500mm vs 600mm

The wimberley mkii is simply in a league of its own. I had 3 gimbals before I got the wimberley & all of them were poor in comparison.
You put the wimberley on & forget it. It's a simple but fantastic piece of engineering.
A pleasure to use
 
BMD said:
(even locked down a Gimbal seems more "wobbly").

Can't say I've ever noticed that with mine. Use it all the time with my 500.
Click to expand...
It's just like using a center column. More fittings with points of play and more leverage. When I need absolute rigidity with long FL's (800+) I use a rather obscure NPC ProHead on a massive Gitzo w/o center column (or my Benbo Classic 2). It's all relative...
 
drexyl said:
The wimberley mkii is simply in a league of its own. I had 3 gimbals before I got the wimberley & all of them were poor in comparison.
You put the wimberley on & forget it. It's a simple but fantastic piece of engineering.
A pleasure to use
Click to expand...
I have a Wimberly II and a Benro GH2... the Wimberly is a little nicer in use (a little more finesse in tension adjustments) but I'm not sure it's "worth" the cost differential. It's not any more rigid than the GH2 when locked down and the GH2 has been in use for ~6yrs w/o issue (typical ~15 lb loads).
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
It's just like using a center column. More fittings with points of play and more leverage. When I need absolute rigidity with long FL's (800+) I use a rather obscure NPC ProHead on a massive Gitzo w/o center column (or my Benbo Classic 2). It's all relative...
Click to expand...

Got to disagree with you there I'm afraid. I don't use a centre column on my Gitzo (GT5532LS), and it's rock solid with either a W MkII Gimball or an RRS 055BH attached, although I don't stretch to an 800+ lens. A 500 MkII / up to a MkIII x2 TC all attached to a 1Dx is sufficient for me. Perhaps it's the extra length/weight of your 800+ that's the issue although with the Wimberley once balanced that should be unlikely.
 
Last edited:
The Manfrotto 393 is £120 and it is really good for the money especially to travel with as it breaks down into easy package pieces and it is light - lots of movement and very steady - a gimbal is not inherently steady anyway .
 
BMD said:
That depends on what it's mounted on ?
Click to expand...

accepted - I mean't against a more traditional, say Arca Swiss or similar head ……. but a Gimbal is all that there is for these longer lenses and the Wimberley is the best that there is, but there are still some who believe that you should use VR always when using a Gimbal on a tripod, even with a Wimberley as there is camera movement, albeit minimise
I try both with and without VR now and again and I am not sure that there is an answer, but you do get camera movement …… put the camera into Live View which will emphasis any movement and you will see that there is
 
Last edited:
BMD said:
Got to disagree with you there I'm afraid. I don't use a centre column on my Gitzo (GT5532LS), and it's rock solid with either a W MkII Gimball or an RRS 055BH attached, although I don't stretch to an 800+ lens. A 500 MkII / up to a MkIII x2 TC all attached to a 1Dx is sufficient for me. Perhaps it's the extra length/weight of your 800+ that's the issue although with the Wimberley once balanced that should be unlikely.
Click to expand...
We might have a different definition of "rock solid".... I use a 5541. My camera/lens weighs ~ 15lbs. Some of the movement comes from the tripod itself...
 
I know what your saying Bill and Steven. I also use LV with mine, as well as IS on occasions (I'm Canon).
I think your right that there probably isn't an answer to this. What I'd say is that in my personal experience I do find the gimbal a superb bit of kit. I suppose it was wrong to state mine is (or anyone else's for that matter), 'rock' solid as that would defy the laws of physics. Yes, in LV you can see movement more easily than through the viewfinder BUT, what I believe is that it is not down to the gimbal being unstable but the size of the lens coupled with its small angle of view.
I also use a BH and in LV even there you will find some movement. Does that read correctly? And/or make sense?
 
BillN_33 said:
The Manfrotto 393 is £120 and it is really good for the money especially to travel with as it breaks down into easy package pieces and it is light - lots of movement and very steady - a gimbal is not inherently steady anyway .
Click to expand...
Bill I am getting the Gitzo GT5542LS Systematic 6X Carbon Fiber Tripod
 
Regarding canon 500 versus 600' don't forget the weight of a mk2 600 is much less than the mk1 version.

why buy an 800 when you can have 840 @ 5.6 using a 1.4 converter III , that will be lighter?
 
BMD said:
I know what your saying Bill and Steven. I also use LV with mine, as well as IS on occasions (I'm Canon).
I think your right that there probably isn't an answer to this. What I'd say is that in my personal experience I do find the gimbal a superb bit of kit. I suppose it was wrong to state mine is (or anyone else's for that matter), 'rock' solid as that would defy the laws of physics. Yes, in LV you can see movement more easily than through the viewfinder BUT, what I believe is that it is not down to the gimbal being unstable but the size of the lens coupled with its small angle of view.
I also use a BH and in LV even there you will find some movement. Does that read correctly? And/or make sense?
Click to expand...

Yes, but is also generally shouldn't matter. A gimbal isn't meant to be locked down. And SS's that would require it to be locked down are probably going to be too slow for the subjects being photographed.

I shoot handheld/monopod/slider much more often than I use a tripod/gimbal.
 
I gave up on tripods and heads altogether and use a double-barrel beanbag, which just seems to suit my shooting style better. I find it far less bother in hides, it weighs almost nothing (it just hangs off my camera bag when walkarounding) and there's always something to rest it on out in the woods. Plus, it makes a very comfy seat for those long waits!
 
sk66 said:
Yes, but is also generally shouldn't matter. A gimbal isn't meant to be locked down. And SS's that would require it to be locked down are probably going to be too slow for the subjects being photographed.

I shoot handheld/monopod/slider much more often than I use a tripod/gimbal.
Click to expand...

Good point there.
 
Gimbal heads are excellent i think. I didnt have the use for one to justify spending £500 on a wimberley so I made my own. Now i use it all the time and could justify spending the money but wont as I like the one I made and it would be a waste.

Its about a balance between weight and how far you have to carry it and your tripod. A gimbal head on a light tripod isnt going to give you the best set up. The tripod plays its part.
 
who said a gimbal head isn't meant to be locked down?
 
Last edited:
My 2c regarding tripods/gimbals...

Their purpose is really just to support the weight of the equipment while still allowing full/rapid motion/repositioning for subjects in motion. "Proper" adjustment of a gimbal head balances the camera/lens so that it holds any position it's left in with no tension applied. Then just enough tension is added to provide *a little* resistance to movements in order to "smooth out" the movements; like a video fluid head does. As such absolute rigidity isn't really necessary and higher SS's are (I generally try to stay w/ the 1/FL rule).

As soon as you apply a significant amount of friction you have negated the benefit of it being a gimbal head in the first place. Many "gimbal solutions" do not allow you to completely center/balance the weight. i.e. side mounts, "sidekick" ballhead converters, non adjustable types. Those types of solutions may require higher frictions applied which then counters their usefulness "as a gimbal." (there may be other ways of centering the weight, i.e. changing the lens foot out for a different height)

You *can* use a tripod/gimbal differently, but then there is probably a better tool for what you are doing.
 
I have had a wimberley since the beginning,
my point was, when you want to take a pic., simply lock the knobs then you can take a nice snap without anything moving.........isn't that the idea?
(You twiddle it around, but eventually you want to take a pic, at that moment it's nice to have NO movement, so you lock it down)
 
Last edited:
I have to say I agree with sk66 iv yet to find a bird that keeps still long enough to make me want to lock down my gimbal ,apart from that If you were to lock it down on a bird and then it takes off you wont be able to follow it as it takes flight or if another bird starts coming your way if locked you would not be ready to try and get onto it.
Iv used Gimbals for years and I have never lock it down .
Rob.
 
Only time I lock mine down is when I'm changing camera bodies.
 
pollie said:
I have had a wimberley since the beginning,
my point was, when you want to take a pic., simply lock the knobs then you can take a nice snap without anything moving.........isn't that the idea?
(You twiddle it around, but eventually you want to take a pic, at that moment it's nice to have NO movement, so you lock it down)
Click to expand...

Might as well use a pan/tilt or ballhead then... there's really no benefit in spending the money on a full Gimbal if used that way.
It will allow you to use lower SS's that way; at the camera end...
 
Last edited:
Have you tried a 600 lens on a ball head?..........I think it would be a bit of a daft idea!
 
Last edited:
pollie said:
Have you tried a 600 lens on a ball head?..........I think it would be a bit of a daft idea!
Click to expand...
Yes there are hazards, but it was the way it was done before gimbals, and they do negate the effects of mirror slap or other vibrations at really low shutter speeds better than a fully tightened up gimbal.
Having said that, wimberly mk2 user here too.
The arm that rotates on the gimbal does amplify certain types of vibration in certain situations, but it's so rare that i'd still always have my gimbal on. One of the situations i've found where the gimbal is vulnerable is suspended wooden walkways, on which other people are walking around on as well. This is at 700mm focal length though in low light. The longer the focal length the more it'll be noticed.
 
pollie said:
Have you tried a 600 lens on a ball head?..........I think it would be a bit of a daft idea!
Click to expand...
Definitely more fiddly and less convenient to use. But once locked down it's essentially the same as anything else that's locked down.
I have a NPC ProHead (it's a 2-axis ballhead oddity) that I use for maximum rigidity w/ heavy gear.
I use an Acratech ballhead as a makeshift gimbal with lighter gear.
 
Last edited:
Werecow said:
Yes there are hazards, but it was the way it was done before gimbals, and they do negate the effects of mirror slap or other vibrations at really low shutter speeds better than a fully tightened up gimbal.
Having said that, wimberly mk2 user here too.
The arm that rotates on the gimbal does amplify certain types of vibration in certain situations, but it's so rare that i'd still always have my gimbal on. One of the situations i've found where the gimbal is vulnerable is suspended wooden walkways, on which other people are walking around on as well. This is at 700mm focal length though in low light. The longer the focal length the more it'll be noticed.
Click to expand...
Yes but that will apply to anything supporting the lens!
 
sk66 said:
Definitely more fiddly and less convenient to use. But once locked down it's essentially the same as anything else that's locked down.
I have a NPC ProHead (it's a 2-axis ballhead oddity) that I use for maximum rigidity w/ heavy gear.
I use an Acratech ballhead as a makeshift gimbal with lighter gear.
Click to expand...
I agree, I would like to point out that I also use ball heads, monopods, bean bags.

I also shoot mostly without locking the wimberley up.

the original reply was merely suggesting that there is nothing wrong in locking it up.



this morning I was snapping a little owl about 150 m away from my house using a GT 5542LS, wimberleymk2,5Dmk3. 600 mk2 ,1x4 mk3 and TC 803 , but locked the wimberley on him as I was having tea and toast at the time, so it made it easier for me.
 
I didn't mean to imply locking it was "entirely wrong" as such... It's not like I'm going to change tripods/heads in the middle of shooting... The ability is there, it serves a purpose; it's just that using it that way is something of a compromise.
 
Are any birders using an 800mm f/5.6 or is it mostly 600 and 500 f/4s?
 
pollie said:
Have you tried a 600 lens on a ball head?..........I think it would be a bit of a daft idea!
Click to expand...

I used to run my 400mm f2.8 Nikkor on a ball-head before I got my Wimberly. Works reasonably well but of course you do have to be careful to make sure it is fully locked before releasing the camera and lens from your grip. The Wimberly is of course more balanced and stable, and much easier to work with.
 
I have the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6... It's a very descent lens but it's not any better than my 400 2.8 w/ TC's. Given that and the fact it's bigger, heavier, and slower at wider FL's, I don't use it very much. The problem with the longer primes (besides the narrow FOV) is the fact that they are primes... you have no option of going wider/faster if needed. That's one reason I use the 400 2.8 +TC's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top