Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Manfrotto ballhead question

  1. #1

    Default Manfrotto ballhead question

    hi guys
    i recently got a gift from family of a manfrotto 190XProB tripod, and 496RC2 ballhead. the thing is, i wanted to get the 488RC2, coz i've read quite a bit of reviews on it, and was very keen on getting this combo. so now that i have the 496RC2, im wondering if its as good -

    apparently the store guy told my bro that the 496 ballhead is one of the newest manfrotto heads, and he highly recommended it. but is there anything special that the 488 head has that the 496 head doesnt? i noticed the 496 is smaller, and compact though.. im thinking about selling it off (its brand new), and buying the 488RC2.. is that worth it, or should i just stick with it? please just give me ur opinions, thanks
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

  2. #2

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Since you already have it, why not give it a try before even selling it immediately? Nevertheless, from the specs, looks like the 496RC2 does not have panning feature like the 488RCs (I use this) though this new series features friction control, something commonly found in professional and expensive ballheads (and popular replicas). On the other hand, 488RC2 is actually quite heavy for a ballhead. I believe most/all Manfrotto ballheads are heavy.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    it depends on the gears you are using. I myself own the 488rc2. If you have a smaller tripod. No point get such a big head. Overall is the tripod legs that are going to withstand the weight. Use your current setup first. Then once you get more gears or lense then you change accordingly. I believe that the ball head can last for quite some time before you actually changing it. It is also a gift from others. Dont sell it, as they might think that you dont have the heart. Use the gears to the to its max potential dont abuse it.
    Nikon D3s , 300s 24 - 70 70 -200 14 -24 35 SB900 SB910
    Jump Ship from canon to Nikon

  4. #4

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    thanks for the replies im using a 500D, and the largest lens i currently plan on using is the EF-S 55-250mm or similar.. tripod legs is 190XProB - the store guy had said that the 488RC2 is bulky, and that the 496RC2 is more suited for the 190XProB..

    my family will understand if i sell it n get something i like better thanks for pointing it out, though im not usually like this, lol.. i guess i'll try it out n see, i think it'll be fine for me, from the replies ive gotten so far.. just posted before i used it, coz then i could sell it off as brand new, and get pretty much the same amount that was spent on it.. anyone else got other opinions, please share thanks
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

  5. #5
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Quote Originally Posted by heshanj View Post
    thanks for the replies im using a 500D, and the largest lens i currently plan on using is the EF-S 55-250mm or similar.. tripod legs is 190XProB - the store guy had said that the 488RC2 is bulky, and that the 496RC2 is more suited for the 190XProB..

    my family will understand if i sell it n get something i like better thanks for pointing it out, though im not usually like this, lol.. i guess i'll try it out n see, i think it'll be fine for me, from the replies ive gotten so far.. just posted before i used it, coz then i could sell it off as brand new, and get pretty much the same amount that was spent on it.. anyone else got other opinions, please share thanks
    488 has a separate panning control. This is one thing 496 don't have. 488 can hold slightly more weight (8kg) compared to 496's 6kg.

    However 496 has a friction control which can come in handy. It is also light by 200 grams, which matter when you hike or carry it for longer distances. This 496 is actually the replacement for the 468 model. And it is much more compact.

    Like what others say, 496 is sufficient and very good. Panning control is used only when taking panaroma, but to do it properly you actually need a panaroma bracket to be really accurate.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    thanks for the reply seems like the only difference is the max load weight (which i dont think will matter significantly, as the 190Xprob is rated at 5kgs max anyway), and the other difference is the panning control - i thought panning control would be significant, but if its only for taking paranomas (not currently very important to me right now), im pretty sure the 496 is fine for me - at least for the moment. i think the weight and size of the head itself matters for me too, and as the 496 is smaller and lighter, should work ideally for me! thanks for all the input..
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

  7. #7

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    I hope it helps ,i am using 488RC2 and diff btw 496 and 488 is 488 have an extra azimuth .

  8. #8

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    sorry, i dont understand wat u mean by azimuth
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

  9. #9

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Quote Originally Posted by heshanj View Post
    tripod legs is 190XProB - the store guy had said that the 488RC2 is bulky, and that the 496RC2 is more suited for the 190XProB..
    Try it out for see it for yourself before deciding to sell it off? I am currently using the 190XProB and 488RC2 setup. Not at all too heavy... and plus the panning feature is certainly a plus
    5D3|1740L|70200F4L|40

  10. #10

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    yeah, i guess its not too heavy - but if the panning feature is the only thing thats not available on the 496, i think i'll keep it n use it for a while, before deciding if i need to upgrade to 488

    btw, i tried finding reviews for the 496 but was unable to find a single one, actually - is it because its very new?
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

  11. #11

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    btw, i tried finding reviews for the 496 but was unable to find a single one, actually - is it because its very new?
    There are some tiny bits of info if you goggle but it's a fairly new series.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Quote Originally Posted by rendition View Post
    There are some tiny bits of info if you goggle but it's a fairly new series.
    yeah i tried - didnt find much.. more like descriptions n stuff anyway, thanks for all the help guys! i'll be keeping this ball head for a while, at least
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johor Bahru, Malaysia
    Posts
    1,763

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    i believe the new series to replace 488 should be the 498.
    difference is the friction control

    i'm using the 488rc2, the panning function is a + regardless of whether u use it or not.
    to hv it there then not havin it there is better rite?...
    Stirring up emotions with pics - cyliew

  14. #14

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    yes, definitely better to have - but since i have this now, im definitely gonna use it first, upgrade later on thanks for the reply.. and yeah, the 496 replaces the 486, so i guess the 498 replaces the 488 - and the 496 has friction control, so its a new thing
    Last edited by heshanj; 5th January 2010 at 05:32 PM.
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

  15. #15
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Quote Originally Posted by mimik07 View Post
    Try it out for see it for yourself before deciding to sell it off? I am currently using the 190XProB and 488RC2 setup. Not at all too heavy... and plus the panning feature is certainly a plus
    You must be one strong young man.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Quote Originally Posted by heshanj View Post
    sorry, i dont understand wat u mean by azimuth
    Dictionary's yr best friend.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/azimuth
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    You must be one strong young man.
    It's not whether strong or not. My setup's a 055XProB with 488RC0 and it's not too heavy too, and manageable.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  18. #18
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoweagle View Post
    It's not whether strong or not. My setup's a 055XProB with 488RC0 and it's not too heavy too, and manageable.
    "Manageable" really depends on the distances you cover on foot with the tripod. I find it ok in singapore on flat land and driving too. Problem is when I climb Huangshan in China, that few hundred grams really made a difference.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    You must be one strong young man.
    Maybe like what you said, its still manageable while in Singapore with the flat land etc. Will really put my 'strength' when i visit the Great Wall in Feb...
    5D3|1740L|70200F4L|40

  20. #20

    Default Re: Manfrotto ballhead question

    haha yeah - today, i took my 190xprob and 496 on a trial shoot to marina bay.. had no case or anything, but it was fine, nice weight to carry.. but i remember climbing this section of the great wall - would want to cut off every bit of weight on that climb
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •