Manfrotto 222 Trigger-grip Ball-head

[BinocularSky]

I managed to get hold of a used Manfrotto 222 trigger-grip head on FleaBay for a reasonable price. It arrived today, so I've been comparing it to the Weifeng WT011H (branded Konig/Olivon/Camrock/DynaSun/etc.) that we all seem to be using. 

• Overall impression is that, where the Weifeng oozes basic utilitarianism, the Manfrotto oozes quality and class. It's matte black powder-coated, so it feels warmer (and softer) to the touch -- no doubt this will change inuse it under a clear night where it will radiatively cool much quicker than the Weifeng.
• The Manfrotto ball is very much smoother. Visually, the Weifeng ball has ridges, and these manifest as a change in ball-tension in different parts of the motion. The Manfrotto ball-tension is uniform.
• The Manfrotto has a tension-adjust that adjusts the ball-tension when the grip is operated, from "none at all" to "good - the binoculars won't slip and bash my nose as I try to adjust the elevation". No such niceties on the Weifeng.
• The Manfrotto base is slightly larger and has a knurled rim. This allows it to be more easily tightened onto the monopod.
• The Manfrotto operating plunger is partly external, making it potentially more vulnerable than the entirely internal Weifeng mechanism.
• The Manfrotto QR plate is smaller and has no video pin.
• The Manfrotto QR plate release lever mechanism is external, making it potentially more vulnerable than the entirely internal Weifeng mechanism.
• The Manfrotto QR plate lock is a tiny brass thumb-lever; the Weifeng lock is a knurled thumbscrew.

Overall, the Manfrotto is clearly the better head -- as it should be at around three times the price. However, bits of it are a bit more vulnerable to damage than is the case with the Weifeng, so more care will need to be taken with storage and transport. Is it worth the extra? Hard to say: I wouldn't have paid full price for it and I won't be getting rid of the Weifeng, but I really do appreciate the better quality of the Manfrotto.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Nice report. I will have a look at a monopod solution for my travels. I will check out the Manfrotto head as well

[Damo636]

Thanks for the feedback Steve. I've considered one of those on a few occasions, but wasn't sure it would offer anything over the Weifeng (Camrock branded). It sounds like a very nice product.

[Joseki]

Thanks for reviewing the 222, I've been watching a few on ebay lately. The tension adjust is a nice feature by the looks of it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Alfian]

Thanks for the review Steve. I've had to look the 222 up - thats a nice looking head.

[gadusmorhua]

I realise this is an old post but I've just found a new 222 on eBay. I am finding it harder to squeeze the lever than I anticipated. As far as I can tell the tension-adjust wheel simply changes how easily the ball joint moves once the lever is operated, and the allen key adjustment allows wear to be taken up. Is there anyway to make it easier to squeeze, without compromising its locking ability?

[DaveL59]

The trigger grip on mine needs a firm pull, not sure you can adjust that. Was yours new new or new to you/used?

You may find that turning the wheel toward + while it stiffens the movement on the ball does loosen the trigger a little. Just tried that on mine and it seems to, or perhaps just the shorter travel is deceiving me.

[gadusmorhua]

No, it was brand new , in the box  and unhandled, even though I appreciate it's an old model now. I've turned the allen screw  360° and it may well have helped a little. I read an old post where the spring was replaced with a weaker version, but it lost its grip under a heavy load. If my arthritis can stand it I'll sit and squeeze it a while

It is certainly a nice trigger grip in every other respect  though, serious bit of kit. I'll find it o.k to use, I'm sure. I just think the trigger grip feels a bit unrefined.

[DaveL59]

wow lucky find then, mine's quite a few years older. Been a while since I had mine apart to overhaul but opened it to have a look. I can't see how the trigger spring would affect the grip on the ball as that is an isolated section. That is a very long spring in the trigger so will have a play and see if I can alter it with a different length one.

Will let you know 🙂 

[Nakedgun]

I tried one, tripod mounted, and found it simply too much trouble to operate, offering no real advantage for binocular viewing over a conventional ball-head (properly sized for the anticipated load) on monopod. Using the 222 on monopod would be a non-starter.

[DaveL59]

So I found a smaller spring that is weaker but a lot shorter and narrower, too short in fact. So with a bolt inserted in the end of it I have it set for the length where the plunger reaches the stop end (bolt end inserted in the plunger to distribute load better).

Reassembled it all and the trigger now needs a bit less effort. No change to the tension on the ball as that is set by the lower spring with the red pointer and the allen screw. Think I'll leave it set up this way rather than mess about trying to get that big spring back in place 🙂 

 

edit - thinking about it you would have to have a spring with enough stiffness as the trigger is a fulcrum that pushes downward on the yoke that brakes against the ball head. So while you might use a shorter or weaker spring it'd need to be able to apply enough outward pressure on the trigger to force the fulcrum bearing down against the yoke. Perhaps this one I've used while shorter and weaker is enough to succeed.

Edited December 9, 2020 by DaveL59

[gadusmorhua]

Thanks for your experimentation, I can understand how it works now, to grip a heavy camera and lens requires a big spring to clamp the ball, which requires a similarly matched spring on the lever. In some respects it is more than is needed for lighter loads like my bins.

On 08/12/2020 at 19:33, Nakedgun said:

I tried one, tripod mounted, and found it simply too much trouble to operate, offering no real advantage for binocular viewing over a conventional ball-head (properly sized for the anticipated load) on monopod. Using the 222 on monopod would be a non-starter.

Until now I've been using my camera gear and the small ball joint  on my monopod was awkward to lock. I find the 222 on the monopod is great in that respect, I just wish the lever was easier.

[DaveL59]

On 13/12/2020 at 05:40, gadusmorhua said:

Thanks for your experimentation, I can understand how it works now, to grip a heavy camera and lens requires a big spring to clamp the ball, which requires a similarly matched spring on the lever. In some respects it is more than is needed for lighter loads like my bins.

Until now I've been using my camera gear and the small ball joint  on my monopod was awkward to lock. I find the 222 on the monopod is great in that respect, I just wish the lever was easier.

In fact I'm finding that with the mod I can release with just a little squeeze on the trigger and its much lighter, yet so far still seems to hold well on my A77ii with lens and my bino's. The spring I used is quite stiff tho as it was one of a group I ordered from when I shifted the mirror further up on my TAL-1 reflector. It is set to be slightly longer than the space it fits in by virtue of that bolt so does exert sufficient outward force on the trigger. Its effect is multiplied by the fulcrum arrangement of the trigger mechanism.

I do wonder if the same effect might be had by simply shortening the OEM spring so that it's say 3-5mm longer than the space it fits (casing edge to the internal bore of the plunger). Of course there's no easy way back if that doesn't work tho you could then rig a similar bolt/washer/nut arrangement to increase the effective length.

What bino are you using on this tho, large and heavy, or regular 10x50 type? I can't comment on the bigger version as I tend to use a 10x50 which is fairly light, or Swift Audubon 8.5x44 which are heavier but physically around the same size.