It's been suggested a couple of times that the sharpness of my images from my "Bigma" might increase if I used a gimbal mount instead of the ball head I'm using now. I'm trying to sell myself on the idea, and the parting of hard earned money. Anyone care to enlighten me a bit on the advantages and disadvantages of different types of tripod heads and their effect on image quality?
Specifically: Sidemount gimbal vs. bottom mount gimbal. Sidemount vs. ballhead. Bottom mount vs. ball head.
12-05-2009, 11:18 AM
Alfred Forns
Hi Bob If you tighten down "any head" and use a good technique there won't be any differences.
The problem I see with a ball head mount is the way it flops around when using, big heavy lenses are a pain to use with ball heads. My favorite type has to be a bottom mount, easier to balance and safer to use.
I think you need to borrow one for the day an use before jumping and getting one. One that I would recommend for being solid and light weight is the Mongoose 3.5 !!
12-05-2009, 07:31 PM
Bob Decker
Thanks Alfred. From some of the comments I was reading I was getting the impression that there might be a greater incidence of mirror slap/vibration effecting IQ. Didn't make a lot of sense to me... 22 years in Tool & Die/Tool Engineering... but I've been wrong before. Thought is might be worth asking about.
Thanks again.
12-06-2009, 12:09 AM
Alfred Forns
Hi Bob Not sure about the differences with the new CF tripods but with the aluminum most problems were around 1/15 sec as far as the mirror slap..... much slower/faster did not make much difference !!!
12-08-2009, 05:20 PM
Buddy Eleazer
I am still learning the 500mm lens, but .... I have found that my shots are sharper with my cheap import gimbel than with my manfrotto ball head, but actually, when I use a bean bag from a car, I get some of my best shots. I currently use an aluminum manfrotto 3021 tripod. I am saving up for a big and carbon gitzo tripod as I think tripod stability is the next step. Lots of wandering, but basically, gimbel beats ball head. I also read the article at Moose Peterson's on proper long lens technique and this helped.
12-08-2009, 09:55 PM
Alan Lillich
Bob,
I don't see myself how a gimbal will improve sharpness, to me it helps aiming. I've never used a Bigma (4 lbs), but do have Nikon 80-400 (3 lbs) and 500 f4P (about 6 lbs). I would think the main advantage of a gimbal with the Bigma will be comfort for long sessions.
With a heavy lens a well balanced gimbal head is a joy to aim - literally weightless (not massless), point anywhere up or down and the rig stays put when you let go (without locking). This is crucial for moving subjects, and a huge help for static subjects where you're changing which subject - for example hanging around for an hour with the elephant seals at Ano Nuevo. You can take a few moments to rest your arms and be back on the job in an instant.
Thanks for chiming in Buddy, Alan. Much appreciated. I ran across an import, side-mount gimbal, for about a hundred bucks so it's enroute so I can draw my own conclusions. FWIW I went with side-mount for the weight reduction. I try to work in a few miles worth of hiking on my photo outings to get a bit of excercise so the lighter weight was very appealing to me. I definately see some mechanical advantages to the bottom mount gimbals, however.