Sports & no Wimberley?

<p>Lazily watching Wimbledon & the World Cup & looking at all the photographers on the sidelines with the great big whites, I was wondering why none of them ever use Wimberley Gimbal heads? Wouldn't they work great with sports photography?</p>

They are too bulky, and cost, but primarily the action in sports stays on the same plane the ability to pivot up isn't

necessary they it would be if you were shooting wildlife (particularly fast moving animals that move erratically), and

aircraft in flight.

Typo and grammar correction:

They are too bulky. but since primarily the action in sports stays on the same plane the ability to pivot up and down isn't

as necessary as it is if you were shooting wildlife (particularly fast moving animals that move erratically), and aircraft in

flight.

<p>The Gimbal heads work better with tripods. There's not that much space in the photographers' area and so monopods are used.</p>

<p>No need for Gimbal-type or tripod heads since shooting sports with big lenses usually covers side-to-side movement majority of the time, so those heads are not necessary. And even if there are vertical movements in sports, usually you are so far back from that action with the big lens that the actual vertical movement on the lens & monopod combo is very little and well within easy range of simply tilting the rig fore and aft. And if the vertical action is nearby, you won't be using the 400mm f2.8 anyway, but hand-holding the 70-200 f2.8 instead.</p>

<p>Thanx for the replies :-) It makes sense, but I still would have imagined to see at least a couple of'em in some situations!</p>

Just to prove common wisdom wrong, here is a video from a working professional sports photojournalist discussing how

he uses a monopod- including using a gimbal type head:

http://www.thestar.com/photos/masterglass/2014/03/19/masterglass_42_the_monopod.html