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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
  

Archive 2013 · Gimbal head help
  
 
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · Gimbal head help


Doctorbird wrote:
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



You can not adjust the horizontal or any axis up and down with a sidekick. The lens sit where you attach it.
On a full Wimberley you can adjust the lens up and down. And that knob and adjustment does not exist with a sidekick. Because of that you can never get the same good balance with a sidekick. Tele lenses have different size and weight. And you must have it in perfect position (adjusting it up and down- and also forward and backward) to get that weightlessness.



Mar 11, 2013 at 01:31 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · Gimbal head help


big country wrote:
does anyone know what the lightest full gimbal heads are?


I don't know but there are so many different sizes. And at least ten different copies from China. But not all are made to hold 600 or 800 lenses. Jobu have at least 3 different sizes for different lenses



Mar 11, 2013 at 01:37 PM
big country
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · Gimbal head help


I am speaking of major brands that can hold a 600/800mm


Mar 11, 2013 at 02:08 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · Gimbal head help


Sunny Sra wrote:
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?


You can not get the full gimbal motion without the arm. The arm is not only a horizontal platform. You adjust the lens and camera up down on the arm depending on how big lens/camera you have on it. You also adjust it forward and backward. That's why you get the weightlessness that people talk about.
With a sidekick you can not adjust it up or down. The lens will stay in the place where you attach it. The same spot for a small 135mm lens or a 800 lens.
And Wimberley also say that the sidekick shouls not be used with the largest lenses. For those the recommend a full Gimbal



Mar 11, 2013 at 02:09 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · Gimbal head help


big country wrote:
I am speaking of major brands that can hold a 600/800mm


I don't know. There are so many full gimbals with the new style of many pieces that you put together. The style of Custom Bracket, RRS, ProMediaGear and similar brands.



Mar 11, 2013 at 02:13 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · Gimbal head help


If a tripod head is not gravity driven self-levelling, then it should not be called a "gimbal", although in a free country you can call "lens" a "periscope", and you will probably not go to jail for it.

If the the distance between camera/lens and gimbal pivot axis is not adjustable, that might impair gimbal action for some camera/lens configurations. Full gimbal heads allow the vertical adjustment of the lens mounting platform on the gimbal swing/pivoting arm. The Mongoose sidemount head in the optional gimbal configuration doesn't seem to have that particular adjustment. Please correct me if I am wrong there.

One more thing. If the gimbal pivoting arm is long, and there is no verical lens platform adjustment, then I see the following happening: with a very heavy lens such as 400 f/2.8 IS MkI or 800L, which are provisioned with a low profile replacement foot, the gimbal action might become too strong causing the lens/camera setup to pendulate, after the setup had been thrown out of equilibrium.



Mar 11, 2013 at 02:35 PM
Doctorbird
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · Gimbal head help


PetKal wrote:
If a tripod head is not gravity driven self-levelling, then it should not be called a "gimbal", although in a free country you can call "lens" a "periscope", and you will probably not go to jail for it.

If the the distance between camera/lens and gimbal pivot axis is not adjustable, that might impair gimbal action for some camera/lens configurations. Full gimbal heads allow the vertical adjustment of the lens mounting platform on the gimbal swing/pivoting arm. The Mongoose sidemount head in the optional gimbal configuration doesn't seem to have that particular adjustment. Please correct me if I am
...Show more

That I don't know either, but that's not to say that the side mount could not be engineered with some type of vertical adjustability. As a practical matter though: the horizontal pivot is usually along the center line of the lens so the lens is probably vertically adjusted correctly (barring some unknown internal lens weight distribution), and the (hopefully) bottom heavy camera provides some vertical stability to the system.

Db



Mar 11, 2013 at 03:08 PM
jaybrams
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #8 · Gimbal head help


A couple of observations:

The Mongoose's strengths include its lightweight nature. Unlike the Sidekick, it doesnot go over a ballhead - adding weight to the tripod.

The bottom mount is available because some people prefer mounting their large lenses that way. Side mounting isn't for everyone.

PetKal implies I have a commercial interest in this product. I do not. I bought mine used.

I believe you can achieve the desired purpose with many of these "gimbal" style heads, I was just offering my perspective on using one that hadn't been mentioned in the thread. It didn't call for the snide reactions I received.



Mar 11, 2013 at 03:10 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · Gimbal head help


jaybrams wrote:
A couple of observations:

The Mongoose's strengths include its lightweight nature. Unlike the Sidekick, it doesnot go over a ballhead - adding weight to the tripod.

The bottom mount is available because some people prefer mounting their large lenses that way. Side mounting isn't for everyone.

PetKal implies I have a commercial interest in this product. I do not. I bought mine used.

I believe you can achieve the desired purpose with many of these "gimbal" style heads, I was just offering my perspective on using one that hadn't been mentioned in the thread. It didn't call for the snide reactions I received.


there is nothing wrong with the moongoose or your suggestion to use it. The "snide reactions" in the thread was not against you either (I belive) It was against a couple of people that say it can do everything a full gimbal can do. Which it can't of course.
Wimberley also have a similar head where you don't need any ballhead. The Wimberley sidemount head



Mar 11, 2013 at 03:30 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · Gimbal head help


Doctorbird wrote:
That I don't know either, but that's not to say that the side mount could not be engineered with some type of vertical adjustability. As a practical matter though: the horizontal pivot is usually along the center line of the lens so the lens is probably vertically adjusted correctly (barring some unknown internal lens weight distribution), and the (hopefully) bottom heavy camera provides some vertical stability to the system.

Db


Normally for the lens to be perfect balanced on a Gimbal is not at all on top of the Gimbal like here. The perfect position is normally further down against the middle of the gimbal. Look at a full gimbal and the maybe 10 cm that you can slide the lens down from the top position. Then it depends on what lens it is also. Size and build of it



Mar 11, 2013 at 03:38 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · Gimbal head help


The height of the foot matters too. Low profile feet generally achieve a stronger gimbal action, for the same total setup weight and the platform position. I prefer a gentler gimbal action, so the setup kind of coasts down to the equilibrium position, with the fricton fully loosened. I do not need it to swing too much to and fro.


Mar 11, 2013 at 03:56 PM
bipock
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #12 · Gimbal head help


I've used Wim and Induro. Both are good gimbals but the nod would go to the WMII as it is a little smoother in action.

I will add that you should be cautious looking at these knock off heads from ebay or whereever. They are not even close to the same quality as the aforemnetioned heads above. They are nowhere near as smooth in any direction nor are they strongly built. The inly application to using one with a 500, IMHO, is testing to see if you like the gimbal. This assumes you bought the head at a price that would allow you to resale it quickly with very little if any loss.



Mar 11, 2013 at 04:47 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · Gimbal head help


jaybrams wrote:
I recommend the Mongoose by 4th Generation Design.

http://stores.4gdphoto.com/-strse-118/M-dsh-3.6-~-Gimbal-Tripod/Detail.bok

This is the brand used and endorsed by Arthur Morris, the Explorer of Light, and one of the most reknown bird photographers.

I have the no longer made model 2.3 - designed for smaller lenses like my Canon 400/5.6. I highly recommend the Mongoose, and the owners of the company are very responsive to their customers.



It's rather funny with Arthur Morris. Because on the Wimberley website he is using Wimberley and endorse their gimbal



Mar 11, 2013 at 05:25 PM
Doctorbird
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #14 · Gimbal head help


PetKal wrote:
The height of the foot matters too. Low profile feet generally achieve a stronger gimbal action, for the same total setup weight and the platform position. I prefer a gentler gimbal action, so the setup kind of coasts down to the equilibrium position, with the fricton fully loosened. I do not need it to swing too much to and fro.


+1. A low profile lens foot and/or an optimally short horizontal plate will certainly alleviate the torque stress on the upper pivot point of the Gimbal.

Db



Mar 11, 2013 at 06:14 PM
jaybrams
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #15 · Gimbal head help


Actually, you can see Arthur on both websites (Wimberley and Mongoose). He used Wimberley in the past, and Mongoose more recently. He has offered strong support for Mongoose in various threads on Birdphotographers.net. He sells both in his on-line store. His tastes change over time, like everybody's. You go with what works for your purposes and equipment.


Mar 11, 2013 at 08:59 PM
Doctorbird
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #16 · Gimbal head help


Lasse Eriksson wrote:
I don't know. There are so many full gimbals with the new style of many pieces that you put together. The style of Custom Bracket, RRS, ProMediaGear and similar brands.



CB's website states that their newer lightweight 'full gimbal' CB-LS has the capacity to hold all lenses, and is 25% lighter than their main model: 2.5 lbs vs 3.3 lbs. That may be as light as they get. If the side arm is long enough to accommodate a large diameter super tele I'd tend to believe the capacity since the large model is so smooth and solid it may well be over engineered. I'd be tempted to try it myself as a component in a light weight travel setup.

Db



Mar 11, 2013 at 09:30 PM
StillFingerz
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #17 · Gimbal head help


Doctorbird wrote:
CB's website states that their newer lightweight 'full gimbal' CB-LS has the capacity to hold all lenses, and is 25% lighter than their main model: 2.5 lbs vs 3.3 lbs. That may be as light as they get. If the side arm is long enough to accommodate a large diameter super tele I'd tend to believe the capacity since the large model is so smooth and solid it may well be over engineered. I'd be tempted to try it myself as a component in a light weight travel setup.

Db


Db, once I get rolling and able to travel again, perhaps we can get together and you can then give my CB-LS a go. I do a ton of mostly hand-held shooting and would be more than willing to have you fully test it out with your bigger glass. I usually don't use a gimbal or ball head but once a month outdoors and have a geared head for my indoor shoots. I imagine many would be interested in your findings/conclusions...it would give me the info wanted if I decide to rent some big glass

Jerry



Mar 11, 2013 at 09:56 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · Gimbal head help


Doctorbird wrote:
CB's website states that their newer lightweight 'full gimbal' CB-LS has the capacity to hold all lenses, and is 25% lighter than their main model: 2.5 lbs vs 3.3 lbs. That may be as light as they get. If the side arm is long enough to accommodate a large diameter super tele I'd tend to believe the capacity since the large model is so smooth and solid it may well be over engineered. I'd be tempted to try it myself as a component in a light weight travel setup.

Db


Most Chinese gimbal heads also states that. And they also have a low weight. Sme even lower than this head. There have been threads about them in the alt forum. A large ballhead can also hold 600-800 lenses. But how good does it work?
And if they say it can hold ALL lenses I would like to see some of the really huge lenses on it. The ones that are many times as heavy as a 600 or 800 Canon/Nikon lens.
I'm sure that the Moongoose is a nice gimbal. I'm also rather sure it will not work good with ALL lenses. You can give it a nice and easy start with the Sigma 200-500 lens



Mar 12, 2013 at 02:26 AM
Doctorbird
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #19 · Gimbal head help


StillFingerz wrote:
Db, once I get rolling and able to travel again, perhaps we can get together and you can then give my CB-LS a go. I do a ton of mostly hand-held shooting and would be more than willing to have you fully test it out with your bigger glass. I usually don't use a gimbal or ball head but once a month outdoors and have a geared head for my indoor shoots. I imagine many would be interested in your findings/conclusions...it would give me the info wanted if I decide to rent some big glass

Jerry


Jerry,

I haven't forgotten our plans to meet up when you feel up to it. Judging from my experience with the big solid CB, I'm fairly confident that the LS will be adequate as a lightweight alternative. I wonder whether you could provide a missing piece of data: the minimum distance from the center of the horizontal mount point to the vertical section of the arm. This'll tell me how large a lens barrel diameter the LS might accommodate. Also your opinion on this would be welcome.

Thanks

Db



Mar 12, 2013 at 03:09 AM
StillFingerz
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #20 · Gimbal head help


First, Db, just read your post, I'll get back to you with measurements late this afternoon or early evening, I'm stuck horizontal and I won't have access to my gear for most of the day.

Second, I wanted to add some additional info; observations/thoughts, about the CB-LS that might be quite important for anyone considering it's purchase. The CB-LS's weight reduction does come at a price; compromises were made. Given I'll probably never shoot with anything larger then the 400 f5.6L or the f4 DO, the LS seems like the right choice for my needs. However, with the bigger glass; 500mm and up, the CB and it's extras might be a wiser choice.

The heavier CB Gimbal is more adjustable, versatile and is only $95 more. Several nice features, perhaps necessary ones for the bigger glass, were lost on the CB-LS.

Features of the CB that are not found on the CB-LS

- Easy to disassemble for compact packing and travel; the LS is not as modular.

- Two additional knobs, one for Panning, one for Tilting allow for more precise 'Drag' adjustment/control; to save weight the LS does not have these.

The CB is a multi-purposed design
1 - It can be configured as a traditional Gimbal with swing arm and lens plate.
2 - You can remove the swing arm/lens plate to side-mount your gear. With these removed,
it's ARCA Swiss style clamp can be used to side mount you gear; like the mongoose design.
3 - You can detach/use it's vertical support w/Arca Clamp; sans the swing arm/lens plate, as you
would with the SideKick/ball head combo.
4 - The vertical support; the attachment point for the swing arm/lens mount, has an adjustment knob and it looks like you can vertically adjust the swing arm, this is in addition to the standard vertical adjustment of the lens plate along the swing arm.

I choose the CB-LS for it's lighter weight, reduced cost, didn't need the extra adjustment or multi-purpose features, however, at only $95 more the CB might be the more flexible option.

Db, 3iron and WesN, maybe you three can elaborate, give your observations/thoughts on how the lost features listed above might compromise the Gimbal's usability.

Thanks all,
Jerry



Mar 12, 2013 at 03:14 PM
1       2       3      
4
       5       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password