Ball Mount Heads - Yes or No? (1 Viewer)

I tend toward the 'travel light' philosophy - mainly because I'm often on the move when out and about rather than restrict myself to a hide.
I have a small spotting scope that, when I use it, I use in conjunction with a monopod.
But I have been looking at tripods.
There are two kinds of heads - what I'll call the 'traditional' type (I'm sure it has a better name), and I've seen that some come with a ball-mount head.
My instincts tell me that the ball mount will be better with lighter equipment, such as a camera.
But are they any good with a scope?
My scope weighs about 1Kg, maybe a bit more.

Will a ball mount head be suitable? I'm hoping so because I've seen one I like and that falls within my price range. But I don't want to waste money if it's unsuitable.
Cheers, all.

If you search on old threads, you'll find plenty of discussion of ballhead use with scopes. Here's one recent one:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=334873

I think the quality of the ballhead matters a lot. Unfortunately, those that come attached to cheap travel tripods aren't usually very good. Many small light tripods are also not very good. It's generally best to buy the best tripod legs that you can afford (perhaps with crappy head), then buy the best head you can afford, then put them together.

--AP

I think you need to try them for yourself. Personally I really dislike using a ball head with scopes, but apparently some people do like them.

I much prefer the fluid heads, but each to their own.

humakt, post 1,
I have sed ball heads for years now wih great stisfaction, but you really need a top quality ball head.
Gijs van Ginkel

Thanks, chaps.
Think I may stick with a monopod then. I know it's not ideal, but it's a good compromise for me and how I do things. I tend to have the actual pod attached to my backpack by a length of paracord so that if it slips it doesn't hit the deck, or if I don't want to use it I can leave it hanging there as I walk.