Printable View
While shopping for gimbal heads, I came across a couple that I have not heard much about (but are considerably cheaper):
One is the Feisol U-mount which looks very interesting
http://www.feisol.net/feisol-ua180-c...lcug3ao0rm2um3
And the other is the Bogen 3421 which a lot of people seem to be happy with for their long lenses.
Any thoughts/reviews on these two?
Thanks,
Sidharth
I used to have the 3421 up until 4 years ago. I found it a little large in size and it exhibited more creep then I like. It served me well at the time and the price was right. Since I started using the Wimberley original and subsequently the 2nd model I will say I haven't missed the Bogen at all.
I recommend the 3421 to my Tamron/Bogen workshop participants. The majority of them use nothing larger than the Tamron 200-500mm F6.3 lens. The 3421 has no adjustment for panning and in general, not very smooth.
Nice alternative to the big $ gimbals or any ball or pan head for action on a budget.
The Feisol looks very nice. Being a U, the adjustment for vertical movement will always be in the way.
I also noticed, if you set the head up according to Feisol's instructions, you will not be able to turn the camera to a vertical position.
With a Wimberley or Mongoose you can mount the lens with the vertical adjustment on your left or right.
I've tried a couple of Feisol's panning bases and Feisol's quality is no where near that of Wimberley or Mongoose.
I use a Nikon D700 with a Nikon 600mm F4 AF-S Type I or a Nikon D700 and a Sigma 300-800mm F5.6.
Owning both the Wimberley II and the Mongoose 3.5a, I can say that both of these heads work great.
My head of choice is the Mongoose 3.5a because of it's light weight and excellent pan base.
I'm with James.
I have used for a long time the Bogen (Manfrotto in Europe) and have replaced it for the very same reason.
I'm using for several time now a Kirk Cobra. Very sturdy, well made, excelent tilt and pane, but very heavy.
So I'm considering replacing it.
The Mongoose looks very nice but also take a look of these canadians ones like the Jobu BWG-Pro
http://www.jobu-design.com/catalog/i...54/6465541.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Tracy
I have the 3421 since January and upgraded to a Wimberly II a few months ago. The difference is night and day in terms of stability, dependability and price. I've had a lot of near misses with the 3421 and will be selling it soon.
Here are the facts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Serralheiro
#1:The King Cobra is the worst peice of junk ever manufactured. When you tighten the knobs, the lens move many degrees but only every time. I call it ballhead creep. Again, it is ideal as a deep water fishing sinker.
#2: The Jobu heads look nice but with every one that I have handled I have found that the horizontal pan is much too stiff, so stiff that follwing any moving subject is pretty much impossible.
#3: I have been doing this for 26 years and I do not bs folks in order to make a sale. Or otherwise. I used both the old and the new Wimberley head for almost two decades until something better for me came along, the M3.5 which is now being replaced by the M3.5b.
#4: Mr. Shadle is correct.
ps: Is there anyone out there who thinks that I would be using the M3.5 with my 800 if it were not the best option for me ??????????
ps: The amount of tripod head misinformation going around is really amazing.
I have never experienced such a problem, but if you say so. Being very heavy it might be a very good water fishing sinker. :D:D Good idea!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
Yes, the Mongoose looks good and it's the lighest one.
Have you tried the new Jobu? But it's still heavy.
As I said, every King Cobra that I have ever tried exhibited severe ballhead creep. Aside from that, they are terrible. I cannot remember all the reasons that I have found them unsuitable;; there were simply too many and I have blocked them from my mind. And again, when it comes to tripod heads, ignorance is bliss.
And all of the Jobus have had sticky horizontal pans. And yes, way too heavy just like the King Cobras. Any jobu is better than a King Cobra but nowhere near as good as either a Mongoose m3.5 or a Wimberley head.
I have owned and used the Sidekick, Jobu Jr and the Mongoose M 2.3. I rate the Mongoose #1 by a good margin over the other two. The build quality and adjustabilty are in a different league than the others. I wanted to change the locking pressure on the knobs and was amazed when the instructions said the were 42 variations of locking pressure available for each knob. After using it for a while I decided that the original pressure set up was good and left it there. The largest lens I currently use is the Canon 400 ƒ5.6 and it works like a charm on the Mongoose. The Mongoose has, by far, the smoothest panning horizonal or vertical of the three.
I guess I'll hold off putting my King Cobra up for sale for a while.
Why, are you going cod-fishing???
Thanks for all the gimbal info Artie. I was comparing all three (KC, Jobu and Wimberley) prior to working out what I will get and they all look the same on the web and from memory the prices are close. Good to hear from someone who actually used them and knows their stuff.
You are welcome Akos. I never did get your e-mail. Please re-send.
Cod fishing! I'd rather chew on my toe nails. Bad PR!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
I'd rather chew on my toenails (if I could) than try to work with a big lens on a King Cobra.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Woodrich
I just wish folks would write us or check out the web site whenever they have the urge to spend a few hundred bucks. Yes, getting their business would be a nice thing, but the main point is that too, too many people are simply buying the wrong gear. One of the things that separates the BAA Store from the rest is that we do not sell junk; we pretty much sell only what I use, have used, and have tested. Follow the orange link at the top of this page. :)
Thanks for all the replies.
I'm not into cod fishing or toe nail chewing - so I definitely know what to disqualify now :)
James, good points on the feisol. Does seem like the U will come in the way, and that if I used the optional plate that attaches to the camera base, vertical position will not be possible.
I think I will go with the Mongoose M3.5a.
My only reservation with the Mongoose is the need to replace the feet of the 300. :(
This is one thing I don't understand, I looked at my 300 last night for some good minutes, and its foot doesn't seem to be replaceable, unlike 500 or 600 or 800, its foot is ONE piece with the collar. So what so called replacement foot sounds more like a lens plate to me, I wonder why RRS or Wimberley plates won't work with Mongoose. Someone shed some light??Quote:
Originally Posted by Pao Dolina
My mistake. The 300 on the Mongoose uses a lens plate. I hope the P-20 lens plate I got works with it.
Indeed. I wish I didn't have to buy CP-42, but from everything I've heard, it seems like this head is worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pao Dolina
For folks debating between the Wimberley and Mongoose, might want to check this out.
http://blog.joemilmoe.com/2009/06/22...ngoose-m-3-5a/
I have no affiliation with either company and don't sell anything :)
Hmm... In the Handling section, you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Milmoe
After the initial balance is achieved, both heads are fully capable of supporting the 1d3 and 800IS setup. As mentioned, the Mongoose is far more sensitive to vertical changes in the lens position. With the flash arm attached, the mongoose will quickly “raise” or “dump” the setup if you remove your hands from the unlocked setup (yes, even with “perfect” initial balance). This same behavior occurs with the Wimberley setup, but again, it is far more forgiving.The Wimberley should not exhibit this kind of behavior *at all* when in proper vertical balance. For me, this is the main advantage of center cradle full gimbal design. Side mounts like Mongoose has given up the ability to adjust vertical balance point in the name of weight saving, and this flopping is the price you pay. Having a flash up top magnifies the problem even more.
Andy
I believe that was with the flash arms / flash / better beamer attached.
You are correct, without the flash, the Wimberley self corrects and doesn't exhibit the behavior.
You put a lot of work into your review, thanks for sharing it.
I do disagree on a few points. I own both the new Wimberley and the Mongoose 3.5a.
Both heads have been used with A Nikon 600 ED F4 AF-S I(the heaviest version) and a Sigma 300-800mm HSM.
I give the fit and finish to Mongoose. As well as weight, price, smoothness of operation while panning.
Cosmetics are great on both, I prefer the finish on my Mongoose, does not show wear as easily as the Wimberley.
Though is not a really a problem with the Wimberley.
The most important fit and finish issue is inside the heads, I've had to tear both down for cleaning(both heads have been submerged:o) and the Mongoose is a more precise design and easier to tear down, clean and reassemble.
Tensioning the Mongoose base is much better.
The Wimberley is the hands down winner for flash use. You can change the center of gravity on the Wimberley, you can not on the Mongoose. Yes it is easier to attach your lens to the Wimberley, however I have no problem attaching my lenses to the Mongoose. The trick is make sure the tripod collar and head are both locked down.
You really can't go wrong with either head. My preference, because of the above is the Mongoose 3.5a.
My everyday, waste deep in saltwater, Nikon 600mm carrying gimbal head.
<!-- / message -->
Yep- it's definitely a tough choice. If I made my living with faux toes, I would certainly have both.
The underlying reason I chose the Wimberley was the hand-holdability. If I used a tripod exclusively, I might've stuck with the mongoose.
Well, any pile of stuff can be balanced around a center of gravity. If you put that CG above a pivot point, any disturbance will send that pile of stuff come tumbling down. If you put the CG below a pivot point, any disturbance will be self corrected and the pile of stuff will go back to rest position. If you put the GC exactly at the pivot point, disturbance will twist the system. But once the disturbance is gone, the pile will remain at its last disturbed position. If that pile of stuff happens to be a long lens pointing at some subject, you probably want it to point at where you leave it. Neither flopping nor self correcting is desirable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Milmoe
When you add a flash to a gimbled lens, you're adding mass high up, therefore the center of gravity of the whole assembly moves up. With full gimbal, you move the GC back down by drop the cradle until the system is in balance again. So even with flash, the system will stay where you leave it. Side mounts can't do that.
Andy
James if you were to buy another Gimbal which would you go for?
Hi Joe, On the whole, you did a good job and a fair one. (The product images are quite lousy; you need to set the stuff against better BKGRs.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Milmoe
I have used and tested probably more than a dozen different M3.5s including the brand new one that I am using now. All that I have had in my hand had perfect finishes and I have never gotten so much as a speck of grease from any of them. Obviously quality control is an issue with 4th GD and I have mentioned that to them on several occasions. The same goes with 4th GD customer service.
You did make some statements that are quite inaccurate and one or two (if I remember correctly) that could potentially be very bad advice. When I have a bit more time, I will comment on those.
Obviously, I have not reached the conclusion that you did :) We do sell and recommend both products.
:)
Don't get me wrong- I don't claim to be a technical expert on the tripod heads, so I haven't drawn chi squares to determine proper balance of "piles of stuff", nor do I have any aspiration to be a product photographer. So, if there are such gross inaccuracies listed, I assure you they are not intentionally misdirected. Simply my perspective comparing the two, head-to-head, after some time in the field. I think I meant what I said, but I'm open to clarifications.
And, my situation is different than most folks'.
1- Each year, I have probably 200+ photographers (kids -> adults, all experience levels, etc.) using my gear. Based on the "touchiness" of the mongoose alone, there's absolutely no way that I'd let other folks set up, attempt to balance or use a supertele lens on the mongoose head.
http://content.joemilmoe.com/nsn/kids_with_cameras2.jpg
2- 9/10 times I choose to shoot handheld. As a biologist, I simply don't have the luxury / option to bring along a tripod or expansive setup along with me in the field, so the choice often comes down to last minute handheld shots, or nothing at all.
Sorry in advance for the potentially very bad advice :)
I think the biggest thing that a person has to decide, IMHO, is whether they feel comfortable handling their big rig with one hand and lifting it as they mount the lens on the Mongoose. If you do then all things are equal really. As I have said above, I have small hands and lifting my rig, D300 with MD and the Nikon 500 f/4, on to the Mongoose would not suite.
Pao,Quote:
Originally Posted by Pao Dolina
The latest Mongoose - 3.5b
James
I'd be very interested in reading about experiences with the "new" Custom Bracket Gimbals:
http://www.custombrackets.com/scripts/gimbals.asp
They look like they'd give both the Wimberley and the Mongoose a run for their money. The idea of "precision roller bearings" appeals. I have no association with them btw, and I'll be in the market for a new Gimbal one day - currently have the poor man's gimbal (Manfrotto 393 / Bogen 3421) which does the job.
The custom bracket stuff looks nice but then again most things do on a web page.
I just don't see the reason to go away from Wimberley for me. The customer service I have gotten from Wimberley on more than one occasion is nothing short of the best.
I've had one since it first came out. Did a side-by-side comparison with Wimberley and decided to take a chance on the new guy. Here's my impression:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Longworth
- The tension knobs are great. Because of the ball bearing, pivot friction is much lower than Wimberley at 0 tension. And the tension can be cranked all the way up. Gives you a range of options.
- The ball bearing works. It silky smooth with absolutely no play.
- It's made up of 4 modules fitted together with Arca Swiss dovetails. Different combination can form a full gimbal, a side mount or a side kick. Again, options.
- A flash bracket was annouced a while back. I e-mailed them a ETA inquiry and got back "not very soon". I see they've now removed it from their website. Both Wimberley F-1 and F-9 work though.
- Downside? I understand Wimberley can be used submerged. I personally would not try that on a CB Gimbal.
- As for servicing, Custom Bracket's main business is professional flash brackets. It's a very professional outfit known for high quality. If there is a dealer near you, you should be fine.
Overall, I think it's an evolutionary step beyond Wimberley. But I don't think the step is nearly big enough for existing Wimberley owners to jump ship.
Andy
Jim
Could you explain your statements "The Wimberley is the hands down winner for flash use. You can change the center of gravity on the Wimberley, you can not on the Mongoose." How is it difficult to use a flash with a mongoose? If you can not change the center of gravity on the Mongoose how do you balance it? Is it mainly a problem if you set the camera on the gimbal head and then later add a flash unit ?
Thanks for your answer and advice. I am tyring to decide which one to buy.
Ray
<!-- / message -->
Andy, thanks very much for your comments, I too was wondering about availability of a flash mount for the CB, but you say the Wimberley ones work.
I use flash all the time with the Mongoose and the 800 without a problem as I did with the 500. And the new Mongoose 3.5b has the clamp offset downward about 1/8 inch so the balance is even better.
At BAA we sell both the Mongoose and the Wimberley stuff. With weight such a huge concern for me, I opt for the Mongoose and have no problem creating sharp images at slow shutter speeds (with or without the flash in place).
I should have been a little more careful about that statement: The Wimberley brackets work on the big CB Gimbal in full gimbal form for sure. Wimberley F-1 should work on CB Gimbal-LS as well. But looking at a picture of the LS on the CB wibsite, it has this bulge near the vertical dovetail on the tilting pivot. So I'm not absolutely sure if it has enough clearance for the Wimberley F-9. And looks like the Wimberley F-6 should work Ok with CB Gimbal-LB or CB Gimbal in side mount form. Haven't tried that myself though as I don't use side mount at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Longworth
By the way, when using Wimberley F-1 or F-6, the bracket should clamp to the lower dovetail of the lens plate/foot. On all the plates/feet that I know of, the upper dovetail is limited to the very front section only. Under some conditions, the bracket's knob will hit the cradle and prevent you from balancing the lens properly. On a Canon 500/4 with a 1D3 body, this happens with the bare lens without TC. Oops... With the lower dovetail, you can at least move the bracket to the back. This is probably not strictly a CB thing though. From looking at the cradle of a full Wimberley head, I suspect it would happen on a Wimberley under some conditions as well.
Overall, I think for tripod use only, full CB Gimbal and Wimberley F-9 is the cleanest. But that doesn't work on a monopod. For the latter, you need more Wimberbeley peices to essentially make an F-1 for mono. I started out with monopod only and added tripod latter and was using an RRS B87-B initially. When I got the Gimbal, I tried and almost bought the Wimberley pieces but really cringed at having to dump the expensive RRS. So I thought long and hard before coming up with the idea of using the Wimberley M-8 to turn the CB's vertical dovetail into a horizontal one. That allows me to assemble the equivalent of Wimberley F-9 using the RRS as the upper arm :D.
Andy
