488 rcX what do you think?

[Greolt]

Maybe I should have posted this in an existing thread but it seemed to have got quite a bit off topic.

I have what I think is an OK tripod but the head leaves a bit to be desired.

Was thinking about a manfrotto 488 rcX (should I care what style RC it has)

Anyway I would like to hear from anyone who has one of these and what they think of it.

And yes I know an Arca Swiss or RRS head is better but out of my price range.

Greolt

[Paul]

Hi Greolt,
I aasume when you mention the RCX this is a generic form of the RC series?
I have the 488 RC4 ball head which I have used mainly for night still shots with the my D70.
In my opinion this set up has been great for myself for my needs with my level of experience.
I would comment that the ball movement from locked to friction is a bit hazy but this comes with experience!
The locking mechanism on mine is a bit tight to release which can give me the sh*ts at times, but I'm sure an adjustment will soon sort this out!
I agree that there is other better brands but we all have to start somewhere within our budgets and the "buy once for ever" category certainly does not suit everyone on a reasonable budget.
If you can try these heads with your D70 in various shops to see what suits you style best.
Only you can decide what feels confortable.
Good luck, Paul

[Greg B]

Greolt, I have been looking closely at the 488 just this week, and I am impressed. It looks very solid, and the ball lock feels direct and effective.

As to the RC, I think 4 is the best from what I have read, the price differences are not that great.

Paul, your hands on experience is a great help, thanks for your comments.

[Greolt]

Yes it would be a great idea to go into a shop and try one but the local
shops here don't have them in stock. They will order them in but then I would feel obligated to buy.

So I was interested in opinions of those who have used one.

Paul what you said about the release locking up have you had a chance to see if adjustment fixes it?

Thanks Greolt

[skyva]

I have the 488 rc4 and it seems to work well. I bought it at Vanbar in Melbourne, as they had one in stock. If you want to see one before you buy then I suggest you give them a call.

[Greolt]

Skyva I take it you are quite happy with yours.
Is there a reason you decided on that style of quick release?

I live in Geelong and only occasionly get to Melbourne.
When last in Vanbar they had no stock. Bummer!

Greolt

[Matt. K]

Greg B
I think you and I are in the same boat regards a tripod. I am looking around for a tripod that weighs nothing...costes even less, and will hold the D70 and a 1000mm lens in a gale. Just a matter of time before it turns up.

[Greg B]

You have it in one Matt, very modest expectations

[robboh]

Ive got the 488 RC0 (the hex plate QR) on a set of NAT3 055 legs.

Its the only ballhead Ive had, but its only OK IMHO. Having said that, Ive never used a 'better' ballhead so they may suffer the same issues to a degree.

You can friction it up enough to stop movement when you let the camera go, but its certainly not silky smooth when you are using it like that. Tightening up the ball and the panning both cause shifting in the composition, so you have to take that into account when you intend to lock down hard.

However, it does support my D70 with 80-200 (2touch) with a TC quite nicely in that Im not worried about the weight. What I do find though is that I seem to get slight rocking or flex on the QR. Im not sure whether this is the plate in the QR release or else the lens mount on the cork on the QR itself (and yes, the screw in the QR is screw-driver tight!).

I will be replacing it with something more upmarket at some stage, but it does ok for me at the moment when I keep the issues above in mind.

[Glen]

Robboh, I used to feel the same in my Manfrotto hex QR too.

[SoCal Steve]

Greolt -
I have the 488RC2 and it seems adequate. The only thing that irks me is that the grip rubber on the knob buckles up when I tighten it. I also wouldn't say that it has strength to spare, but it does seem to do the job. But then, the heaviest lens I have is the 105mm Nikkor Micro.

[robboh]

Robboh, I used to feel the same in my Manfrotto hex QR too.

Thanks Glen. So its not just me dreaming then

I would have to say that this is the thing that irks me the most about the head and I wonder if its one of the things that 'helping' me with soft images at times.

I dont know if the RC2 is any better in this regard and to fix it with a 3rd-party arca-style QR is expensive enough to warrant buying a better head anyway.

Cheers
Rob.

[Greolt]

I really appreciate Steve and Robboh taking the time to tell me your experience with this head.

I am not sure now. Giving it a good try out in the shop definately sounds a smart thing to do.

The RC4 maybe will improve it a bit?????

Greolt

[robboh]

No worries Greolt.

Dont forget though that Im still learning how to use long lenses (ie 600mm effective) and that this is what I brought the pod/head for. So a lot of my issues may be related to myself or I may be trying to use a tool which isnt really that well suited to the job.

I find its more than fine with my other lenses (kit, 50, 70-210). You dont notice the composition problems (wider FOV) when locking down or have to lock down as tight with lighter lenses, which means less composition change as well. Once its not frictioned up as much, it moves reasonably nicely.

Definately have a play in the shop and try it with your longest/heaviest lenses and try and shoot something where you are concentrating on composition as this is where you will see any problems you might have.

HTH.
Rob

[birddog114]

robboh,
Try the long lens 300/ 400/600mm.
The main problems are:
- Shooting outdoor under windy condition. The more the big lens the more effect with it and will create the vibration.
- Vibration from the shutter release may caused the blur pictures if the heads or tripods are not sturdy.
- Creepy when mount heavy lens + equipments on the head.
- Hard to manoeuvre with the big or long lenses.

[Deano]

I have the 488 RC2 and in the absence of any other experience I am reasonably happy with it. However when reading about "real" ball heads it seems they have the ability to tension so that the camera/lens can be moved whilst still being held firmly so as not to drop suddenly (if that makes any sense).

I do notice with the 488 that there is some movement after tightning which I guess wouldn't happen with a real head.

I know I want a better head but I'm not sure why.

Cheers
Dean

[robboh]

BirdDog. Given the general frustrations Im having at the moment, I have no desire to give myself any more of a headache

However, yes, its giving me an inkling of some of the problems that the 'real' long lenses must give. I can also quite see why you read stories of people having sold their new 600mm monsters after a month of heartache and given up photography altogether!!

[birddog114]

I have the 488 RC2 and in the absence of any other experience I am reasonably happy with it. However when reading about "real" ball heads it seems they have the ability to tension so that the camera/lens can be moved whilst still being held firmly so as not to drop suddenly (if that makes any sense).

I do notice with the 488 that there is some movement after tightning which I guess wouldn't happen with a real head.

I know I want a better head but I'm not sure why.

Cheers
Dean

Deano,
Your two abovementioned thoughts are the answer for your question.
Only the real good ballhead provides the ability of non creepy when mounting camera and lens even a light set up.
The real ballhead will help you easily to manoeuvre the gear while it's on the head and tripod.
If you require the stability and sturdy, then ballhead and good tripod are your answer.

robboh,
If you can afford or have the 300/400/600 then no reason you can't afford the good head and tripod.

[robboh]

If you can afford or have the 300/400/600 then no reason you can't afford the good head and tripod.

Birdy,

Could afford a big lens, just cant justify at this stage. Im still learning to use the current setup (80-200 with 2x TC) properly and also seeing if I end up using it enough. If I do, then yes, there might be some longer lenses in my future. Plus I have too many expensive interests and the money has a constant 'me-too' written on it

The legs (Manfrotto 055 Nat3) will have to be good enough at the moment. I cant justify a Gitzo, as much as I would love to. The research I did prior to getting the legs seemed to suggest that most people think this is generally a pretty good set of legs for lighter setups such as mine.

I brought the 488 head as a stop-gap while I decided if it
a) would be good enough for a 80-200 with 2x TC.
b) decided what to buy (Markins, RRS and Kirk seem to be the recommended options at the moment).

Cheers
Rob.

[Greolt]

Well I called in at the local camera shop and they now have a 488 ball head in stock.
So I mounted a camera and lens on to match what I have and had a good try.
It seemed to me to work quite well. I did notice that the ball has a coating of
some sort of grease which may dry out and be why some people have found
them to be a bit stiff in action.

The RC4 plate was just too big to leave on the camera when not using the tripod.
So I ordered one with the RC2. I hope this proves to be the right choice.

RRS or Acra Swiss it ain't but I think it will do me for quite a while.
600mm lenses are not on my horizon at this stage.

When I have used it for a couple of weeks I will post my thoughts then.

Thanks to all who have endeavored to answer my questions.

Greolt