. Tilt it a bit off-centre and it is a different story.
Your assertion that "ball heads are mainly made to be used on photographic tripods, which are often not level, and the shafts are often made to go beyond horizontal to allow for this" is way off the mark.
Most quality tripods have a built-in spirit level. Try telling an architectural, or landscape photographer, that their tripod doesn't really need to be level because their ball head is designed to compensate and they will give you a look of incredulity.
And just for the record, my photo tripod is a Markins Q10, and on today's market I wouldn't get enough change from $600.00 to buy a Schooner.
......................... regardless!, it was cheap and has not worked so there is no point in berating an opinion to which you have sought advice!!
get on with it or pay more money for a product that is going to do the job!
if you had asked here first before blowing a massive sixty bucks you could have put it to something that would have worked
sorry if this sounds as blunt as your response to a person that only meant well
pat
Try telling an architectural, or landscape photographer...
I wouldn't need to because they wouldn't be using a ball head to begin with. There are specific heads designed for precision adjustments and ball heads aren't it. Ball heads are universally simple fast and highly inaccurate unless you spend a fortunate getting a well damped one and quite frankly when using a piece of equipment that is designed to offer maximal freedom for moving the attached items the only criteria is that it gets to AT LEAST 90deg, and bonus points for going beyond it.
You're not expecting too much from technology, you're expecting a specification that isn't critical.
I have the Markins ballhead on Manfrotto Carbon tripod which is excellent and would hold the camera at any angle I set it to, however, I have never liked hanging the camera gear off the side of the ballhead so I have the "Really Right Stuff L bracket" on my camera.
When I want to change from landscape to portrait mode, I release the clamp to the midpoint and reset the whole camera to vertical. This way the weight of my Nik D3/ AFS 80-200 F2.8 is always on the centreline of the tripod/head combo.
As for the the ballheads going past 90º, almost everyone I have ever owned including my Arca-Swiss go slightly past 90º to allow you to get it level without fussing about with the tripod legs.
For architectural photography the ballhead stays in the bag in favour of a geared head. As for levelling the camera, I use a hotshoe mounted bubble level, that way I don't waste precious time worrying about setting tripod legs, especially on rough ground.
Dumb question - WTF is the point of the bubble level in that position on the ballhead?
That particular clamp was meant to be used with the knob pointing up and the dovetail base horizontal not vertical when using it portrait orientation. With the knob uppermost the bubble works and with the dovetail horizontal the precious camera would not slide out of the clamp if the clamp was a little loose.
The Markins Q10 goes to 92.5º and yes they are a little bit more than $60 .......
(Edit: Before anyone bags the square in the picture being all tarnished, I should point out that it is over 50 years old and yes it still holds exactly at 90º )
First up, apologies if my directness has offended anyone. No offence was intended.
What I was trying to achieve was a cheap way of not having to swap over my Markins Q10 ball head from tripod to mount.
I mostly use my gear mounted on a Wimberley Sidekick and hoped that I could just over swap the camera mounted on the Sidekick.
Well the little ballhead just didn't cut the mustard. It not only drooped into the slot but also twisted longitudinally and this was with less that 4kgs, or about 9lbs, a hell of a lot less than the stated carrying capacity of 20klbs.
The ball head also twisted on the mounting plate although I think any ball head would.
So maybe a Gimbal type head with some way to stop it twisting on the mount plate.
Back to the drawing board.
Attached a pic of my set-up and also one of my multi coloured mount and tripod. I think it's growing on me.
Kev, You would need to go to a full size ball head for that kind of loading.
The only ones I would suggest would be larger the aspherical ball mounts by ArcaSwiss or the Really Right Stuff BH55, unfortunately they are not cheap but are the best I have ever bought.
You would also be well advised to drill/tap the dovetail plate so you can fit a grub screw to lock the ballhead into place.
Kev, You would need to go to a full size ball head for that kind of loading.
The only ones I would suggest would be larger the aspherical ball mounts by ArcaSwiss or the Really Right Stuff BH55, unfortunately they are not cheap but are the best I have ever bought.
You would also be well advised to drill/tap the dovetail plate so you can fit a grub screw to lock the ballhead into place.
Cheers Matt,
Just remembered I have a Kirk monopod head that does drop down to 90° and can't go any further. It also has some threaded holes in the base. Mounting my Wimberley Sidekick on it means I'll only be missing quick lateral adjustment.
I had a really right stuff bh-55 that had built in levels, portrait orientation was exactly 90 degrees etc etc. It had varying tension such that I could put my d3 and 300/2.8 on top, freely move it around all over the place and it was smooth as silk, then let it go and it would have enough tension not to move provided I used the lens plate to properly balance it all. But then that ball head was a solid $600..
