How do Induro PHQ pan heads compare with ball heads and gimbal heads?

Asked 11/4/2010

2 views

2 answers

0

I’m choosing my first tripod head and I’m trying to understand where an Induro PHQ-style pan head fits compared with high-end ball heads and gimbal heads. The marketing videos make the PHQ look very flexible and precise, but I’d like a less biased comparison.

What are the main pros and cons of a pan head like the Induro PHQ versus a top-end ball head? Also, how does that comparison change when considering a gimbal head? I’m especially interested in practical trade-offs such as speed, precision, ease of use, and what types of photography each design suits best.

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

15y ago

2 Answers

1

I recently did a lot of research on tripod heads, which included Gitzo, Manfrotto, Arca-Swiss, Wimberley, Custom Brackets and Induro.

The Induro heads are built pretty well, however in my experimentation in stores (which included the PQH line), they felt cumbersome from a usage perspective. Lots of knobs and locks and whatnot seemed to make things much too complicated and slow for my tastes. The Manfrotto heads also seemed similar, although not as complicated. One thing I will say for the Induro PQH heads is they are quite precise. If you really need extreme precision panning, in both the horizontal plane as well as the vertical plane and 45 degree planes, the Induro PQH is fairly unique. As a landscape photographer, I couldn't figure out any way to use that precision, and I certainly did not need it.

I ended up getting a Gitzo ball head for now, as it had only two controls: a knob to loosen the ball, and a flip screw to loosen panning. It is extremely nice, simple to use, and very light weight. It is a good head for basic photography, and the independent panning is very handy. The Gitzo head is also amazingly smooth in every respect, which was something I didn't feel in all but maybe Arca-Swiss heads.

When it comes to gimbal heads, I've only played with two. When it comes to freedom of movement, nothing is quite like a gimbal head. They are fantastic! The Wimberley head is very, very fluid, but very large and fairly heavy. It is not the best choice if you need to hike around with it and your gear. An alternative I came across on The Digital Picture was Custom Brackets. Seems CB is well-known for their flash brackets, and their gimbal head is somewhat unique. CB makes a modular gimbal head that, while when assembled is only slightly smaller than the Wimberley, is very compact when disassembled and packed away. Like the Wimberley, it is a very smooth, fluidly moving head. The CB gimbal also has numerous scale and guide markings on it, as well as a leveling bubble, which are all nice features (the Wimberley head is very simple and basic, lacking anything but the gravity-balanced mount and joint.) Since the CB gimbal is modular, it offers a variety of mounting options as well. You can attach the mounting base plate in a variety of ways with partial assembly, making it very flexible. There are several knobs that you use to lock or unlock degreed of panning and angling freedom, but unlike the Induro PQH head, there is plenty of room to use them.

I have not purchased one yet, but the Custom Brackets CB Gimbal is near the top of my list of camera gear, and will probably be one of my first purchases of 2011.

Originally by user124. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user124

15y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

An Induro PHQ-style pan/tilt head’s main advantage is precision. Separate controls for different axes let you make small, repeatable adjustments more easily than with a ball head, including controlled panning and tilting. That can be useful when careful composition matters.

The trade-off is speed and simplicity. Compared with a good ball head, a pan head usually feels more cumbersome: more knobs, more locks, and slower operation. For many photographers, especially general-purpose or landscape shooters, that extra complexity may not provide much real benefit.

A ball head is usually the quickest and simplest option for everyday use. It’s compact, fast to reposition, and popular as an all-around choice. Its weakness is that fine, independent axis adjustments are less precise.

A gimbal head is a different tool aimed mainly at large telephoto lenses and moving subjects. It’s designed to balance heavy lens/camera combinations and make tracking much easier. For that use, it’s often better than either a ball head or a pan head. But for general photography, it’s less versatile and more specialized.

In short: choose a pan head for precision, a ball head for speed and general use, and a gimbal for long, heavy telephoto wildlife/sports work.

UniqueBot

AI

15y ago

Your Answer