Gimbal heads
/forum/topic/1164106/1

1      
2
       end

Lars Johnsson
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Total Posts: 33544
Country: Thailand

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
egd5 wrote:
I'll plug the Induro. My friend has a Wimberly and side by side they are practically the same. Only about $100 cheaper, but if you have enough money lying around that it doesn't matter.....send me $100 for the advice.


Well in the context of the inuro thread that's on the same page as this thread
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1166155
I find that statement quite funny . As has been mentioned many times before for ALL equipment what may seem 'practically the same' on the outside may be worlds differnt on the inside .
Don't get me wrong I'm all for saving as much money as possible but when things are close I'd take the popular market leader .
And yes I know (as I mentioned above) I have a very cheap head. But I'm under no illusion that its a product that's up there with a wimberly . But then I'm not seeking to load it up with a really heavy rig like a 1 series and 400/2.8 or 600/4 .

As for other cheaper options, what anyone's thoughts on the manfrotto 393? A couple of hire sites over here hire them out with there super tele's (for a small charge) which makes me think they must consider them sturdy enough to put their lenses on


The Manfrotto head works for big lenses. Not as smooth or good as a Wimberley. But as a cheaper option it works.



dgdg
Registered: Jul 20, 2011
Total Posts: 1781
Country: United States

I had a chance to use the knock off inexpensive gimbal I mentioned here in this thread. Had a 400mm do with 1.4x extender. It was a bit stiff in the upper pivot point. However, I was able to move my lens easily during bif and when I took my hands off it, the lens did not move. So, I would say it worked very well for me without having balanced it. Since I will only use it several times a year, it works very well for me. Maybe if I used it professionally I would probably prefer something that moved more freely.



Ian.Dobinson
Registered: Feb 18, 2007
Total Posts: 11226
Country: United Kingdom

dgdg wrote:
I had a chance to use the knock off inexpensive gimbal I mentioned here in this thread. Had a 400mm do with 1.4x extender. It was a bit stiff in the upper pivot point. However, I was able to move my lens easily during bif and when I took my hands off it, the lens did not move. So, I would say it worked very well for me without having balanced it. Since I will only use it several times a year, it works very well for me. Maybe if I used it professionally I would probably prefer something that moved more freely.


Same here with my version (different vendor but same item) . I've had a 300/2.8 (sigma) on my 7D with both a 1.4 and a 2x on . Found it quite easy to balance out in all 3 combos.
When it comes to BIF the weak link in the chain is the user

I'll carry on with it until I can justify a 'proper' variant



egd5
Registered: Feb 08, 2005
Total Posts: 997
Country: United States

I guess I should have said "works practically the same". That's what I meant. But let me say, do you HAVE an Induro, have you used one? That may change your mind. I find it funny that you knock me for using something because it's a little cheaper but you have one that's even less. I know you didn't say it's as good....but I stand by my opinion, The Induro gimbal head is as good as the wimberly and about $100 cheaper. Again, that's my opinion.



stwells
Registered: Nov 22, 2012
Total Posts: 1
Country: United States

Though I have not used a 500 with it, I have the Jobu Jr 3 that many others have mounted 500s to. I can say that it has great construction, solid and smooth with a 100-400 and converters attached with a 1 series. No flex or play at all. I love it. I believe Jobu recommends the next higher (heavier and more expensive) model for the 500, but I've come across many reviews and the Jobu Jr 3 seems to be the preferred lightweight gimbal for the 500 from their line.

Below are some links that I used to help decide.

http://naturephotographyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2011/5/28/half-is-twice-as-good-jobu-jr-3.html

http://www.robertotoole.com/2012/08/17/jobu-designs-jr3-swing-arm-upgrade/

http://www.robertotoole.com/2012/06/14/jobu-jr-3-long-term-report/

http://photographylife.com/reviews/jobu-design-black-widow-jr

Steve



Lars Johnsson
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Total Posts: 33544
Country: Thailand

egd5 wrote:
I guess I should have said "works practically the same". That's what I meant. But let me say, do you HAVE an Induro, have you used one? That may change your mind. I find it funny that you knock me for using something because it's a little cheaper but you have one that's even less. I know you didn't say it's as good....but I stand by my opinion, The Induro gimbal head is as good as the wimberly and about $100 cheaper. Again, that's my opinion.


You will never hear any Wimberley owner say : My Wimberley Gimbal head is as good as the Induro head. And there's a reason for that



egd5
Registered: Feb 08, 2005
Total Posts: 997
Country: United States

Maybe so, just like Ford lovers will never say a Chevy is as good as theirs. Everyone has their likes and preferences.



vsg28
Registered: May 07, 2012
Total Posts: 1227
Country: United States

Lars Johnsson wrote:
egd5 wrote:
I guess I should have said "works practically the same". That's what I meant. But let me say, do you HAVE an Induro, have you used one? That may change your mind. I find it funny that you knock me for using something because it's a little cheaper but you have one that's even less. I know you didn't say it's as good....but I stand by my opinion, The Induro gimbal head is as good as the wimberly and about $100 cheaper. Again, that's my opinion.


You will never hear any Wimberley owner say : My Wimberley Gimbal head is as good as the Induro head. And there's a reason for that


Yes, the reason being that a Wimberley owner does not have an Induro or vice versa.



ben egbert
Registered: Jan 31, 2005
Total Posts: 5465
Country: United States

I got my 500 f4 in 2004, sold it this spring as I moved to a place that is not so great for bird photography, but I have thousands of bird images so I will share what I know.

I have a heavy aluminum tripod with no center column, very rigid. I have an Acraswiss ballhead and a Wimberly sidkick. This always worked for me and I never felt the need for the Full Wimberly.

I carried my camera/lens over my shoulder a few times but always felt that was an accident waiting to happen, especially when busting through brush or walking on ice or scrambling up or down steep banks. If I fell the lens would fall.

After those few times, I always carried the camera and lens in my Kinisis Bag.



Lars Johnsson
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Total Posts: 33544
Country: Thailand

vsg28 wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
egd5 wrote:
I guess I should have said "works practically the same". That's what I meant. But let me say, do you HAVE an Induro, have you used one? That may change your mind. I find it funny that you knock me for using something because it's a little cheaper but you have one that's even less. I know you didn't say it's as good....but I stand by my opinion, The Induro gimbal head is as good as the wimberly and about $100 cheaper. Again, that's my opinion.


You will never hear any Wimberley owner say : My Wimberley Gimbal head is as good as the Induro head. And there's a reason for that


Yes, the reason being that a Wimberley owner does not have an Induro or vice versa.


I know many people that owns or have used more than one Gimbal head. I have used 6-7 different Gimbal heads. And other people in this thread already wrote that they have used more than one.



1      
2
       end