Manfrotto 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

[WhiteLight]

This was something i had noticed right at the beginning when i got the tripod & ball head (055Xprob + 498 RC2), but always thought it was a technical error from my end.
Once i tighten the camera with QR plate on the ball head, there is always a bit of play.
Not with light lens like the 18-55 or the 35mm, but for my heavier 70-300mm & now the 105mm.

The 70-300 doesn't matter ALL that much cos a little play doesn't make all that much of a difference & can be easily corrected, especially when shooting the moon.
But for the past couple of days i've been trying different things with close-up & magnification shots and the ball head just pissed me off...

Every single time after tightening the camera sags down a little..
Needless to say, the focus is gone & the entire purpose of the tripod is lost..

 

[Sambr]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

I had the same problem with that head & the 496 RC2 previously. I was so frustrated I sold both Manfrotto heads and bought an "Arca Swiss clone" Milano head - man what difference. Rock solid and much easier to mount & dismount my camera. I will not buy anymore Manfrotto heads.

 

[WhiteLight]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

Yeah Sam... i just stopped doing what i was and put everything back inside...
Any model recommendations for Arca Swiss? Keeping into consideration some close up & high magnification shooting?

 

[WhiteLight]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

I do have a focusing rail on the way though.. so not sure if that would make things better on this ball head.

I figure the problem here lies with the locking mechanism..
It's too simple & the clamp doesn't lock tight against the QR plate

And they claim a max load capacity of 8kg!
My D7000 & 105mm (or the 70-300) hardly make up 2 Kgs

 

[Sambr]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

I bought a clone of the "Arca Swiss Z1 moonball" made by Milano($123.00 compared to $500.00 for the Arca) It's very well built and easy to use. Photos of it are at the link below.

http://nikonites.com/other-photography-equipment/14551-milano.html

 

[BackdoorArts]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

Never had an issue with sag with mine, and that's with a 150-500mm attached. You've tightened both ball knobs, right? I'm out of town for a while so I can't check, but I'll have a look again when I get back. As for the mounting plate, one of mine has a bit of play, but I bought a combo Manfrotto/Arca Swiss plate that's a good fit. Not sure if it has anything to do with the notch in the one side of the plate. Again, I'll check when I get back. Having both the the Manfrotto and MeFOTO tripods in rotation I tend to use the combo plate.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

II figure the problem here lies with the locking mechanism. It's too simple & the clamp doesn't lock tight against the QR plate.

This makes me wonder if your QD plate isn't out of spec' then.

I'm using that head on one of my tripods right now and everything locks up like a bank vault.

 

[Bill16]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

The rail I believe would possibly make matters much worse unless your just centering the weight directly over the ball.

 

[fotojack]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

I have the Manfrotto 496RC2 ball head, and I've never had a problem with it......yet. Then again, the longest lens I have is the 55-300. Since I KNOW that there will be a slight sag when I lock it down, I compensate by tightening it UP just a tad. That way, I'm spot on with what I want to shoot. Works every time. I'm sure the Arca Swiss is awesome, but since I don't make a living with photography, I can't justify the exorbitant price.

You're going to laugh, but one of my favourite tripod heads is a 3-Way. It's old, but works flawlessly. Of course, I took it all apart and refurbished it myself, polishing the moving surfaces and lightly lubricating them with Vaseline so there's no sticking and binding, as was the case originally. Here it is mounted on my Manfrotto 055:

 

[Dave_W]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

I'm using the Manfrotto 054 Magnesium ball head and so far it seems to work fine. But before I purchased this head I bought the 498 and returned it a few days after it arrived for the exact same reason as you. With smaller lenses it didn't seem so bad but with my 70-300mm the slip was just too much to put up with. My adventure in ball heads just reminded me once again that you really do get what you pay for when it comes to camera equipment.

 

[PapaST]

I have a 498 and 496 and when I first started using them I noticed sag on my heavy lenses. One thing I started to do was adjust the friction knob in accordance to the lens I had on the tripod. Before I used to point above the subject and let it sag down to the object. Now I just point at the subject. When I have the friction knob set correctly it also gives a smoother/predictable pan or track when I release the lock knob.

 

[WhiteLight]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

Never had an issue with sag with mine, and that's with a 150-500mm attached. You've tightened both ball knobs, right? I'm out of town for a while so I can't check, but I'll have a look again when I get back. As for the mounting plate, one of mine has a bit of play, but I bought a combo Manfrotto/Arca Swiss plate that's a good fit. Not sure if it has anything to do with the notch in the one side of the plate. Again, I'll check when I get back. Having both the the Manfrotto and MeFOTO tripods in rotation I tend to use the combo plate.

This makes me wonder if your QD plate isn't out of spec' then.

I'm using that head on one of my tripods right now and everything locks up like a bank vault.

I thought of the tightness & friction knobs as well..
Tightened it till i thought my fingers would bleed..
no difference...

the QR plate am using is the Manfrotto QR plate, so if they have wrong specs, am still screwed...

 

[WhiteLight]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

I have the Manfrotto 496RC2 ball head, and I've never had a problem with it......yet. Then again, the longest lens I have is the 55-300. Since I KNOW that there will be a slight sag when I lock it down, I compensate by tightening it UP just a tad. That way, I'm spot on with what I want to shoot. Works every time. I'm sure the Arca Swiss is awesome, but since I don't make a living with photography, I can't justify the exorbitant price.

You're going to laugh, but one of my favourite tripod heads is a 3-Way. It's old, but works flawlessly. Of course, I took it all apart and refurbished it myself, polishing the moving surfaces and lightly lubricating them with Vaseline so there's no sticking and binding, as was the case originally. Here it is mounted on my Manfrotto 055:

I have a 498 and 496 and when I first started using them I noticed sag on my heavy lenses. One thing I started to do was adjust the friction knob in accordance to the lens I had on the tripod. Before I used to point above the subject and let it sag down to the object. Now I just point at the subject. When I have the friction knob set correctly it also gives a smoother/predictable pan or track when I release the lock knob.

Tried the technique of tightening a tad higher & allowing it to creep lower, but there's no way of getting it spot on cos each time the movement varies...
and the result is something out of focus

 

[WhiteLight]

Re: 498 RC2 - Very Disappointed

I'm using the Manfrotto 054 Magnesium ball head and so far it seems to work fine. But before I purchased this head I bought the 498 and returned it a few days after it arrived for the exact same reason as you. With smaller lenses it didn't seem so bad but with my 70-300mm the slip was just too much to put up with. My adventure in ball heads just reminded me once again that you really do get what you pay for when it comes to camera equipment.

So does it work totally well?
Cos though i love the Manfrotto tripod, am not too sure i want to go back to them for the ball head

 

[pedroj]

I use a three way tilt {No name}on my Benro