Ball head or Gimbal?

N

NikonDog

Messages
4
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
The current ball head on my K&F tripod is rubbish, so I'm looking to change it.
I'm torn between another ball head (Manfrotto XPRO Magnesium) or a gimbal (Sirius PH-10), both can be had for around the same price, and I'm pretty much decided on one, or the other, of the above.
I have a Nikon Z50ii, and the largest lens is a Tamron Z 150-500, the smallest a Nikon NIKKOR Z DX 18-140mm.
I don't really specialise in any type of photography, but mostly take wildlife, planes, landscapes etc.
My question is.....at its largest Nikon + Tamron, weight is 2.4kg, OAL 275mm.
Would ball head or gimbal be best?
 
Last edited:
Hanley said:
I have both and my personal preference is I prefer the gimbal for larger setups, I use the ballhead for my smaller cameras / lenses
Click to expand...
Do you find you have to re-balance the gimbal often when you have a large zoom on it?
 
@NikonDog, from my experience, if you want easy, precise adjustments, it’s worth looking at a geared head, especially for landscapes. Ball heads are great all-rounders, but they’re not as easy to fine-tune precisely. Gimbals are better for wildlife and planes.
 
A gimbal is not suitable for a camera/lens without a tripod collar like the 18-140; it just won't mount/fit. And it does need re-balanced if you change zoom with an external zoom lens.
I would not choose a ballhead that is not arca swiss compatible(manfrotto); arca swiss is pretty much the industry standard these days. And I wouldn't choose a ballhead for action/panning.

There are do-it-all heads like Uniq-ball and FlexShooter. I use these when I'm not using a gimbal, but they cost more. And there are ball heads that are also designed to be used as a side mount gimbal (e.g. Acratech), but IMO they put the weight too far off center (and cost more).

Probably the closest do-it-all solution is a basic video head like the Sirui VA-5. Video heads are what we used for wildlife/action before gimbals became common. They are actually becoming more popular today with the switch to mirrorless because the lighter lenses/body combinations make a gimbal impossible to balance in some cases. And it can be used with a mounting plate on the camera body instead of the lens. But there are still limitations as they are two way heads and do not offer tilt.
 
Last edited:
NikonDog said:
The current ball head on my K&F tripod is rubbish, so I'm looking to change it.
I'm torn between another ball head (Manfrotto XPRO Magnesium) or a gimbal (Sirius PH-10), both can be had for around the same price, and I'm pretty much decided on one, or the other, of the above.
I have a Nikon Z50ii, and the largest lens is a Tamron Z 150-500, the smallest a Nikon NIKKOR Z DX 18-140mm.
I don't really specialise in any type of photography, but mostly take wildlife, planes, landscapes etc.
My question is.....at its largest Nikon + Tamron, weight is 2.4kg, OAL 275mm.
Would ball head or gimbal be best?
Click to expand...
By throwing "landscape" into your subject list, you make this choice easy, or at least easier. A gimbal is a specialist head, designed for using long lenses for action photography.

They need to be attached to a tripod with a levelling base and a lens with a tripod collar to work properly. It's not a practical choice for landscape, or lenses without a tripod collar. You can get around this "sort of" by using a L bracket on the camera, and levelling the Gimbal by adjusting the tripod legs, but it's not very practical.

I'm not a fan of ball heads, but as your "only" head, a gimbal isn't a good choice.

For landscape, a three way head is a better choice, especially if it's geared, and useful "do everything" approach is a levelling head + a dampened pan and tilt head.

This works well for landscape, stationary animals/plants and for flying bird and planes.

But, it's potentially an expensive (and heavy) option and a ball head is still a decent choice as a head that can do everything.
 
sk66 said:
A gimbal is not suitable for a camera/lens without a tripod collar like the 18-140; it just won't mount/fit. And it does need re-balanced if you change zoom with an external zoom lens.
I would not choose a ballhead that is not arca swiss compatible(manfrotto); arca swiss is pretty much the industry standard these days. And I wouldn't choose a ballhead for action/panning.

There are do-it-all heads like Uniq-ball and FlexShooter. I use these when I'm not using a gimbal, but they cost more. And there are ball heads that are also designed to be used as a side mount gimbal (e.g. Acratech), but IMO they put the weight too far off center (and cost more).

Probably the closest do-it-all solution is a basic video head like the Sirui VA-5. Video heads are what we used for wildlife/action before gimbals became common. They are actually becoming more popular today with the switch to mirrorless because the lighter lenses/body combinations make a gimbal impossible to balance in some cases. And it can be used with a mounting plate on the camera body instead of the lens. But there are still limitations as they are two way heads and do not offer tilt.
Click to expand...
It looks as if, while you were typing this, I was typing an overlapping answer :-)
 
myotis said:
By throwing "landscape" into your subject list, you make this choice easy, or at least easier. A gimbal is a specialist head, designed for using long lenses for action photography.

They need to be attached to a tripod with a levelling base and a lens with a tripod collar to work properly. It's not a practical choice for landscape, or lenses without a tripod collar. You can get around this "sort of" by using a L bracket on the camera, and levelling the Gimbal by adjusting the tripod legs, but it's not very practical.

I'm not a fan of ball heads, but as your "only" head, a gimbal isn't a good choice.

For landscape, a three way head is a better choice, especially if it's geared, and useful "do everything" approach is a levelling head + a dampened pan and tilt head.

This works well for landscape, stationary animals/plants and for flying bird and planes.

But, it's potentially an expensive (and heavy) option and a ball head is still a decent choice as a head that can do everything.
Click to expand...
Thankyou. So it looks like I need more than one tripod head, which I now understand. Following on from digesting the very informative information above, I am inclining towards a 3 way geared head, something like the Benro GD3WH, which should hopefully give me a decent "do most things" setup. Then add further heads in the future when as-and-when I identify a need and my pension allows.
 
NikonDog said:
Thankyou. So it looks like I need more than one tripod head, which I now understand. Following on from digesting the very informative information above, I am inclining towards a 3 way geared head, something like the Benro GD3WH, which should hopefully give me a decent "do most things" setup. Then add further heads in the future when as-and-when I identify a need and my pension allows.
Click to expand...
I just ordered the Benro GD36PT which is a geared head on top of a ballhead. It should be perfect for most things. but it is only geared in 2 directions which can be a little problematic for overhead work (e.g. macro). It will be replacing my LeoFoto GH4 which is also a 2 way geared head, I also have a 3 way geared head (manfrotto 405) I use for product/overhead... I have way too many tripod heads...
 
NikonDog said:
Thankyou. So it looks like I need more than one tripod head, which I now understand. Following on from digesting the very informative information above, I am inclining towards a 3 way geared head, something like the Benro GD3WH, which should hopefully give me a decent "do most things" setup. Then add further heads in the future when as-and-when I identify a need and my pension allows.
Click to expand...
A three way geared head doesn't work for wildlife/planes as it's designed around slow and precise positioning of the camera.

I have three ball heads (Linhof Profi III, FLM 32F and a Novoflex "small" ball head), plus three "sort of" ball heads (a Uniq-Ball, a weird off-set gitzo ball head and a Novoflex Magic Ball "free") In fact as I list them and think about how many more I could list (not ball heads), I'm suddenly feel embarrassed, but some I've had for over 40 years.

Although, ballheads do nothing especially well, I still think, if you can only have one head they are probably the only head that can have a go at everything.

The exception to this is a video fluid head on a levelling base or the Uniq-ball or Flexshooter that @sk66 mentioned, which can also work as your only head, but they also have their negatives.

As @sk66 I would look for a head with an Arca Swiss clamp and avoid the Manfrotto quick release system. Having said that, you can get a Manfrotto to Arca Swiss adapter, so this isn't the end of the world. And, most of the good heads, allow you to completley, remove the clamping system and replace it with something different.

I use a Novoflex "Automatic quick release" on most of my tripod heads, regardless of head make.

You can also "fudge" a ball head to do other things e.g for bird you can turn the ball vertically in its slot and use it as a sort of gimbal, either by directly attaching the tripod foot to it, or adding "sidekick" gimbal. For landscape you buy geared heads that attach to the top of the ball head, giving you the ball head for big adjustments and then the geared head for precise adjustments.

There are lots of good videos on choosing a tripod head. For wildlife (but also give a good idea of the differences):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnh1Xojl22w


and

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZukS3lVWaQ
 
sk66 said:
I have way too many tripod heads...
Click to expand...


As with cars, bikes, guitars and many other things, "too many" doesn't apply. One can have "not enough", "enough" and even "more than enough" but NEVER "too many"!!!
 
Nod said:
As with cars, bikes, guitars and many other things, "too many" doesn't apply. One can have "not enough", "enough" and even "more than enough" but NEVER "too many"!!!
Click to expand...
I would say that if you have more tripod heads than lenses then you have too many (or perhaps it's that you have too few lenses...) :)
 
Faldrax said:
I would say that if you have more tripod heads than lenses then you have too many (or perhaps it's that you have too few lenses...) :)
Click to expand...
I definitely have more tripod heads than lenses, but then I work hard at getting rid of the lenses and cameras I don't regularly use. I don't want to have the distraction of needing to choose between similar lenses/cameras before going out to make photographs.

With tripod heads, I seem to be less rigorous, and I've only got rid of a handful in nearly 60 years of owning tripods. Most of these were of poor quality and not up to the job, and I can only remember one of them being a struggle to get rid of.

This one clearly fell into my " not using it enough and it's just confusing my choice of tripod head for the day" category.

However, I really liked it, and although I still used it occasionally, just because it was there. I had better alternatives, and it was really redundant in my outfit. I sold it to someone on here.

With lenses and cameras, I have agonised (for months, sometimes years) over every single one I've ever got rid of. Part of me wishes I still had them, but I'm glad they are gone.
 
Faldrax said:
I would say that if you have more tripod heads than lenses then you have too many (or perhaps it's that you have too few lenses...) :)
Click to expand...


Definitely not enough lenses!
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
I use a ProMedia gimbal head on my monopod for trackside work, used it with ef200-400, rf 100-500 and now exclusively with the rf 100-300 so simple to set up and get the balance point - I tried the ball head route and just couldn't make it work for me.
IMG_0953.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top