Wimberly at $600 or Manfrotto 393 for less than $200?

<p>David, for what it's worth, the rotation on <strong>my </strong>600/4 is substantially less smooth when not orientated towards the ground. A 500/4 that <strong>I</strong> have used seems to behave the same. Again, you seem to be obsessed with having things locked down while I am more concerned how things move. </p>

<p>And David, I never said that the sidekick was<strong> thin</strong>, but rather that it was <strong>thinner</strong> than the Wimberly. I think we can all agree that is a very important distinction. </p>

<p>The OP was asking for equipment to handle the 500mm f/4L IS, which is what I was addressing. People considering larger lenses, such as the 600mm f/4 should probably consider other options than the Sidekick, since that'll be nearing the limits of its usefulness. I've handled a 600mm, but not used one on my Sidekick, but based on the handling and comparison to the 500, I think the 600mm is right at the useful limit of the Sidekick.</p>

<p>My reference to lockdown only related to your little "test" where you loosened each to your liking and then took comparison shots. A valid test would have started with each locked down and tried to address some way to lock down each to the same degree, so that the test would be valid. I normally use my Sidekick in motion.</p>

<p>Once again you carefully chose a descriptor to imply inferior quality to the Sidekick. As I've said several times before, mass is important. "Thin" brings a quality implication with it that's negative. Also important is bearing tightness, balance, smoothness and a host of factors, under which the Sidekick, when used with the appropriate ballhead, stands up well to. My suggestion of the Sidekick is given in the context of using it with a 400mm or 500mm lens. When you go 600mm and above, then you really need to consider a heavier, less convenient solution.</p>

<p>I have found that my Sidekick on Arca Swiss Z1 is pretty good, but not perfect with my 500mm F4.<br>

Never really thought about using my monopod, but I find it is not smooth on my tripod --- tends to feel like it has a hard time with the weight of the setup.</p>

 

<p>My complaint about the Arca-Swiss Z1 is that the panning resistance is not adjustable. If it were up to me, it'd be a little lighter. It really requires two hands for smooth action. Mine has loosened only slightly with usage, but I've grown accustomed to it and actually like it as it is. Still, it'd be ideal if the panning resistance were adjustable.</p>

<p>David, maybe that is the problem with mine. I find it really stiff and hard to properly adjust. I am not sure what else to try with it. (talking about the Z1)</p>

Andy, I use two hands on my Z1. I have the Sidekick mounted to the left and I'm right handed, so my right hand is on the camera and my left hand is on the Sidekick, at or near the tension knob. I think it loosened slightly after a few hours of usage, but I still feel that I must use both hands. I'm happy with it now and not missing anything.

 

In my reviews of the Z1 I've noted this shortcoming. I've your going to use the Z1 as a scenic panorama head, then this won't be an issue at all, but if you're depending on it as the horizontal axis of a gimbal setup, then it's something to consider.

 

I'm curious, does anyone know of a ballhead with adjustable panoramic tension?

<p>I´m also looking for a Manfrotto 393 but for shoot with a manual focus lens. Has anyone here shooting with manual focus lens and using the 393? if so can you share your thoughts with us<br>

Thank you<br>

Antonio</p>