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

  

Archive 2010 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6
  
 
dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


Looking towards getting a 2nd gimbal head and I've narrowed it down to the Wimberley and the Mongoose.

I like the Wimberley because of the controls and no give but take issue with the weight. This makes the Mongoose M-3.6 tempting as it is half the weight and a weeks old product.

Any insight is invaluable.



Jun 14, 2010 at 02:36 PM
wtlloyd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


What lens do you intend to use on it?

My only gripe about the Wimberley is that you cannot set any "drag" or tension on the lock knobs in the new version. The old version Wimberley was excellent in that regard.
Now, it's either locked tight or too loose.

I know of the Mongoose heads, but I have no personal experience with them.

You would likely do far better putting this post in the Nature forum.



Jun 14, 2010 at 03:32 PM
SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


I have the Wimberley Mk II. It has the virtue of being able to adjust the rotational balance point of the lens/body combo to the Exact center of gravity. That means "Hands Off" balance with any combination or weight and fluid motion in any direction.

It works superbly with any weight of lens/body and is stable (after initial setup) so you can just plop your "Great White" into the QD clamp with no fear of tipover. I don't carry my tripod around much in the field so weight is an advantage to me (mass dampens vibration).

The Mongoose is new so you won't get a lot of informed comment right now. The 2.3 is reputed (by one reviewer) to be excellent for the lighter weight lens body combinations. Essentially the Mongoose design is a different product. If you are tramping miles (or portions of miles) in the field then the 5.6 Mongoose looks like a good trade off.



Jun 14, 2010 at 03:48 PM
dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


Will attaching to a 500 and 800. I have the Wimberley, love it but find it heavy.


Jun 14, 2010 at 05:09 PM
Jim Victory
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


I have used the Wimberley II and Mongoose 3.5a on a 500 and 600.

The Wimberley is easier to mount both on because of the sidemount of the Mongoose but I like everything else about the Mongoose. So much that I sold my Wimberley and use the Mongoose exclusively.

The Mongoose pans nicely, is easy to balance, and has a nice drag. The lens and camera combo stays where you put it without having to lock it down. It has a quick release system for easy removal of your camera and lens. This is a very nice element when you want to remove your rig quickly from your tripod for some HH shots.

It does require the addition of a low mount foot for your lens for maximum performance. The low mount foot will put the center of your lens over the center of the tripod for better balance and smoother panning.

The big plus for me is the lighter weight because I trek with my rig. If your a stationary shooter with a heavy rig the Wimberley may be a better choice.

Jim



Jun 14, 2010 at 06:02 PM
colincarter46
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


dont like the sidemount design of the mongoose, it easy to drop the heavy lens when tightening or loosening the knobs.

the wimberly 2 is superb and the bottom mount design is far superior in my opinion.



Jun 14, 2010 at 06:09 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Jim Victory
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


colincarter46 wrote:
dont like the sidemount design of the mongoose, it easy to drop the heavy lens when tightening or loosening the knobs.

the wimberly 2 is superb and the bottom mount design is far superior in my opinion.


I don't know what model of the Mongoose your referring to but the 3.5 version has a quick release clamp like the RRS clamp so there is no knobs to tighten or loosen when mounting like there is on the Wimberley.

Jim



Jun 14, 2010 at 06:22 PM
dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


This is a dilemma. So if I go with the Mongoose I would need to replate 1 lens on top of replacing the feet of another lens to get proper balance.

And the replacement feet would be to low and uncomfortably shaped to be used as a handle.



Jun 14, 2010 at 07:55 PM
spdntrxi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


I have the lo-pro lens plate on my 400 f2.8 (wimberley) definately too low to use as a handle. I am too leaning towards the Mongoose 3.6, but I'm going to hold out to see what RRS comes out with. The timing may not be right for you since rumor is might be July timeframe and sounds like you want one now.



Jun 15, 2010 at 01:58 AM
colincarter46
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


Jim Victory wrote:
I don't know what model of the Mongoose your referring to but the 3.5 version has a quick release clamp like the RRS clamp so there is no knobs to tighten or loosen when mounting like there is on the Wimberley.

Jim


right, but your still having to support the weight of the lens with the tripod mount on its side while attaching it to the mongoose unlike the wimberly where you can place the lens in the clamp and tighten the screw in clamp which is also better than the rrs lever clamp design. Ive seen rrs clamps get caught on bushes / branches etc and pulled open releasing the lens.

the mongoose is more like the wimberly sidekick in design so has the same problems associated with it.

have you seen this topic?

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=157797



Jun 15, 2010 at 06:33 PM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


It's much better balance with the Wimberley. The lens feels weightless on a full Wimberley. On the sidekick style Moongoose it's not at all like that


Jun 15, 2010 at 07:29 PM
sperraglia
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Wimberly WH-200 vs M-3.6


dolina wrote:
This is a dilemma. So if I go with the Mongoose I would need to replate 1 lens on top of replacing the feet of another lens to get proper balance.

And the replacement feet would be to low and uncomfortably shaped to be used as a handle.


You are right it is not as comfortable to hold with the low foot, but not impossible. I have the wimberley and the mongoose. If I am going to be working close to a car then I take the wimberly and for any hiking I adore the weight of the mongoose. I typically use a 500, but when I go back to Antarctica this October I am taking the 300 2.8 and I will take the mongoose to save weight.



Jun 15, 2010 at 08:29 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password