Is Gimbal Head or sidekick much better than Ball head?

[jemini_joseph]

I know Gimbal head has the huge advantage of safety. The lens

won't flip-off even if you take the hand off leaving the

head losen.

 

 

 

Other than that does Gimbal control the small vibrations

better than ball head? I'm talking about the small vibrations

that can happen when you use 2X TC with a 500mm lens.

 

I know IS is the best option for this. But it's not an option for me

at the moment.

 

I use Kirk BH-1. If I buy a sidekick, would that help a lot? How about

the Wimberly Gimbal? Is it better than side kick and ball head?

 

I'll be using it with 500mm lens and 500mm+1.4TC

 

Thanks in advance..

[dale_sandford]

The main advantage of a gimbal or Sidekick mount is that they are set up to balance the

camera and lens at the pivot points of the mount. This keeps the set up balanced and

allows free movement throughout a wide range of movement. This is highly desirable for

tracking moving subjects such as birds in flight. I don't know of any advantage for

vibration damping.

 

-- Dale

[mark_chappell]

Without having tested anything, I'd guess that if your only consideration is vibration, you

will be WORSE off with a gimbal head than

with a ballhead alone, simply because there's more and longer pieces joining the camera

to the tripod. As Dale said, the 'goal' in the design of gimbal heads is easy aiming and

tracking, not for utmost steadyness (the assumption is that you're likely to be using a high

shutter speed for a moving target).

[alex_lofquist]

I also use the Kirk BH-1 and a Sidekick with my 500mm f/4 (and often with the 1.4X TC). It balances well and makes a great combination! At times I will also mount my 300mm on the sidekick, but usually I reserve this lens for quick grab shots when the 500mm is on the tripod. The advantage of the Sidekick is that you can easily switch to the ball-head only when needed (such as with wide angles and macro lenses). If I were shooting with a 600mm, I would probably use the full Wimberley, but the 500mm is just ideal with the Sidekick!

[stnoonan]

Jemini,

 

<p>I use the Kirk BH-1 and the sidekick for my 500mm (+1.4tc, 2tc, flash, extenders, etc) and really enjoy using the setup. It handles the load really well and isn't nearly as bulky as the full Wimberly head. It will not help with vibration per se, and you still have to use good long lens technique to make sharp exposures. The full gimbal head will give you greater load capacity, but you give up the ability to quickly switch from your longest lens to your shortest on your tripod (you'll have to remove the head).

 

<p>Good luck!

 

<p>Sean

<br><A href="http://www.stnphotography.com">www.stnphotography.com</a>

[jemini_joseph]

Thanks a lot for the replies guys

I think I got the answer. It won't add any more stability,

but lots of flexibility.

 

I don't care much about the ball head alone because 500mm is the

only lens I have. So at the moment just a wiberly would be nice.

But I can see that adding a second small lens to my setup which can

be a 300/4 or 80-400 VR (or the canon equivalent). Well, if money

allows. :)

 

Sounds like Sidekick is the best option at the moment. There's one

Side kick in eBay right now. let me go and try for that :)

[mike_smith2]

Long lens technique is to rest a hand on top of the lens, this helps dampen down vibrations whether using a gimbal or a ballhead. Stuffing your face hard against the back of the camera body also helps (contrary to common sense that you would increase vibrational movement) - I believe there is a helpfull tutorial/guide on Moose Peterson's Nikon website about long lens technique?

 

I use a Canon 500F4.5L and tried using an A/S B1 ballhead on it's own for a short while but was continually fighting sideways ballflop. The Sidekick has now restored total control and it is a real pleasure using the lens now.

 

500 F4/4.5 lenses are about the safe limit of a Sidekick, the 400 F2.8, 600 F4 lenses should be used with the full gimbal head. Advantage of Sidekick is that you have a ballhead for general photography and the gimbal for long telephoto work It is a flexibility issue. There are detractors who say the side jaw mounting of Sidekick and Kirk King Cobra are not 100% reliable. Touchwood after 12 months of use I have not had any lens dismounts with my Sidekick, but I am alert to potential problems having witnessed a 500 F4 and Canon 1DmkII fall 5' off a Sidekick for no apparent reason.

[jemini_joseph]

Thanks Mike

 

"having witnessed a 500 F4 and Canon 1DmkII fall 5' off a Sidekick for no apparent reason. "

 

Hmm, this scares me..

I've tried King Cobra from a friend of mine. In fact I wasn't impressed. I thought it was almost impossible to lock it motion free. I might be wrong. It can be the particular piece. But my BH-1 if it's on a solid surface (this is very important) it locks the lens absolutely. But the problem is when I add the TC. Well, I guess I have to live with it..

 

I've tried the long lens techniques explained above. I get result at times, but not always. Well, I guess I have to practice it little bit more.. Anyway I'll try to find a cheap side kick...

[mike_smith2]

When I say "let go for no apparent reason" the lens and head had been used for about two hours before parting company, the only assumption was that lens plate was not clamped into the clamping grooves correctly between the top and bottom jaws (ie one side edge engaged only) and eventually slid out of the clamp jaw. No other reason came to hand, everything was locked tight. It is an easy mistake to make.

 

To get round this I never open the jaws completely to dismount the lens plate, but only sufficient to slide the plate in and out, slightly more awkward to use that way but at least I know the plate has not jumped out of the clamping grooves when tightening the jaws up.

 

The King Cobra and Sidekick are side mounting, the full Wimberly head is bottom mounting, if there is a mounting error the lens weight SHOULD in theory reduce chances of lens kit falling off the tripod.

[jemini_joseph]

That explains it. Mistakes are paid and in this case it's real easy to make it. :(

Couple of times I took the hand off the lens. Luckily the head was stright up, so nothing happened. I was wondering why no company is making an automatic mechanishm to lock (at least to hold) it.

Some manfrotto lower end heads has this. Once you please the camera on the head, you can just take the hand off. I love it.

[mark_chappell]

I think Mike has the answer to the 'let go' problem nailed. If you don't get your lens plate

in the clamp correctly, it can certainly fall out even if the clamp feels tight. But that's not

very likely to happen unless you're trying to mount the lens into the clamp in the dark --

it's pretty easy to see whether the mounting is correct or not. Mike is also dead-on in

terms of only slightly loosening the clamp to slide the lens for balance -- no need to open

it wide and at least some lens plates (like Wimberley) have little stop screws that should

prevent it from sliding out. An, you can keep a strap on the lens and wrap that around the

tripod or head as a backup in case you do have an accident. This can be easily done in

such a way that the strap isn't in the way, allows free movment, and will catch the lens if it

falls.

[mike_smith2]

Jemini

 

Sounds like you were not mounting the lens or plates correctly, the whole beauty of the gimbal head philosophy is then when in the correct balanced position you can move the camera and lens around with pressure from your little finger alone, when you let go the camera should stay put with no creep! - at least that is so with the Sidekick, I haven't used the full blown gimbals tho' the Wimberly one may swing back to horizantal position if there is no tension set?

[Rod Sorensen]

I'm probably just repeating answers, but I would agree that the gimbal doesn't help with vibration dampening. It does help with efficient use of long lenses. I happen to use the Black Widow gimbal by Jobu Design and it works great for birds in flight and sports photography. The Black Widow is a side mount and has those advantages. It additionally has the advantage of a plate/arm that can be added to make the lens mount horizonatally like the original Wimberley. A gimbal also works well for other types of photography if you have your heavy tripod set up with the gimbal mounted and you don't want to switch it back and forth with a normal ballhead.

I also agree with the methods to prevent the lens from falling off. Carefully put the lens on the plate in the place you estimate to be correct. With time, you'll be able to predict almost exactly where on the plate the lens should be. You can also put little marks on the lens plate to help. If the balance isn't just right VERY SLIGHTLY loosen the clamp and slide the lens to the right postion and retighten the clamp. If you are careful this will not ever be loose enough that the lens could fall off. The lens will only fall off if you are careless with the original mounting (the most likely reason for lenses and cameras falling off) of if you are careless with how you loosen and move it (much less often).

[todd_west]

One important bit that's been overlooked here; many Arca-Swiss clamps loosen with use, so just mounting the lens right is not enough. One often has to keep checking to make sure the clamp is still tight. I haven't used a Kirk enough to say, but the old RRS heads were utterly horrible in this regard. In comparison, I've never had the head of my Acratech loosen.

[jemini_joseph]

Thanks guys again. It's very infromative. I'll eventually get a Gimbal, either sidekick or full wimberly. For the time being I'll be happy with ball head. I've bookmarked this thread. It was really useful..