In article <3292c62c.13650234@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, bchau@ix.netcom.com says...
>Chuck Hoffman wrote:

>>Ball heads seem to be a whizz-bang that many people think they have to
>>have in order to be considered among the photographic "who's who." The
>>good ones are expensive; the cheap ones not worth having.
>>The pan-tilt head -- if it has 3 axes (that's the plural of axis, not a
>>timber cutting device) -- will do everthing a ball head will do, albeit a
>>little slower but at *far* less cost.

>I'll add pan&tilts are probably the choice to architecture photos where
>precise framing is needed, as long as your viewfinder is not too much off !
>I don't like pan&tilts for travel and packpacking because of all those >paddles sticking out.

A GOOD ball-head is a joy to use for architecture - I just "ooze" the
camera into correct alignment. I got tired of trying to compensate
for the slight tilt that got introduced when tightening pan-tilt heads
(though maybe the best head for architecture would be a GOOD pan-tilt head....;-)
Hope This Helps