Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

150mm ball base vs. Mitchell base tripods

D

David Cho

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
298
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey,

I was wondering which is the more preferred tripod base? Mitchell or 150mm ball? I just bought a 150mm ball tripod this last week, and talked to people who preferred the ball bases over the flat mitchell base. But what do you guys think?

- David
 
I think you will find Mitchell base much more the standard. I don't think I have seen a 150mm mount on a professional set in over 10 years. There is nothing wrong with the mount, it's just that all most all dollies, and other systems use a Mitchell base.

Nick
 
Hi, it depends where you are. In Montreal, unless you rent film (film) gear, it's more or less hard to find Mitchell base and adapters. Ball 150 is pretty much the trend here.

Personally, I think both are very fine, but I prefer Mitchell base. Every once in a while I'll end up with a very heavy rig and then ball mount becomes a real pain to use. Also, whenever you want to use something else than a camera on your tripod (like a jib) Mitchell is usually safer. Finally, Mitchell base allows you to shave a good four vertical inches off your rig, which is very useful when you want to get low. Just screw a mitchell base onto a pancake and sandbag the monkey out of it and you can use your head as close to ground level as you could.

Sure, ball mounts level faster than mitchell, but for what I do (mostly fiction), it's not worth those other advantages I'd be loosing.
 
Nick Gardner said:
I don't think I have seen a 150mm mount on a professional set in over 10 years.
Click to expand...

It very much depends where you are - we used one yesterday, and use them far more often that flat mounts - hell, the Euro mount gets used here more than the Mitchell/Moy - however you do see the flat mount occasionally on tripods for jibs and for very heavy film setups.
 
If you are not renting your gear its really personal preference... the Mitchell Base is pretty standard fare at rental houses. The 150mm ball is more common with owner/operators as its quicker to level.
 
Nick Gardner said:
I think you will find Mitchell base much more the standard. I don't think I have seen a 150mm mount on a professional set in over 10 years. There is nothing wrong with the mount, it's just that all most all dollies, and other systems use a Mitchell base.

Nick
Click to expand...

Hmmm... last time I saw a ball mount tripod on set was....your Cartoni head nick. Are you saying that production wasnt professional?
 
My cartoni is 100mm sir ;-) those are quite common. As I said, one is not better than the other, at least in major markets in the US, Mitchell is the standard. Things are definitely geographically dependent. And just for the record, I don't think it's any faster to level a ball head, in fact it's areal pain in the ass with a heavy camera.

You got a mitchell set up for your O'conner didn't you John?

Nick
 
I did. It came with a free 150mm adapter, since I bought it from a camera cowboy who "swore he had a pair of 150mm sticks around here SOMEWHERE".

Speaking of, I should sell that adapter. Its only in the way.
 
In the states of bigger pro shoots mitchell is the "standard." However, there are plenty of places in the world where you would be hard pressed to find a mitchell.

The balls are quick to level, in my eyes the only advantage. They do have weight restrictions and they add height. A 100mm ball head and sticks will also be much smaller than a mitchell set, but the 150mm will be comparable. With a good size rig, I would always prefer mitchell, but thats me. However a smaller camera has no real need to be on it.
 
Yep, europe is ball... But I have both on my Cartoni, and quite frankly, I never use the Mitchell... My Sigma holds a heavy rig, even on the ball, never had a shift. Basically, besides the individual preference and other "stability" theories, Ball you level with the ball, no matter if your tripod is leveled, and it's really quick, and Mitchell you level with the legs, which takes a bit longer, and which I think personally, is a pain the ass. Especially when you have 2 or 3 people around "giving a hand", it turns in a Marx Brothers sketch... I like the "kitching-kitching" fast and quick way of switching from pod to dolly to crane with just the ball-head and level it in a second. Especially if you move your gear around often, to get a better angle, looking for your shot, then Mitchell really becomes something you want to throw out the window... But it's very on a personal level, they both have their pros and cons... Don't get into the idea of Mitchell being more "pro"... That one was funny...
 
I have both types. I like the 150mm ball because it is faster to level. But If the camera is heavy with a big zoom or if I am going dutch I use the Mitchel because it dose not slip like a ball can.
 
I'm all 150mm, wich is sort of the standard in Europe, much faster to level and you just need to tighten it properly.

Emmanuel
 
I am sorry but Europe is not ball, Mitchell is standard, bowl fitting is very video orientated.
Furthermore, it is really easy to level on legs or a fourway leveller if on a dolly(always level useing opposing corners).
 
Rich Schaefer said:
I have both types. I like the 150mm ball because it is faster to level. But If the camera is heavy with a big zoom or if I am going dutch I use the Mitchel because it dose not slip like a ball can.
Click to expand...

Same here: Mitchell mount for big rigs, jibs, gear head, etc. 150 mm for lighter rigs or even 100 mm for back-pack run & gun style. For high-hat I usually go with 150 mm ball because I don't like leveling the base of a Mitchell high-hat with wedges.

I have several pieces of gear that are Mitchell mount and they are all a little different. For example, I had to make a custom keyway stud for one piece of gear by grinding down the head for use with one particular mount, then have to switch out studs when it's used on other mounts. Likewise, I have a 150 mm bowl adaptor that was designed with Sachtler and Ronford in mind that doesn't mesh well with my OConnor 150 mm high-hat or sticks. Basically these different interfaces seem to me to be more of a concept than a standard. I find it funny that OConnor, Sachtler, and Vinten marketing all claim to make the best gear, yet they are all owned by the same parent company, Vitec Group. The bottom line is that it's probably best to match the brand of your support to the brand of your head to avoid headaches.
 
For small run and gun low budget or ENG, Doc work, I like the 100mm ball on my Miller 55. It's fast and light.

For narrative work, I prefer Mitchell. Lower, more secure and lighter than 150mm (especially for vehicle work). Also, I find the extra weight of a 150 ball more debilitating than the leveling experience of Mitchell. Goes from dolley to sticks in seconds. And any real AC can level it quite fast by themself (one leg for X, the other for Y - done). I don't find the the speed of leveling that much an issue, especially when you use a director's stick to find the shot, the camera doesn't change position that much.
 
Cail Young said:
It very much depends where you are - we used one yesterday, and use them far more often that flat mounts - hell, the Euro mount gets used here more than the Mitchell/Moy - however you do see the flat mount occasionally on tripods for jibs and for very heavy film setups.
Click to expand...

Same for Argentina.
Remember,Nick... there´s a world outside the US!
Guido:dita:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top