Mono Pod with Ball head

[inmotion]

HI can users of Mono Pods with a ball head give me a quick evaluation as i want to upgrade my existing units.Budjet can be $150-200 thanks , also is a trigger lock a good thing-- cheers inmotion

[aim54x]

I have a Manfrotto 680B with a 234RC2 head (not a ball head though), not sure how much they are these days but i would think as a package you would be getting towards the 150 mark.

EDIT: Just checked the price on digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au 116+72 (for the same price you can get the baby ball head)

[kiwi]

What lens ? Manfrotto one good for 2.5kg or less

Other option is to screw monopod directly onto lens foot
.

[Mr Darcy]

RRS (who are well out of your price range) advise against using a ballhead with a monopod, and if you think about it, it makes sense.
A mono allows you to swivel freely in a horizontal plane, so you only need to adjust up/down. A ball head moves freely in all directions which is unnecessary on a mono.

So the Manfrotto 234 is ideal for relatively light setups. There is really no solution AFAIK other than RRS's for heavy duty applications, but the swivel on its own is USD150

I use the Manfrotto 234 on a Benro Monopod (MC-91n6). It works well for my uses, but then I don't have "field artillery" lenses

The link to RRS is http://reallyrightstuff.com/tripods/04.html for the heavy duty version and http://reallyrightstuff.com/tripods/03.html shows the Manfrotto, with their gear of course.

If you do decide to go the RRS route, I would recommend their lever clamps over their screw clamps. I have one of each (screw on mono, lever on tripod) and much prefer the ease of use of the lever clamp.

[aim54x]

I never even bothered to check the capacity of the 234RC! Hmm that means my D300+MB-D10+SIgma 180mm would be over the capacity of the 234RC. Good work for pointing that out Greg.

[kiwi]

This is a good discussion too...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/730612

[ATJ]

RRS (who are well out of your price range) advise against using a ballhead with a monopod, and if you think about it, it makes sense.
A mono allows you to swivel freely in a horizontal plane, so you only need to adjust up/down. A ball head moves freely in all directions which is unnecessary on a mono.

As a very frequent user of a monopod, I actually disagree with this. I don't have a ball head and it is quite frustrating.

I have the 681B with 234RC head. This allows me to tilt in one pane only. This is fine around 70% of the time, but if I want to take shots with the camera in portrait orientation, I have to removed the quick release plate of the camera and rotate it. I then lose the ability to tilt the camera forward or back. I could solve this problem by buying an L plate for the camera (not cheap) but there are occasions when I'm shooting something where I need the camera to be at 45º in two planes at the same time. I can't do that with a tilt head even using an L plate.

[Mr Darcy]

As a very frequent user of a monopod, I actually disagree with this. I don't have a ball head and it is quite frustrating.

I have the 681B with 234RC head. This allows me to tilt in one pane only. This is fine around 70% of the time, but if I want to take shots with the camera in portrait orientation, I have to removed the quick release plate of the camera and rotate it. I then lose the ability to tilt the camera forward or back. I could solve this problem by buying an L plate for the camera (not cheap) but there are occasions when I'm shooting something where I need the camera to be at 45º in two planes at the same time. I can't do that with a tilt head even using an L plate.

I have an L Plate That's why I have never had issue #1. I can't say I have ever run into issue #2. Well I have, but only when using my tripod & it has a ballhead as well as a pivoting column

I never even bothered to check the capacity of the 234RC! Hmm that means my D300+MB-D10+SIgma 180mm would be over the capacity of the 234RC. Good work for pointing that out Greg.

.
Cameron, try it rather than say it won't work. It may slip a little, but still give you more stability than no support at all.

[aim54x]

I never even bothered to check the capacity of the 234RC! Hmm that means my D300+MB-D10+SIgma 180mm would be over the capacity of the 234RC. Good work for pointing that out Greg.

.
Cameron, try it rather than say it won't work. It may slip a little, but still give you more stability than no support at all.

I use it that way all the time! Never had any issues with slipping though. I do however try to handhold too many of my macro shots (hence the grip on my D300) so I dont really really have the problem with the 234RC. I can see why the 60mm will present a orientation problem with the 234, but any lens with a tripod collar is fine, just rotate the camera + lens via the tripod collar to get between landscape and portrait (and anything in between).

[ATJ]

I can see why the 60mm will present a orientation problem with the 234, but any lens with a tripod collar is fine, just rotate the camera + lens via the tripod collar to get between landscape and portrait (and anything in between).

Very true. I don't have a problem with the 200mm, other than the quick release plate twisting on the tripod mount.

[big pix]

Mostly I use a mono-pod with long lens, and the camera can rotate on the lens collar, with one of these http://acratech.net/product.php?product ... t=1&page=1, I find this set up great for birds. The fitting on top of the head rotates to hold the camera body when using short lens..... mounting plates are used for lens and camera and have found this system to be very solid

[radar]

The link to RRS is http://reallyrightstuff.com/tripods/04.html for the heavy duty version and http://reallyrightstuff.com/tripods/03.html shows the Manfrotto, with their gear of course.

I use the low capacity option listed above, works very well for me on a Benro monopod.

If you do decide to go the RRS route, I would recommend their lever clamps over their screw clamps. I have one of each (screw on mono, lever on tripod) and much prefer the ease of use of the lever clamp.

Word of caution on the RRS lever clamp: if you have lens plates or camera plates that are from other manufacturers, ie Kirk and others, they may not work with the lever clamp as there is less tolerance. Major reason why have stayed away from the lever clamp.

cheers,
André

[big pix]

Word of caution on the RRS lever clamp: if you have lens plates or camera plates that are from other manufacturers, ie Kirk and others, they may not work with the lever clamp as there is less tolerance. Major reason why have stayed away from the lever clamp.

cheers,
André

....... the reason I use the same maker for heads and camera/lens plates...... only other piece I have added would be a levelling base, and when this is added to the head it all works as one solid piece of equipment

[DebT]

I have 40D(battery pack) with 300 or 70-200 lense on a Monfrotto 559b & 488RC2 Ball head with quick release plates - LOVE IT. The baseplate (the bit on the mono) has a lock which has saved me a few times and I purchased 2 additional quick release plates so one is always on my body and each of my long lenses which was worth the expense as I never need to change or leave home without the right bits.
This combination allows me to sit or stand comfortably at my sons sport for hours and catch whatever I wish ...I can rotate 90deg for poitrait orientation very easily, but can get any angle I choose .
I also use this combination at the zoo and for wildlife / birds, as well as giving me stability for macro work .
Ideally a tripod will always be more steady but I find the monopod much easier to carry around and I can take it anywhere.
When I carry it around I dont hold just by the mono as the bracket probably isbn't designed for the stress ... but rather rest the lenses over my shoulder and steady by holdning the mono.

The guys are probably right a mono and a lense collar would do the trick but my smaller lenses dont have collars - Either way it's just a matter of what you get used to
Deb T

[big pix]

the use of lens collars is to take the strain off the lens mount plate on the camera, which is easy bent or twisted if given a hard enough nock when using long lens...... Nikon has lens collars on lens from 80-200mm zoom and others. You will not notice anything wrong till you start to do enlargements and wonder why one side is sharp and the other side OOF

..... a cheap lens on E Bay is not always a good buy

[inmotion]

HI back at last my rig is D700 + 120-300 f2.8 sigma approx 3.8kgs combined.Consensus is almost forget ballhead and go for a swivel type-- --in motion

[Mr Darcy]

HI back at last my rig is D700 + 120-300 f2.8 sigma approx 3.8kgs combined.Consensus is almost forget ballhead and go for a swivel type-- --in motion

Don't forget that "consensus" can be wrong It wasn't that long ago that consensus had the sun going round the Earth, and the Earth was flat.

Consider the type of photography you do. That lone voice (ATJ) may be closer to what you want to use your mono for than the rest of us. FWIW his atypical photos are almost certainly nature macros. He does a lot of them, and you often need to do things a contortionist would be proud of the get the camera in right position for THE photograph.

If you want the mono for panning or a lightweight alternative to a tripod when bushwalking, then a swivel head will probably do for you.

[aim54x]

Do not discount the ball head, other than blowing your stated budget, they tend to have a better load capacity, the 486 and the 484 heads will carry the load that you require and the 496 even comes with QR options.

http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/off/pid/2303?livid=80|81&idx=83
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/off/pid/2301?livid=80|81&idx=83

I would not disregard the Ball head just yet, you may just have to spend more.

[inmotion]

Thanks aim54x I think the best is to try both wiyh my rig which I will do next week --inmotion