Gimbals - Help needed...lots of it

N

Nenagh

Suspended / Banned
Messages
307
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking to upgrade to a gimbal head and have been introduced to the Custom Brackets Gimbal Head. Price appears similar to Wimberley which is similar to Nill which is similiar to ............etc (you see a pattern here???).

Anyway none of them come cheap.

Has anyone any hands on experience of the CB Gimbal, or any views/reviews regarding the others. I hate making expensive mistakes and can feel another one coming soon unless............................
 
Not tried the CB head but I do use the wimberley which I would not change, well made, perfect balance & smooth as cream to use, if prices are all in one ball park then for my money - go for the wimberley.
 
Thanks Captain, I've heard tales of the Wimberley being very heavy, although specs wise it seems no worse than any of the others. What's your take on this?
 
I use the Manfrotto 393 head,it does work well and is not quite as knackercrackingly expensive....:D
 
I have a Nill head which cost a fortune and it's even more now since the price rises. I also have a Manfrotto 393 which is the cheapest gimbal on the market at around a hundred quid. Both do the job admirably well. Ultimately, the Nill is the better head - better made to finer tolerances and less play in moving parts, but it's a very fine difference in reality.

I'd say get a 393 while you research what's available. You may find it's all you need and you'll have no trouble selling it later if you switch horses.

Joe at Redsnapper currently has a gimbal head under development in his workshop which could be worth waiting for - his stuff is well engineered and usually keenly priced.
 
Saw that one. Originally designed for monopods but seems very popular on tripods as well. Is it robust? Hard to gauge from pics on the web. Also does it pan ok?
 
Nenagh said:
Saw that one. Originally designed for monopods but seems very popular on tripods as well. Is it robust? Hard to gauge from pics on the web. Also does it pan ok?
Click to expand...

Yes,solid as a rock,built like a tank and moves anyway you could want.
 
Thanks CT. I must admit the Dietmar Nill is my favoured of all the heads I've come accross so far. I like the feeling of "security" of having the lens fully supported underneath. Also it looks like one superbly engineered product.
Redsnapper could also be an option also.
 
Nenagh said:
Thanks Captain, I've heard tales of the Wimberley being very heavy, although specs wise it seems no worse than any of the others. What's your take on this?
Click to expand...


Heavy it is,but how it compare with others I don't know. I use it on my monopod also & find it brilliant, it makes carrying a bit difficult but we have to make some allowances.
 
Nenagh said:
Saw that one. Originally designed for monopods but seems very popular on tripods as well. Is it robust? Hard to gauge from pics on the web. Also does it pan ok?
Click to expand...
The 393? Built like a tank! The only downside of the 393 is it comes with Manfotto's own version of the Arca plate which is wider than the generic type, so unless you can get spare plates it can be a b****r swapping lenses. If you intend to use the 393 with just one long lens though, it's no problem.
 
Thanks Frac. Maybe 393 first to see how things go, and if needs demand it then the option of Nill etc later.
Out of interest. How do these heads perform with slow shutter speeds. Do you trade some stability in the design?
 
Nenagh said:
Thanks Frac. Maybe 393 first to see how things go, and if needs demand it then the option of Nill etc later.
Out of interest. How do these heads perform with slow shutter speeds. Do you trade some stability in the design?
Click to expand...
Some people have the lens mounted on the head,I hang mine from it,I think it is more stable and is more flexible that way.Slow shutter speed performance? Not 100% sure to be honest,I tend to keep that as high as possible,it seems ok though.
 
Yep, good point CT. I hate manfrotto quick release plates per se. I have lots of the six sided plates and they are very poor and do not seem to securely "grab" the lens/camera which then twist.
 
The 393 has a safety catch built in as well,in case you forget to tighten the plate.Could save an expensive accident.....:eek:
 
If there's something to forget, I'm your man. A Mr Bean wannabe!!
 
Nenagh said:
Thanks Frac. Maybe 393 first to see how things go, and if needs demand it then the option of Nill etc later.
Out of interest. How do these heads perform with slow shutter speeds. Do you trade some stability in the design?
Click to expand...


The 393 plate is actually pretty cool with a nice safety catch which means the whole shooting match can't slide out of the mount if you have a blonde moment and forget to tighten up.

The primary use of a gimbal is obviously smooth seamless panning and tilting to track moving targets. If you mean how would the head perform for smaller lenses and landscapes, then as long as the side torque knobs and the panning knob are locked off, it's just as stable as any other head for longer exposures.
 
That's it in a nutshell CT. I dont want to travel with two tripod heads, and whilst nature/wildlife is my favoured subject I want to be free to take some landscapes also knowing that the head will cope with slower exposures. I guess you cant have it all.
 
CT said:
I have a Nill head which cost a fortune and it's even more now since the price rises. I also have a Manfrotto 393 which is the cheapest gimbal on the market at around a hundred quid. Both do the job admirably well. Ultimately, the Nill is the better head - better made to finer tolerances and less play in moving parts, but it's a very fine difference in reality.

I'd say get a 393 while you research what's available. You may find it's all you need and you'll have no trouble selling it later if you switch horses.

Joe at Redsnapper currently has a gimbal head under development in his workshop which could be worth waiting for - his stuff is well engineered and usually keenly priced.
Click to expand...
Any idea when the Redsnapper Gimbal will be available?
 
Claymore said:
Any idea when the Redsnapper Gimbal will be available?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I know its under active design and at the prototype development stage. I don't even know what form it will take - whether it will a Wimberley type or a Nill/ Manfrotto type. It could of course be something completely new. Joe did ask me if I'd mind field testing it and of course I wont. :D
 
Your our man then CT for a sneak preview when the time comes. We wont tell, honest!!!
 
Well we'll have to wait and see, but knowing Joe it wont be any old rubbish. ;)
 
We're relying on you to make sure it's not CT.

Although I agree Joe has a great and well earned reputation on this site and beyond. Why risk it in today's environment.
 
Nenagh said:
We're relying on you to make sure it's not CT.

Although I agree Joe has a great and well earned reputation on this site and beyond. Why risk it in today's environment.
Click to expand...
Well gimbals are expensive with the exception of the 393, which despite it's low price is perfectly functional and reliable, so I'm sure Joe knows he's entering a difficult market, but if he can produce a quality gimbal at a decent price he could be on a real winner.
 
Honestly if you have a pressing need get the 393 - you'll sell it on the board in about 10 seconds if you need to later on. ;)
 
CT said:
Well we'll have to wait and see, but knowing Joe it wont be any old rubbish. ;)
Click to expand...
I had a sneak preview of the RS Gimbal late last year. It's not for me to say too much but hopefully Joe won't mind me stating that it follows the Wimberley format and not the Manfrotto incarnation....and yes, it will be quality.

Bob
 
Brilliant. Thanks Bob. Between you and CT I'm sold on hanging tough for another while. Out of curiosity alone I cant wait to see what Joe comes up with.

Thanks to everyone for the help and advice here.
 
There is the new Feisol carbon U-Mount (just google feisol UK), or Jobu. I use the Jobu, made in Canada, it's as solid as Wimberly but from memory weighs a bit less and is cheaper. I don't recommend any other Chinese/Indian (available through aution sites) as afterall you're mounting thousands of pounds of gear on it.
 
I have a Wimberley Sidekick, you get what you pay for, it works like a dream and is really well engineered.
 
dragonfly said:
There is the new Feisol carbon U-Mount (just google feisol UK), or Jobu. I use the Jobu, made in Canada, it's as solid as Wimberly but from memory weighs a bit less and is cheaper. I don't recommend any other Chinese/Indian (available through aution sites) as afterall you're mounting thousands of pounds of gear on it.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a cheap fake and an open copy. The Benby gimbals are hardly cheap at £180, but under half the cost of those by American or European manufacturers. How hard can it be to make a decent gimbal?
 
I have a Wimberley and my wife has one of the Indian gimbals, although the Indian ones aren't as well finished as the more expensive ones having actually handled one myself find it hard to find where they would snap/break resulting in a damaged camera/lens? they weigh a ton and aren't flimsy at all. has anyone ever seen an indian gimbal break? I actually dropped a lens fitting it to a wimberley mounting plate! the bolt head snapped off when i foolishly overtightened it and the lens dropped. This could happen to any mount.
If you are careless with your gear then you cannot complain when it gets damaged.
The indian ones are very thick cast alloy and won't snap due to weight but like all cast alloy heads including wimberley's they will if you drop them.
I have no problems with mounting my big lenses on either heads but I am very fussy about the actual tripod i use because its these that cause camera's to fall if cheaply made.
Cheers
Brian
 
I haven't heard anything at all from Joe for ages. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top