gimbel problem !!

holty

holty

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,401
Edit My Images
No
bought a gimbel last year
used it with my nikon 70-200 also nikon 200-500 no probls at 2 airshows
as these 2 lens's have a lens clamp / leg so far so good
went to the Kelpies for some long exposure shots at night
could not use my nikon 24-70 lens as the camera fouls the gimbal head
so how can you use this lens on the gimbel without a leg on the lens
i had to go way back and use the 70-200
 
TBH I would be using my ballhead with an 'L' bracket on the camera. :)
 
holty said:
how can you use this lens on the gimbel without a leg on the lens
Click to expand...


An easy solution is a longer base plate to
re-establish the balance of the combo and
foresee some kind of little block to set bet-
ween the lens and the rail to stop possible
vibrations.

HTH.
 
Last edited:
Gimbals aren't really design for wide angle camera mounted lens. They are only usuable for long lens with a tripod foot. The easily solution is to get a ball head and use that for camera mounted lens with no tripod foot.

This was one of the reasons I went the uniqball as it can be used for both long lenses and wide angle lens. I didn't want the hassle of carrying two different heads, and whilst it doesn't provide the full functionality of a gimbal its fine for both landscapes and wildlife. By no means perfect but suits my use well.
 
rob-nikon said:
The easily solution is to get a ball head and use that for camera mounted lens with no tripod foot.
Click to expand...


Easy Rob?

More costly, does not solve the vibrations!
Sometimes, when going with long lenses, I
use this solution making sure that there is
no leg in the front.
 
This is one advantage of my side mount gimbal a an L plate ~ granted there is risk of imbalance but it locks up just fine with my Canon 5D3 & 24-105mm combo.
 
Can't you fit an arca plate to the camera?
Sorry, just read the camera fouls the gimbal.I use a long plate and have it sticking out the front so the camera sits further back.
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
Easy Rob?

More costly, does not solve the vibrations!
Sometimes, when going with long lenses, I
use this solution making sure that there is
no leg in the front.
Click to expand...

Other than a different head a longer plate like a nodal rail may allow the camera body to be moved back to stop fouling on the gimbal.

I did mean a ball head in addition to the gimbal not instead of the gimbal for long lens use, using the gimbal for the long lenses (200-500 & 70-200 in the OP’s case) that its designed for and the ball head for only the 24-70 where the mounting is via the camera and not the lens. The issue seems not to be using the gimbal with a long lens but mounting a short lens via the camera onto the gimbal head without physically fouling on the gimbal. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone mount a short lens like a 24-70 on a gimbal head. A gimbal head probably isnt the most ideal head for locking up for long exposure astro photography but potentially could wilth a nodal plate (probably wouldnt balance and be a little back heavy but its going to be locked up for long exposures).
 
Last edited:
holty said:
bought a gimbel last year
used it with my nikon 70-200 also nikon 200-500 no probls at 2 airshows
as these 2 lens's have a lens clamp / leg so far so good
went to the Kelpies for some long exposure shots at night
could not use my nikon 24-70 lens as the camera fouls the gimbal head
so how can you use this lens on the gimbel without a leg on the lens
i had to go way back and use the 70-200
Click to expand...
A nodal rail may allow the camera to be mounted further back. Quicker and easier to use than attaching an arca Swiss plate directly to the camera and sticking out beneath the lens (bit of a pain when there is no lens fitted).
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
Then, that means the price of the ball head plus the rail!

Possibly because there are no crazy bears in the UK but
I know down here… :D:D:D
Click to expand...

Not sure why a nodal rail and a ball head would be needed. To me it's either one or the other. a nodal rail would be the cheapest option to move the camera back but a gimbal isn't really designed to be used locked up with a short lens attached in that way (otherwise the camera wouldn't foul on the gimbal like it does). It's likely not to balance like a gimbal is designed to function and drop backwards every time it's unlocked unless held. If it's occasional use then a nodal rail is probably the best and cheapest option, but if it's long term and often use hiking miles to get to a landscape spot the likely 1kg weight saving alone would be worth the extra cost of a lighter head if their is enough use.
 
I am in the same camp as Rob... Use a different head, a gimbal is hardly a suitable head to use with a camera and wide angle lens, apart from the obvious difficulty of mounting the camera, you would need an L bracket too, you also have the added difficulty of adjustment in only two axis, cue fiddling with tripod legs...

Adding things like rails and adapters only adds to points that can flex or add vibration IMO...

I have two tripods, one that I used to keep a full gimbal on and the other (which was CF but very heavy duty) with a geared head... I got fed up carting the heavyweight around and instead of forking out for another tripod (£500 - 1000) I resurrected my Kirk ball head instead of the full gimbal and purchased a Pro Media Gear Sidekick style gimbal... all problems solved....

It is a pain swapping out heads but I am sure the OP should have the head they used prior to the purchase of the gimbal so why not pack that too and swap when needed....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top