Tripod Heads

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.

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 !!

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.

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 !!!

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.

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.

I made some comments about side mount versus bottom mount gimbal in this thread:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...523#post394523

hope this helps,
Alan

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.