When using an external zoom lens like the EF 100-400 or the RF 100-500 on a gimbal head like the Wimberley WH-200, Wimberley Sidekick, or Wimberley MonoGimbal Head does the balance of the camera/lens change noticeably when the lens extends? Does the balance change enough that is necessary to readjust the position of the lens in the head to get it balanced again?
Yes, the balance changes quite a bit. On a good gimbal (as you have described the first two) there should be precise enough tension control for the lens to stay put at rest (center on the range) and be able to gimbal it around at any focal length without too much effort. However, it's not like a perfectly 3D balanced big tele on a gimbal where it can be loose and moved around merely with a 5th digit. I use the Jobu Jr. Dlx 3 for the 100-400 II and 100-500 as it is a good match for size/strength and only weighs 1.5 lbs. The WH-200 is an overkill unless you will be swapping the zoom with a big tele lens. I have used the 100-400 II and 100-500 on the Sidekick though mostly for landscapes with multi-row pans. I prefer the traditional bottom balanced gimbal head, especially when using a raincoat. (Don't ask how I figured that out. )
I've used the Sidekick for many years with both versions of the EF 100-400L IS, and I can't recall any undue fussiness with respect to balance. I may have made slight adjustments by sliding the lens foot plate in the clamp, but I don't specifically recall doing this. IOW, not a problem.
Yes, the balance changes quite a bit and does require a new adjustment. However, for my bird/wildlife shooting, it's hardly an issue as I shoot zoom extended nearly 100%.
I set my Gimbal head so that camera and lens balance at the longest focal length and I celebrate and smile broadly when a wildlife subject comes close enough to cause me to zoom in a bit so that I don't overfill the frame. When the latter happens I don't really care about the balance being off a bit.
If your lens is always at the maximum zoom, then you need to get closer or use a 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6, etc. The 100-400 or 100-500 are more of an intermediate tele lens than the big guns.
Years ago, I transitioned away from a traditional gimbal to this (available at many places including B&H, BAA, etc.) and have never looked back. It is much more compact, allows full access to the camera, and is much easier to use with all of my lenses/bodies. Also, it's more forgiving since the ball is under tension and precise balance is less of an issue. Consequently, when using a zoom lens like the 100-500 I find that adjusting the lens mount is unnecessary.
You wouldn't use a Ball-head with the tension knob backed off, and it's no different with a Gimbal head. Even slight loosening of a Ball-head's tension results in the Camera & Lens flopping down to one side or the other.
For A Gimbal Head, find a balance "sweat-spot" position, leave it there, and control positions with the tension knob, as even though out of balance, movement is generally effortless with the Gimbal head's low center of gravity, and requires far less tension than a Ball-head to keep it in place.
armd wrote:
Years ago, I transitioned away from a traditional gimbal to this (available at many places including B&H, BAA, etc.) and have never looked back..
I think this is a matter of personal taste. Someone in my area has a FlexShooter and raves about it. Similar to you, he said it replaced both a ball head and a gimbal. It sounded great and the literature looked very promising. Fortunately he and I went shooting and he allowed me to try it with my gear. It didn’t take long before I decided that it wouldn’t work for me. In some ways it really is the best of both worlds, but in others it’s far from it. I had more difficulty tracking birds and cyclists with the FlexShooter than with either of my other heads. And with my gear and needs, I found it too imprecise when trying to lock it down. He was with me and agreed with my observations. So for that user, the FlexShooter is superb, whereas for me it was a no-go. Definitely a case of YMMV.
I have used the FlexShooter and observed that it doesn't have the smooth and numerical precision of a ballhead with panning base, and yet is not as smooth or balanced as a full gimbal. Obviously it has a niche market. It is compact and sturdy. I believe that the Uniqball has a similar design, but have not used that brand.
I haven't used a zoom lens for bird and wildlife photography since I rented the 100-400 (v1) for a week more than 15 years ago before I decided to purchase the 400/5.6 instead. More recently I've been shooting with the 300/2.8 II typically using a 1.4x extender with 1.6 crop cameras or a 2x extender with full frame cameras. I did rent the 100-500 at the same time I rented the R3 and R5 to decide which to purchase, but I was more focused comparing the cameras than evaluating the lens. I expect to purchase the 100-500 before the end of the year and as suggested, except for the rare cases when I get to shoot large mammals I'll probably be shooting fully extended most of the time, sometimes even with a 1.4x extender. Yes EBH, I try to get close , but I'm also sensitive about disturbing the wildlife, and I'm waiting to see Canon's next RF super-telephoto before I decide which one to pull the trigger on. Hopefully I won't have to wait until 2024.
EB-1 wrote:
I have used the FlexShooter and observed that it doesn't have the smooth and numerical precision of a ballhead with panning base, and yet is not as smooth or balanced as a full gimbal. Obviously it has a niche market. It is compact and sturdy. I believe that the Uniqball has a similar design, but have not used that brand.
EBH
Agree it's a matter of opinion though I've found that it is immensely more convenient, compact, and useable than my traditional gimbals. It's quicker to mount, easier to balance, and performs well for tracking WL including BIF. Plus, it works well for stills.
Is it a be-all-and-end-all solution? Of course not. I wouldn't use it for critical work such as macro but it is a pretty amazing solution for everything else. My recommendation is to borrow (or buy one with an ability to return) and see if it works for you.
)
The 100-400 or 100-500 are more of an intermediate tele lens than the big guns.