Gimbal or Ball Head

[David Smith]

You are going to buy a new tripod head. You do mostly Wildlife and Bird Photography.. Which tripod head do you choose, a Gimbal Style head or a Ball Head..??

Thanks

Dave

[Diane Miller]

It depends on the lenses you have or will get. I have both the RRS medium ballhead on a medium-sized Gitzo and a Wimberley II on a big Gitzo. With the 600 f/4, the Wimberley is an absolute must. With the 300 f/2.8, the ballhead will "support" it (sort of) but the risk of it flopping over and falling is too great. And it is absolutely impossible to control it with both the ballhead and the rotation collar on the lens loose. That's even as issue with the 70-200 or the 180 macro. But the Wimberley is much heavier and bulkier, but there are lighter and less expensive ones that quite a few folks here use.

With a medium-sized lens some people use the Wimberley Sidekick on a ball head.

[Alexander Krebs]

When using a heavy lens I would throw in the Manfrotto 393 it carries my D800 plus the AF-S 500 1:4D very rock solid. For smaller lenses maybe better take an ballhead.

[Tim Harding]

Any lens that has a tripod mount really needs a gimbal head IMHO. Big heavy super telephotos need the heavier heads, but smaller lenses (<=400mm) work well with smaller, lighter heads like the Jobu Jr. I use a Jobu Jr on a carbon fiber monopod whenever I can get away with it - I find it's much more nimble than carting around a heavy tripod and head all day. I only ever use ball heads for landscapes and macro stuff now.

[Randy Stout]

Gimbal head exclusively for large/heavy rigs. Too great of a risk for flopping with the ball head. I have a RRS 55, a great ball head, but use it only for non action stuff, with small rigs.

Cheers

Randy

[David Stephens]

Birds = Big Lens = Gimbal

[Randall Farhy]

Also suggest the Gimbal style head for 300 F2.8 and above. Even if you're not using large lenses, you'll find it balances the rig much better and is more secure in use. When locking down, I've never experienced any adjustment creep with the Gimbal as I had with my old Bogen ball head.

[Terry Johnson]

Markins has a new attachment for their I-10 and I-20 heads. It turns the head into something similar to a gimbal but disallows the ball swing issue. I have one but have not tried it yet.

Terry Johnson

[Alexander Krebs]

Hi, Richard Peters has a review on both the Manfrotto 393 which I use. But also one for the Wimberly.

Here the link to the Manfrotto: http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/...to-393-review/
And the Wimberly: http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/...l-head-review/

I like the Manfrotto, it supports my 500 with D800 or D7100 very sturdy and panning works great with this rig. What I don't like is the extra weight. I believe the gimbals from Benro, Wimberly etc. are much lighter which should also be considered.
My decision depends on budget ... I wanted the best possible for my money.


Regards


Gesendet von meinem iPad mit Tapatalk

[Jim Keener]

I'm relatively new to this. I had been using Really a Right Stuff BH40 and a BH55 on a RRS tripod. I got the Wimberley WH200 and my life got better. You know, that's no exaggeration. I use the tripod more. A lot more. The rig is more stable. I use it for all lenses => 70-200mm. Being 70 years old, hand holding a 500/4 is difficult, but doable. I think I've lost a bit of mobility using the gimbal, rather than HH. But. I stay with shooting longer, much longer. So. A gimbal head leads to patience. Character through gear.

YMMV.

[Arthur Morris]

It depends on the lenses you have or will get. I have both the RRS medium ballhead on a medium-sized Gitzo and a Wimberley II on a big Gitzo. With the 600 f/4, the Wimberley is an absolute must. With the 300 f/2.8, the ballhead will "support" it (sort of) but the risk of it flopping over and falling is too great. And it is absolutely impossible to control it with both the ballhead and the rotation collar on the lens loose. That's even as issue with the 70-200 or the 180 macro. But the Wimberley is much heavier and bulkier, but there are lighter and less expensive ones that quite a few folks here use.

With a medium-sized lens some people use the Wimberley Sidekick on a ball head.

Late to the party here but I humbly and respectfully disagree with Diane's comments and many of the others as well :). I have been using Mongoose heads for nearly ten years now. The Mongoose M3.6 is sheer perfection. It weighs 1 lb, 6 ozs, almost 1 1/2 pounds lighter than the Wimberley V2 which comes in at 2 lbs, 13 ozs. It is just as efficient and smooth as the Wimberley heads and I have had no problem creating sharp images with super-telephoto lenses at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. We sell many Wimberley heads each year to folks who do not follow my advice :). You can find one here.

ps: I do agree with everyone that a gimbal head is the only choice for big glass :)

[Diane Miller]

I was only answering the general question of gimbal vs ball head with examples of the one of each I use, saying that my gimbal (a Wimberley) is a necessity for my 600 and the ballhead isn't adequate. I haven't used other gimbals and wasn't making any comparisons to other makes.

Apologies if this is a duplicate reply -- i'm on the road and trying to make do with an iPhone and a bad signal.

[Arthur Morris]

I was only answering the general question of gimbal vs ball head with examples of the one of each I use, saying that my gimbal (a Wimberley) is a necessity for my 600 and the ballhead isn't adequate. I haven't used other gimbals and wasn't making any comparisons to other makes.

Apologies if this is a duplicate reply -- i'm on the road and trying to make do with an iPhone and a bad signal.

Understood. Just one :).