Why do ball heads have a panning base?

[dwswager]

I know this sounds stupid and I have used the panning base on ball heads to change composition in the past. I am also old enough to have used flash shoe mounted levels.  But the Arca Swiss P0 is the only ball head I have ever seen that has the panning base where it needs to be (below camera instead of below the ball). 

I typically use a panning clamp when I need the panning action and am using a ball head.  For other types of heads it might be a leveling base under the head.  I find the panning feature something I just always have to check is tightened down so when I have tension on the ball and reposition the camera, the ball moves and not the head rotating on the panning base.

What are the scenarios where one would not have a better option and use the panning base on a ball head?  Guess what I'm trying to figure is whether my photography just doesn't require it or might I be doing something the hard way out of ignorance and repetition.

[Herbc]

Excellent question.  One reason I quit using ball heads and went to geared - I use the chinese knock off of the D4. It has panning right below the camera.

[TimoK]

Excellent question.  One reason I quit using ball heads and went to geared - I use the chinese knock off of the D4. It has panning right below the camera.

+1
I use Linhof Micro 3D geared head. It has two panning bases, one below the head and another up below the camera. I think both are needed when shooting.

[viewfinder]

'Better' ball heads have  a panning feature to overcome one of the basic defects of ball heads,...that they only work when locked up tightly.   I did away with all of my ball heads about twenty years back and had never liked them because they are (to me anyway) a failed design on several counts.   In order to be stable and hold the camera adequately they have to be large and heavy with massive metal ball,..so a 'good' ball head contributes greatly to the weight of ones kit for doubtful efficiency and fitness for purpose.

I dumped my ball heads in favour of a Manfrotto 'pan & tilt' and have never looked back.    The camera is always supported and can easily scan teh landscape for spot metering or checking sharpness etc.   Tele lenses can be fractionally panned to get exact composition....none of this is possible with a basic ball head however well made...once you need to make a small adjustment the ball must be unlocked and the camera postion completely interrupted.

[armand]

Partially related to your question, I think Acratech balls can be reversed also (meaning with the panning base under the camera, specifically for panoramas).

[muntanela]

I dumped my ball heads in favour of a Manfrotto 'pan & tilt'

Precise, but heavy (and cumbersome). I have an Arca S. P0, it isn't precise for close up and macro but is very light and small. In the mountains every gram matters, particularly when you get older...

[dwswager]

Those that eschew ball heads typically are looking for precision of camera placement relative to the subject, usually in all 3 axis.  Not a strong point of ball heads which offer flexibility and speed when precision isn't a dominant factor.  I get the cube and pan/tilt heads.  Geared ball heads seem to be a baby splitting exercise that provides more precision while not totally eliminating the speed and flexibility. In my photography, I find tripod placement (getting the head where I where I want it) a much bigger chore than camera placement (manipulating the head to put the camera where I want it).

Back to the panning base issue. Very, very rarely have I ever found a situation where simply rotating the under ball panning base put the camera in the position where I wanted it.  And if you have to loosen the ball anyway, well...   I personally think most straight ball heads should forego the panning base.  It would save space, weight and cost for a feature better handled with a leveling base setup and/or a panning clamp.  Specialty type heads are different.

But even this Induro Panning head, I'm at a loss as to when I would pan using the base instead of the panning clamp under the camera.  I'm sure there are some photographic situations that would make that useful, I just don't know when because I've not had that need.

[Rado]

I like to use a tripod but I don't care about spending too much time setting it up (especially when hiking). So I typically pick up the whole tripod, find an acceptably stable placement quickly and then turn the head base so that the camera's back AND the ball control knob face me. If the panning base was only below the camera I would probably end up with the control knob in an awkward position and had to readjust the whole tripod.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I know this sounds stupid and I have used the panning base on ball heads to change composition in the past. I am also old enough to have used flash shoe mounted levels.  But the Arca Swiss P0 is the only ball head I have ever seen that has the panning base where it needs to be (below camera instead of below the ball). 

Doesn't the Uniqball do what you describe/want?  I have one and it works quite nicely.  Nick Devlin (I think) did a nice review of it a year or so back on LuLa.  It's also reasonable priced.