Gimbal head help

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 4 5 end

Gimbal head help

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · Gimbal head help

StillFingerz wrote:
Not unlike the lighter weight CB-LS that I picked up, which can be dis-assembled to make it a 'side-mount' gimbal, the Mongoose 3.6 'standard side-mount' design can be converted to your regular L gimbal look/feel with their 'low-mount-arm'. It's just a lighter weight dual-purposed design, gives you two options to choose from, this accessory arm is $90 buckaroos...

Mongoose 3.6 w/ILM
http://stores.4gdphoto.com/-strse-113/ILM-~-Integrated-Low/Detail.bok

Given it's lighter weight, knowing how my CR handles, other then a 500mm, I'm not sure I'd get anything but the bigger/heavier gimbals for the heavier expensive teles; f2.8s, 600 and 1200mm...just my observation...the biggest lens I have is an older nFD 400 f4.5.

Thanx Jerry, finally something that looks like it can have a gimbal action with that pivoting arm adaptation.

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:19 AM

Sunny Sra
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · Gimbal head help

PetKal wrote:
Sunny Sra wrote:
Here is a video review of Mongoose 3.5 series. actually it looks really good.

http://www.outdoorphotogear.com/blog/dpe-video-review-of-the-mongoose-m3-5b-gimbal-tripod-head-1715

Why do they call that a "gimbal" ?

You can email them and find out

it looks like it functions like a gimbal..unless i'm missing something

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:24 AM

Sunny Sra
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · Gimbal head help

PetKal wrote:
StillFingerz wrote:
Not unlike the lighter weight CB-LS that I picked up, which can be dis-assembled to make it a 'side-mount' gimbal, the Mongoose 3.6 'standard side-mount' design can be converted to your regular L gimbal look/feel with their 'low-mount-arm'. It's just a lighter weight dual-purposed design, gives you two options to choose from, this accessory arm is $90 buckaroos...

Mongoose 3.6 w/ILM
http://stores.4gdphoto.com/-strse-113/ILM-~-Integrated-Low/Detail.bok

Given it's lighter weight, knowing how my CR handles, other then a 500mm, I'm not sure I'd get anything but the bigger/heavier gimbals for the heavier expensive teles; f2.8s, 600 and 1200mm...just my observation...the biggest lens I have is an older nFD 400 f4.5.

Thanx Jerry, finally something that looks like it can have a gimbal action with that pivoting arm adaptation.

Just having a low pivoting arm makes it a gimbal? you can pivot up and down in that video and rotate it around...i'm really trying to understand...what is different that doesn't make it a gimbal?

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:27 AM

Sunny Sra
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · Gimbal head help

Lars Johnsson wrote:
Sunny Sra wrote:
Here is a video review of Mongoose 3.5 series. actually it looks really good.

http://www.outdoorphotogear.com/blog/dpe-video-review-of-the-mongoose-m3-5b-gimbal-tripod-head-1715

And you can also see that it's not a full Gimbal or have full Gimbal action like they write. $ 600 for a Sidekick or Sidemount head is expensive compared to the more well-known brands.

What is gimbal action? I read the wiki page...do you have a video or something that explains it better?
Thanks

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:29 AM

StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · Gimbal head help

If you're not lugging around a heavy-heavy load but want the support/action of a gimbal, these lighter weight gimbals make sense.

At around 2lbs they add very little weight and can provide near the same functionality/support as the bigger boyz. If I was backpacking/hiking like I use to, one of these would have been a sweet alternative...if you don't need the weight why carry it

Compared to my CB's fugly squared old school look, that Mongoose has a cool name and certainly a modern look...it's knob size/placement do look kinda smallish n awkward; not glove friendly I'd guess.

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:33 AM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · Gimbal head help

You need the swing arm with the adjustable platform. So you can work with gravity instead of against it. That's what you do with a Sidemount/sidekick. With a full gimbal you can move the lens in any direction with just one finger and without any force or power.

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:35 AM

StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · Gimbal head help

Traditional Gimbal head action, a 1D body, Jobu Jr. and Sigma 50-500 demonstrate...

Jobu Design Black Widow Jr.3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0esFkGdKdXQ

Action with the bigger Gimbal/Lens

Jobu Design - Pro 2 Gimbal Head review by Bill Maynard of Wolvesonly.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm3xduY8jqQ

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:43 AM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · Gimbal head help

StillFingerz wrote:
If you're not lugging around a heavy-heavy load but want the support/action of a gimbal, these lighter weight gimbals make sense.

At around 2lbs they add very little weight and can provide near the same functionality/support as the bigger boyz. If I was backpacking/hiking like I use to, one of these would have been a sweet alternative...if you don't need the weight why carry it

Compared to my CB's fugly squared old school look, that Mongoose has a cool name and certainly a modern look...it's knob size/placement do look kinda smallish n awkward; not glove friendly I'd guess.

Yes I agree to the smaller size/weight part with a sidekick or sidemount instead of a full gimbal when backpacking/hiking. But then you have much lower priced heads from Wimberley and others. Or the head Roger Cicala talked about. Which is much smaller than the Moongoose. The main reason is that $ 600 is just too much for Sidemount/sidekick when the original and more famous brands cost a lot less.

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:43 AM

StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · Gimbal head help

Lars Johnsson wrote:
StillFingerz wrote:
If you're not lugging around a heavy-heavy load but want the support/action of a gimbal, these lighter weight gimbals make sense.

At around 2lbs they add very little weight and can provide near the same functionality/support as the bigger boyz. If I was backpacking/hiking like I use to, one of these would have been a sweet alternative...if you don't need the weight why carry it

Compared to my CB's fugly squared old school look, that Mongoose has a cool name and certainly a modern look...it's knob size/placement do look kinda smallish n awkward; not glove friendly I'd guess.

Yes I agree to the smaller size/weight part with a sidekick or sidemount instead of a full gimbal when backpacking/hiking. But then you have much lower priced heads from Wimberley and others. Or the head Roger Cicala talked about. Which is much smaller than the Moongoose.

Agreed Lars, that ball head w/bracket/mount Roger mentioned looks like a nice design, even keeps body/lens centered over the tripod...I'd like to see it in action; hint hint Roger, perhaps you can video it with your new 6D

Mar 11, 2013 at 03:53 AM

Doctorbird
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · Gimbal head help

If a contraption functions like a Gimbal mount, is it a Gimbal? As a blind test, let's put a shroud over each of the heads mentioned in this thread I dare say that one would be hard pressed to tell which is a Mongoose, Sidekick, Wimberly II, etc. as far as shooting functionality goes.

With a little thought, it would also seem that the torques and stresses in each of the heads would be essentially the same regardless of the design. Except in regards to things like length of the arms, of course.

A choice of either of these design would depend on whether one prefers an assuring stable horizontal platform on which to mount his or her expensive Super Tele, or an arguably less safe sidekick- like design with its accompanying weight loss of a pound or so.

Db

Mar 11, 2013 at 04:25 AM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · Gimbal head help

Doctorbird wrote:
If a contraption functions like a Gimbal mount, is it a Gimbal? As a blind test, let's put a shroud over each of the heads mentioned in this thread I dare say that one would be hard pressed to tell which is a Mongoose, Sidekick, Wimberly II, etc. as far as shooting functionality goes.

With a little thought, it would also seem that the torques and stresses in each of the heads would be essentially the same regardless of the design. Except in regards to things like length of the arms, of course.

A choice of either of these design would depend on whether one prefers an assuring stable horizontal platform on which to mount his or her expensive Super Tele, or an arguably less safe sidekick- like design with its accompanying weight loss of a pound or so.

Db

Mar 11, 2013 at 04:47 AM

Doctorbird
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · Gimbal head help

Lars Johnsson wrote:
Doctorbird wrote:
If a contraption functions like a Gimbal mount, is it a Gimbal? As a blind test, let's put a shroud over each of the heads mentioned in this thread I dare say that one would be hard pressed to tell which is a Mongoose, Sidekick, Wimberly II, etc. as far as shooting functionality goes.

With a little thought, it would also seem that the torques and stresses in each of the heads would be essentially the same regardless of the design. Except in regards to things like length of the arms, of course.

A choice of either of these design would depend on whether one prefers an assuring stable horizontal platform on which to mount his or her expensive Super Tele, or an arguably less safe sidekick- like design with its accompanying weight loss of a pound or so.

Db

It's a huge difference shooting with a full gimbal like the WimberleyII compared to a Sidekick /Moongoose. So I don't understand you. With closed eyes it would only take one second to notice the huge difference when moving the camera/lens.
And only the WimberleyII have the swing-arm out of those 3 heads.

Well, if the horizontal axes are at the same position in each of the systems, the lens would behave the same regardless of whether a rigid swing arm is present or not. Admittedly, I haven't only used my full CB gimbal, so these are only my perhaps naive perusings.

Db

Mar 11, 2013 at 05:09 AM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · Gimbal head help

I'm not sure that I understand you.
With the full gimbal you have the platform you attach the lens-foot in beneth your lens. So the lens just stand on top of it.
The sidekick/moongoose the the platform on the side of your lens. So the lens will fall down on the ground if not secure it with the screw-knob.
The full gimbal on the swing-arm feels weightless when balanced and you can move it with one finger even if it weights 5-10 kg.
The sidekick/moongoose needs a lot more power and you feel the weight. You work against the gravity when attaching the lens sideways. Just look at the Wimberley website with pics of all.

Mar 11, 2013 at 05:25 AM

Sunny Sra
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · Gimbal head help

Lars Johnsson wrote:
I'm not sure that I understand you.
With the full gimbal you have the platform you attach the lens-foot in beneth your lens. So the lens just stand on top of it.
The sidekick/moongoose the the platform on the side of your lens. So the lens will fall down on the ground if not secure it with the screw-knob.
The full gimbal on the swing-arm feels weightless when balanced and you can move it with one finger even if it weights 5-10 kg.
The sidekick/moongoose needs a lot more power and you feel the weight. You work against the gravity when attaching the lens sideways. Just look at the Wimberley website with pics of all.

Lars,
you can add this http://stores.4gdphoto.com/-strse-113/ILM-~-Integrated-Low/Detail.bok to the mongoose to make it look like wimberly. this unit http://stores.4gdphoto.com/-strse-118/M-dsh-3.6-~-Gimbal-Tripod/Detail.bok attaches to the tripod just like induro, wimberly and moves around just like that as shown in this video
http://www.outdoorphotogear.com/blog/dpe-video-review-of-the-mongoose-m3-5b-gimbal-tripod-head-1715

go to minute 0:52 where he shows it moving around with ease just like a wimberly, induro etc.

Mar 11, 2013 at 05:29 AM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · Gimbal head help

Compare it against the jobu video (I belive Jerry posted it here). And how easy he moves that lens. Why do you think Moongoose sell an extra arm-swing to attach with this head so you get a full Gimbal?

Mar 11, 2013 at 05:42 AM

Sunny Sra
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #16 · Gimbal head help

Lars Johnsson wrote:
Compare it against the jobu video (I belive Jerry posted it here). And how easy he moves that lens. Why do you think Moongoose sell an extra arm-swing to attach with this head so you get a full Gimbal?

Actually you can get the full gimbal motion without the arm. I think minds have been made..so we'll leave it at that. and if jobu is that smooth and others are not, lets say wimberly...induro etc...they are not gimbals then?

Mar 11, 2013 at 05:56 AM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · Gimbal head help

Sunny Sra wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Compare it against the jobu video (I belive Jerry posted it here). And how easy he moves that lens. Why do you think Moongoose sell an extra arm-swing to attach with this head so you get a full Gimbal?

Actually you can get the full gimbal motion without the arm. I think minds have been made..so we'll leave it at that. and if jobu is that smooth and others are not, lets say wimberly...induro etc...they are not gimbals then?

They are all Gimbal heads. But those with swing arms are called full gimbal heads. The others are often called side mount gimbal heads or sidekicks

Mar 11, 2013 at 06:02 AM

Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · Gimbal head help

RCicala wrote:
Those are the two, but if you haven't checked it out Markins just released a very cool thing - the BV20 that is a combination ballhead and gimbal. It's probably more an alternative to a ballhead = sidekick set up, but it's so much smaller that I fell in love with it. I can vouche for the fact it's great with a 500 f/4 size lens. I haven't worked it out with a 600 or 400 f/2.8 yet. But we did mount the Sigma 200-500 on it just to see - and it held it up fine.

http://www.markins.com/4.0/html_en/bv_20.php

That's very cool. I would like to try it

Mar 11, 2013 at 06:10 AM

Doctorbird
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · Gimbal head help

Lars Johnsson wrote:
I'm not sure that I understand you.
With the full gimbal you have the platform you attach the lens-foot in beneth your lens. So the lens just stand on top of it.
The sidekick/moongoose the the platform on the side of your lens. So the lens will fall down on the ground if not secure it with the screw-knob.
The full gimbal on the swing-arm feels weightless when balanced and you can move it with one finger even if it weights 5-10 kg.
The sidekick/moongoose needs a lot more power and you feel the weight. You work against the gravity when attaching the lens sideways. Just look at the Wimberley website with pics of all.

I'll try again. If the two pivot axes (the fulcrums, in technical jargon) for both systems are at the SAME positions in relation to the lens then both systems would behave identically. The rigid 'swing arm' only serves to provide a horizontal platform for mounting and does not change the axes of rotation. The stresses and torques on the head would be also the same in both. That's my belief.

If the horizontal axis cannot be adjusted up and down on the sidekicks then that's a different situation and may prevent the feeling of 'weightlessness'.

Db

Mar 11, 2013 at 01:03 PM

big country
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · Gimbal head help

does anyone know what the lightest full gimbal heads are?

Mar 11, 2013 at 01:15 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end