pKai wrote:
My 500/4 with 1.4x, 7D with grip and 2 batteries tilts the scales right at 14 lbs. I don't see any obvious signs of stress... i.e. bending, binding, noise, etc....... The ad for the Beike said its rated for 8kg, which from the feel of it, is pretty conservative. In a very cursory look, I couldn't find on the Wimberley site any rating for theirs... As for Chinese QC.... it wouldn't take much of a QC department to hang 16 kilos of sand from the thing and if its still standing a week later, rate it for 8.
Time will tell as far as durability goes.
One thing I've noticed about Chinese knockoff makers over the past couple of decades.... and this includes ALL knockoffs, not just photo gear.... Most have figure out that you can copy a $500 item for $20, profit $10, and its 100% garbage. You'll get one wave of sales and then the word is out and noone buys any more. Now you have to go and make your next one under a different name, etc..... OR...... you can copy a $500 item for $150 and it can be pretty damn good. You might even profit $20 and its still a bargain if well made. You can build up a reputation (i.e. Benro, Induro, etc...) and a following that results in repeat sales and word-of-mouth. I've seen this with flash triggers, remotes, strobes, tripods... you name it. In the 1990s, all the knockoffs were junk.... now, I'd say many of them are as or almost as good as the brand-name product they emulate... This is specially true with lower-tech items like triggers, heads, brackets, etc.... not so much with optics or too-fancy electronics. Although strobes from Yongnuo and Oloong are pretty decent. I just picked up an Oloong 690 to replace a fried 580EXII. It does E-TTL2 perfectly and almost everything else as good as the Canon. It even has a longer zoom range -- 180mm and a metal foot. It is a tad slower in recycle time than the 580EX and it won't function as a wireless TTL slave. Neither of these shortcomings mean anything for what I do. $165 delivered VS $500 for another 580. I have about 1,000 shots through it with zero issues.
If someone wants to pony up some donations, I'll buy another Beike gimbal and torture-test it to death. If enough money comes in, I'll buy a Wimberley too and do a side by side. I'll write and publish a complete illustrated review of what exactly it took to break them.. I'll kick in the first $20. Anyone want my PayPal account?
Lars Johnsson wrote:
So why do you only buy Nikon and Canon glass ? Is not the 3rd party glass at least as good for much cheaper money?
I don't see 3rd-party glass being anywhere near the quality of Canon L and whatever Nikon calls their "pro" glass. This is true for IQ as well as build quality. There are a few exceptions to this. The Tokina 10-17 comes to mind and I'm sure there are a few others.... Generally speaking, however, top-rung brand-name glass is still king.
That said, this situation also has improved in favor of 3rd-parties. I'd say up until the 1990s, all 3rd-party glass was junk... specially zooms. Then came the very decent Sigma 80-200 2.8, which was very good for the price. There have been a few more since.
Over the years, I've shot many 3rd party lenses.... the aforementioned Sigma was one... another was the Tamron 24-135 Aspherical. I chose them not because they were better than Canon/Nikon, but because they were the best I could afford at the time and were more than "good enough" for what I was doing which was mainly photojournalism at several not-so-major newspapers. Luckily now, I can afford some Canon L glass which is all I shoot with the single exception of a 1970's vintage Nikon 105mm 4.0 Micro Nikkor, which IMHO is the best macro lens ever made by anyone. I use it via an adapter on my Canon bodies. If that were not possible, I'd own a Nikon body just for this lens. Its that good. Soon, I plan on borrowing the new(ish) Canon 100 Macro 2.8L from CPS to see what it has to say for itself. Maybe the venerable Micro Nikkor has finally met its match.
Producing top optics -- even if you rip off the design -- is no trivial matter compared to a gimbal, ball head, or tripod. To make a decent one of those, all you need are quality materials, a CNC machine, and someone that knows how to run it and doesn't want $75/hr to do it. China has plenty of all three.... Glass is a little more complicated than that.
Will the Chinese ever knockoff a lens like the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II with comparable "everything"? Maybe, but I wouldn't look for it any time soon.
Zeiss made 3rd party glass pre-90's BTW. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, Cosina, and so on did as well. So, I guess you mean the HK startups? Because I'd estimate that about 20% of the models released across those Japanese brands are not junk and hold their own still even against new releases from Canikon and Olympentax etc. There are many Sigmas, Tamrons, Tokinas, and Cosina made lenses (etc.) from the 80's and 90's that are as good or better than the similar models from the big makers - even considering the big maker offerings now in 2012. If you include Japanese makers you can't really use the words "few", "close" or "good enough" when describing their IQ compared to the big makers. Just a quibble but I thought I'd mention it.
May 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
pKai wrote:
I don't see 3rd-party glass being anywhere near the quality of Canon L and whatever Nikon calls their "pro" glass. This is true for IQ as well as build quality.
I don't see any Wimberley knock-offs being near the quality of the Wimberley Head
But to be honest I see a lot more 3rd party glass being as good or better than Nikon/Canon pro glass. My seven Zeiss ZE lenses and two Voigtländer SLII lenses have at least as good (most of them better) IQ than Nikon/Canon pro glass in similar focal range. And they all have way better build quality than any Canon/Nikon.
My sigma glass have about the same IQ and build as Canon/Nikon
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't see any Wimberley knock-offs being near the quality of the Wimberley Head
I vote that we stop calling them Wimberley Knock-offs as the Wimberley itself is a knock-off. Also some of the Chinese made gimbal heads are easily as good as (or maybe better than) the Wimberley. I was in the store yesterday and held the Berno (sp?) next to the Wimberley mounted them and gave them a spin with a dead EF 800 and a dead 1D sitting there just for that. I walked away thinking the Berno (sp?) was not only better made but also had way smoother and finer adjustments. But both the Wimberley and the Berno (sp) were priced identically too tho.
The Beike does seem like it's inferior by holding it and looking at it. But in actual use after setting it up, it's so close to the same you couldn't tell the difference without looking! I guarantee it! And of course the Wimberley costs exactly six times as much... And I should add in all fairness to the Beike that if there's nothing sitting next to it to compare it's looks to, it looks like a very capable and serious piece of rigging - which of course in practice it actually is.
Kinda hard to figure this one out but think of this, but it should be a "no brainer", you spend between $5000 and $12,000 for a lens and another $2000 to $6000 for the camera and you are thinking about putting that rig on a $100 chinese knock off. You don't even know how its made, it could be full of pinholes and casting flaws and who knows if it's made of pot metal. Come on guy wake up and buy a decent head to put that fine investment on before disaster happens and then you post a warning about buying faulty chinese knock off gimbal heads.
You buy a million dollar home and a Maserati car. Do you spend $500 per bag of cement to make your driveway with or do you spend $25 per bag for the same stuff?
Yes, it should be a no-brainer... I agree.
Also, were the walls in your million dollar home built using oak 2x4's at $50 a piece? Or the usual $1.50 pine ones that are used in every other house - even the $40k dump 50 miles down the road...?
Also, also, I can prove it's not made out of pot metal with any defects in it. It's a regular cold-formed welded seam construction. I agree that all us Americans should try to buy American whenever we can! But when it means otherwise going without as in my case I just can't go for that! I mean, there's no way I'm spending more than about $150 for ANY head - no matter what! It's why I didn't have a gimbal until I came across this thing.
Also, also, also; I think we've clearly established already that it's not a knock-off. At least not any more-so than the wimberley itself. Maybe reread the thread?
Bifurcator wrote:
I vote that we stop calling them Wimberley Knock-offs as the Wimberley itself is a knock-off. Also some of the Chinese made gimbal heads are easily as good as (or maybe better than) the Wimberley. I was in the store yesterday and held the Berno (sp?) next to the Wimberley mounted them and gave them a spin with a dead EF 800 and a dead 1D sitting there just for that. I walked away thinking the Berno (sp?) was not only better made but also had way smoother and finer adjustments. But both the Wimberley and the Berno (sp) were priced identically too tho.
The Beike does seem like it's inferior by holding it and looking at it. But in actual use after setting it up, it's so close to the same you couldn't tell the difference without looking! I guarantee it! And of course the Wimberley costs exactly six times as much... And I should add in all fairness to the Beike that if there's nothing sitting next to it to compare it's looks to, it looks like a very capable and serious piece of rigging - which of course in practice it actually is.
Of course the Benro is better than the Beike or other cheap knock-offs. They are also a lot more expensive. I don't know any Benro sp. But the two full gimbal heads from Benro that they are selling in Sweden are named Benro GH-2 & Benro GH3. In Sweden they cost $ 555 and $ 670. Swedish prices so I would expect them to be a bit cheaper in the USA. But still very expensive compared to the knock-offs
No, I mean the Benro was indeed better than the Wimberley. Not by too much, but better all the same. Those are the two I compared in the store yesterday. I don't think anyone carries the Beike. I think it's internet only.. I could be wrong tho...
I dunno which models they were tho. Both the Wimberley and the Benro were used and both were selling for $480 (used).
Bifurcator wrote:
No, I mean the Benro was indeed better than the Wimberley. Not by too much, but better all the same. Those are the two I compared in the store yesterday. I don't think anyone carries the Beike. I think it's internet only.. I could be wrong tho...
They nearly have the same prices There are many other that are very good when paying more also. Jobu, RRS, Custom Brackets and similar brands
Bifurcator wrote:
Zeiss made 3rd party glass pre-90's
Although technically they are, maybe not when they're on a Leica, I don't consider Zeiss a "3rd-party lens" for the purpose of differentiating them from camera-maker lenses in terms of IQ and build quality.... There is no argument that Zeiss has been making top-rate optics for well over a century. Voigtlander (sp) is another one that is not in the same category as the "eastern" 3rd-party lens makers. Some of their offerings, specially in the shortish focal length, big aperture range, positively wipe the floor with anything Canon or Nikon have to offer. If I had need for a top-notch 50 or 85 1.4, I would not hesitate to pick Zeiss over Canon.
As for the others.... yes, I suppose, there have been some good 3rd-paty lenses all along.... some even better than OEM lenses. My personal experience (meaning the lenses I actually got to use myself -- YMMV) since beginning in photography in the late 1970s was that until the mid/late 1990s 3rd-party lenses were consistently junk with some exceptions. Since then, that has sort of flipped..... mostly good with some junk..... At least when we're talking about the "major" eastern 3rd-party producers like Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, etc..... I still believe that Canon "L" and "pro-level" Nikons consistently surpass any 3rd-party offering (again, Zeiss, V not included)..... "consistently" being the key word there. Of course, they are priced accordingly.......
My point for deviating into lenses in a topic about gimbals was to illustrate that with lenses, generally you get what you pay for.... and this has historically and up to now been mostly true. A $2500 Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II will spank the pants off any similar 3rd party offering -- but at twice the price or more. The same is not true for a $600 Wimberley head versus a $150 Beike.
capt don wrote:
Kinda hard to figure this one out but think of this, but it should be a "no brainer", you spend between $5000 and $12,000 for a lens and another $2000 to $6000 for the camera and you are thinking about putting that rig on a $100 chinese knock off. You don't even know how its made, it could be full of pinholes and casting flaws and who knows if it's made of pot metal. Come on guy wake up and buy a decent head to put that fine investment on before disaster happens and then you post a warning about buying faulty chinese knock off gimbal heads....Show more →
I agree that if money were no object, I'd always buy the "perceived" best of everything regardless of cost..... I may even pop for $50 studs for my mansion... just kuz I can.
As it happens, money does matter to me..... I have to choose to spend money where it will actually do something for me...... So when it comes to lenses (for example) that are totally more durable and yield better images, I will spend the money. When it comes to other things, I skimp a little so I can afford better stuff where it counts.... specially when the "cheapie" is a low-tech device, appears well built, and the obvious reason why its so cheap is the state of the Chinese near-slave economy. As I said in my earlier post... if this Beike head falls apart and dumps my $10,000 rig in a pond, I will buy TWO Wimberley heads with the insurance money.....
As for the "buy American" mantra..... Normally, I am a big proponent of this.... with TWO exceptions:
1. An American product I need doesn't exist -- Examples: cameras and lenses.... Ferrari-type cars (no, I don't have one), etc....
2. The foreign product is so well-built and so underpriced compared to the American counterpart that I can't resist and the other choice is not having one. This is the current state of tripods, ball heads, and gimbals. Apologies to the Mr. Wimberleys of the USA..... you are competing with Chinese slaves... better get used to it, kuz it ain't gonna change any time soon.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Why do you think Zeiss are NOT 3rd party on a Leica . Why is it different to use Zeiss on a Leica instead of using Zeiss on Canon/Nikon/Pentax
It was just a off-hand comment..... Didn't Leicas come with Zeiss lenses from the factory at least for a while? Wouldn't this make them OEM lenses? Pardon my ignorance..... I'm not that well-versed on Leica/Zeiss history.
Of course, there is no difference in actually using a Zeiss lens on any camera versus another.
Bifurcator wrote:
Zeiss made 3rd party glass pre-90's
pKai wrote:
Although technically they are, maybe not when they're on a Leica, I don't consider Zeiss a "3rd-party lens" for the purpose of differentiating them from camera-maker lenses in terms of IQ and build quality.... There is no argument that Zeiss has been making top-rate optics for well over a century. Voigtlander (sp) is another one that is not in the same category as the "eastern" 3rd-party lens makers. Some of their offerings, specially in the shortish focal length, big aperture range, positively wipe the floor with anything Canon or Nikon have to offer. If I had need for a top-notch 50 or 85 1.4, I would not hesitate to pick Zeiss over Canon.
As for the others.... yes, I suppose, there have been some good 3rd-paty lenses all along.... some even better than OEM lenses. My personal experience (meaning the lenses I actually got to use myself -- YMMV) since beginning in photography in the late 1970s was that until the mid/late 1990s 3rd-party lenses were consistently junk with some exceptions. Since then, that has sort of flipped..... mostly good with some junk..... At least when we're talking about the "major" eastern 3rd-party producers like Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, etc..... I still believe that Canon "L" and "pro-level" Nikons consistently surpass any 3rd-party offering (again, Zeiss, V not included)..... "consistently" being the key word there. Of course, they are priced accordingly.......
My point for deviating into lenses in a topic about gimbals was to illustrate that with lenses, generally you get what you pay for.... and this has historically and up to now been mostly true. A $2500 Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II will spank the pants off any similar 3rd party offering -- but at twice the price or more. The same is not true for a $600 Wimberley head versus a $150 Beike. ...Show more →
I've never agreed with that phrase even tho I have myself used it on occasion. One very often gets more for less and such it is with capitalism and the competition it encourages. Inversely one often pays a premium for nothing more useless than a simple printed logo. Apple's goods and that of their competitions is a great example here. In almost every case non-Apple products are superior in both function and toughness while at the same time much less expensive. Apple is fantastic at marketing and thus creating "demand" where none or little existed prior but just about everyone beats their pants off at making the toys. There are exceptions of course where sometimes the phrase applies but in my experience so far not really with support gear like remotes, heads, legs, lights, and so forth.
I don't remember the lens offerings back in the day because I almost only used maker glass with the bodies I owned. But today I have held, tested, and compared around 400 lenses this past year or two. It's of them and now (on digital) I know to comment.
In any case, for me, it doesn't really matter about any of the other gimbals because I would never pay their asking prices. I have used the Wimberley and I have compared it for one day to the Beike. If the price difference were even only two fold I would prefer the Beike. Yet the difference is not two but six to ten fold! The Beike is $69 with some expensive shipping (to Japan) attached bringing the total to something like $96 paid and delivered.
newspapers. Luckily now, I can afford some Canon L glass which is all I shoot with the single exception of a 1970's vintage Nikon 105mm 4.0 Micro Nikkor, which IMHO is the best macro lens ever made by anyone. I use it via an adapter on my Canon bodies. If that were not possible, I'd own a Nikon body just for this lens. Its that good. Soon, I plan on borrowing the new(ish) Canon 100 Macro 2.8L from CPS to see what it has to say for itself. Maybe the venerable Micro Nikkor has finally met its match. 
There are many Sigmas, Tamrons, Tokinas, and Cosina made lenses (etc.) from the 80's and 90's that are as good or better than the similar models from the big makers - even considering the big maker offerings now in 2012. If you include Japanese makers you can't really use the words "few", "close" or "good enough" when describing their IQ compared to the big makers. 
Just a quibble but I thought I'd mention it. 
And I should add in all fairness to the Beike that if there's nothing sitting next to it to compare it's looks to, it looks like a very capable and serious piece of rigging - which of course in practice it actually is. 
. Why is it different to use Zeiss on a Leica instead of using Zeiss on Canon/Nikon/Pentax