Posted by Joe Paratore on August 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Hi All
I am in the process of purchasing a new ball head.
I’ve narrowed it down to either Acratech GV2 or a Kirk BH-3.
My set up is Canon EOS Mark II with canon 70-200mm IS F2.8 or 24-70mm 2.8.
If you own or have owned one of these ball heads could you give
both the positive and negative feedback of each and which one might
be best suited for my camera setup.
I do a lot of shooting straight down. Do they lock down tight and what about lens creep.
I will post on other NPN forums as well.
Thanks
Joe
Posted by Ramamohan Pai on August 24, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Joe, I have not used either of these so cannot give a direct feedback. I have heard good things about BH3 though.
I use Really Right Stuff's BH55 ballhead but for the lenses you mention a BH40 from RRS should be really enough. I just wanted to throw the RRS option in there, just in case you did not consider it. If you did, pls ignore my post.
Posted by Mike Klarich on August 24, 2009 at 2:26 PM
You really can't go wrong with Really Right Stuff. I agree with Ram I also use the BH55. Good luck with your purchase, and all the posts you will receive from all the forums you posted your question.
Posted by Ken Bachofer on August 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Joe, I've been using the BH-3 as my only tripod head for years now (since it came out) and it has performed perfectly. I use it with a 70-200 f2.8L, a 100 f2.8 macro, and a Wimberly Sidekick w/ 300 f4L or 500 f4L. It has both a lock and tension adjustment so the ball can be clamped quite tight with the lock and very tight using both. I hear the RRS heads are nice too but Kirk makes a quality product.
Posted by Chuck Beatty on August 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Joe, I use a RRS BH-55 and love it.
Posted by Lon Sharp on August 26, 2009 at 12:07 AM
RRS, BH-55 has been everything it is touted to be and has performed flawlessly.
I've been using a Kirk BH-3 for more than six years now, which currently involves mounting a D700 and the 14-24/2.8, as well as the 24-70/2.8. These are heavy lenses without tripod collars and there's remarkably little in the way of head creep with the BH-3. I also use the 80-400, a 70-200/2.8 and the 200mm macro (f4), all of which pack some weight but have tripod collars. The BH-3's worked just fine with all of them.
Posted by Julie Roggow on August 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM
My vote is for the Wimberly Head. I rented one to take on a photo shoot in Africa and from the FIRST moment I tried it, I knew I had to have one! I can't imagine anything else being built better or being more of a pleasure to use. I think this is an amazing tool for the serious photographer!
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm
Posted by Don Grall on September 22, 2009 at 2:08 AM
The Wimberly Head will not work well with a short lens like a 70-200, it is only for longer lenses in the 300-800 range and even a 300/2.8 is a tad short for it. I currently use a FOBA Superball which uses a lever instead of a round knob to loosen and tighten the ball. The lever is much faster than a round knob you have to turn, which is what you will find on the BH-55, the Kirk BH-3, and the Arca-Swiss B-1.
Discussion
8 repliesI am in the process of purchasing a new ball head.
I’ve narrowed it down to either Acratech GV2 or a Kirk BH-3.
My set up is Canon EOS Mark II with canon 70-200mm IS F2.8 or 24-70mm 2.8.
If you own or have owned one of these ball heads could you give
both the positive and negative feedback of each and which one might
be best suited for my camera setup.
I do a lot of shooting straight down. Do they lock down tight and what about lens creep.
I will post on other NPN forums as well.
Thanks
Joe
I use Really Right Stuff's BH55 ballhead but for the lenses you mention a BH40 from RRS should be really enough. I just wanted to throw the RRS option in there, just in case you did not consider it. If you did, pls ignore my post.
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm