Gimbal head

[fabiobernardino]

Hello. I'm new to this forum and bird photography. I am reading the topics but i didn't find an answer to this question.

I have a Manfrotto 055XPROB and the 488RC2. Canon 50D and Bigma. I am a hobbyist not a profesional photog. I read about gimbal heads and considered if would improve (make it easier) my photos. I know the wimberly is the best. I am considering the Jobu Jr. 2 kit. http://www.jobu-design.com/catalog/i...54/6009620.htm

Would it be worthy ?

ps1:I'm in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and I haven't seen anyone with a gimbal head around here. So no chance to test one before I buy. Besides birding, I would use it with the Bigma for water sports (surfing, windsurfing, kitesurfing and wakeboarding).

ps2:I already checked the discussions here
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ghlight=gimbal
and here
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ghlight=gimbal

Thank you.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Fabio Bom dia !!!!

I haven't had the chance to use that head. The full Wimberly might be an overkill for the Bigma. Would suggest the Mongoose 3.5 It is very light and convenient. Can do a search in Artie's bulletin archives for reviews !!!

[Robert Amoruso]

I have seen the Jobu Jr. 2 being used in the field and it seems to get the job done. I think I would prefer it over the Mongoose.

[fabiobernardino]

Hi. Thanks for the replies so far. I had already checked Artie's page but the Jobu seems to have the best price/benefit ratio (at least for me). Since I will have to import, I'm paying almost twice the USA price including all the taxes of Brazilian customs.

Alfred, actually it was because of Artie's www.birdsasart.com that I found this forum ! I think I found his page when researching for a telephoto lens (Bigma x 100-400 IS).

What I'd like to know if it would be a big improvement for my photos moving to a gimbal head from a ball head (488 RC2).

Thanks.

[Roger Clark]

Fabio,
Have you considered a simpler Wimberly sidekick? In my opinion, when doing telephoto photography following action, a sidekick or gimbal head is desirable if you are doing it for very long. It is nice to be able to take your hands off the camera and even if the axes are not locked down, the camera stays on the subject and does not drift. Then when the subject moves, you can start tracking without having to unlock an axis. So with that flexibility, I feel a gimbal mount or sidekick (which is another form of gimbal mount) helps.

I use a full Wimberly with a 500 f/4 lens, and a sidekick with smaller lenses and when I want to travel lighter.

Roger

[fabiobernardino]

Roger,
would be this one ?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...k_Ball_to.html

It seems that I would have to buy some extra parts to make it work with my current setup. The Jobu seems a more complete package at the same price.

Please note that all of your comments are very important as I neither used nor saw anyone here using a gimbal head. So I'm basing my choice mainly on forum comments and product web page.

Thank you.

[Maxis Gamez]

Fabio,

Another vote for the sidekick system. I used to use it with my 500mm and worked better than the Mongoose. Especially when you mount a flash bracket. IMO works better.

[Art Kornienko]

You'll have no problem with the Jobu Jr. kit on your tripod. The construction is excellent and the cost is quite reasonable. I have read no negative reports on the Jobu Jr. I have a fellow photographer who loves her Jobu Jr. If you move up to a 500 or 600 then the Jobu Jr. is not the right Gimbal type head, although it could hold it, you should be getting the heavier Jobu or go to a Wemberly.

[Roger Clark]

Roger,
would be this one ?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...k_Ball_to.html

It seems that I would have to buy some extra parts to make it work with my current setup. The Jobu seems a more complete package at the same price.

Yes, that is the one. I assume you have a ball head? If so, the sidekick slips into the ball head. You move the ball head to vertical position and the sidekick slips right into it. You use the ball head azimuth for panning, and the sidekick axis for vertical. Because the lens foot mounts to the side, all you need to do to balance the system is to move the lens back and forth. The advantage of the sidekick is that it is light and if you want to use a ball head for other work it is very easy to add the sidekick when you want to work with your telephoto. There are views of the sidekick at:
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm

I suppose you could also use the sidekick with a pan head. You just need arca-swiss style clamps (which are great for heavy telephoto lenses).

Roger

[Jerry Clement]

I can attest to the quality of the Jobu Gimbal heads, as I own and use the Jobu Black Widow LW with my 500mm lens, and find this Jobu gimbal head to be built very solid with fine movements. The Jobu Jr. 2 will do the job for you, as the Jobu Jr 2 is capable of supporting my 500mm f4 IS, although it is a bit on the light side for this particular lens. Their modular flash brackets are a very nice fit as well, and I find the balance of my 500mm to be non critical with smooth balanced movements, with or without a flash head mounted.

[Magnus Thornberg]

You should look at Benro Gimbal GH-2, Gimbal GH-A and Gimbal GH-1 !
They are ripoff of Wimberly! Were nice quality!
http://www.benrosverige.se/

Benro Gimbal GH-2 - 447 USD
Gimbal GH-A - 305 USD
Gimbal GH-1 - 203 USD

I Can´t find them on http://www.benro.com/

/Magnus

[Daniel Stenberg]

You should look at Benro Gimbal GH-2, Gimbal GH-A and Gimbal GH-1 !
They are ripoff of Wimberly! Were nice quality!
http://www.benrosverige.se/

Benro Gimbal GH-2 - 447 USD
Gimbal GH-A - 305 USD
Gimbal GH-1 - 203 USD

I Can´t find them on http://www.benro.com/

/Magnus

I should rather go for "the real deal". But thats only my opinion...

[Andy Wai]

[...] I own and use the Jobu Black Widow LW with my 500mm lens, [...] and I find the balance of my 500mm to be non critical with smooth balanced movements, with or without a flash head mounted.

Hmm... There is huge difference in the vertical balance point of a 500 with and without flash. On my setup, the camera and lens needs to be lowered almost an inch to accommodate the flash. Otherwise, the whole thing tips over strongly when pointing up or down. If you don't feel the effect of adding a flash, the drag setting on your pivot must be rather high.

Personally, the biggest difference between top mount vs side mount gimbal head is the ability to nullify the tipping when mounting a flash. If you plan to use flash regularly, the extra flexibility of an adjustable top mount is well worth considering.

Andy

[Magnus Thornberg]

I should rather go for "the real deal". But thats only my opinion...

Why should you go for "the real deal"? Benro is half the price of Wimberly and almost the same design!
I havn´t tried either of them but Benro seems most "bang for the buck" to me!

/Magnus

[Jerry Clement]

Perhaps I over simplified my explanation, as to adjusting the balance point of my setup, with or without a flash, however it is a very quick adjustment with the drag backed right off and the result being a balanced setup that moves freely and smoothly mounted on my tripod or on my ground pod. I prefer the BWLW over the heavy duty model, as it is lighter and less clunky to carry when set up with my ground-pod, for treking in the back country of the Alberta Rockies.

[Michael Hogan]

Have you looked at the Monfrotto 393 - it is touted as a monopod head but I have been using now for over a year with a Canon 500mm f4 and it is very good. Much much cheaper than the Wimberly. I don't use is in the 'hanging' format but as a bucket type.

[Daniel Stenberg]

Why should you go for "the real deal"? Benro is half the price of Wimberly and almost the same design!
I havn´t tried either of them but Benro seems most "bang for the buck" to me!

/Magnus

Because I belive that "third-party" producers like Benro can´t make just as sturdy and high quality tripods/gimbals as the original (Gitzo/Wimberley). I would not put my big glass that I have spend lots of money on someting I don´t trust and have not tried out.

Another thing about Benro is that I think their tripods/gimbals are complete rip-offs of the originals...I don´t think they have spent one minute to come up with their own design on their products.

That´s why I always will go with the real deal.

// Daniel

[Art Kornienko]

Because I belive that "third-party" producers like Benro can´t make just as sturdy and high quality tripods/gimbals as the original (Gitzo/Wimberley). I would not put my big glass that I have spend lots of money on someting I don´t trust and have not tried out.

Another thing about Benro is that I think their tripods/gimbals are complete rip-offs of the originals...I don´t think they have spent one minute to come up with their own design on their products.

That´s why I always will go with the real deal.

// Daniel

Daniel is absolutely right, there have been many reviews about Benro their quality has been reported to be sub standard, don't waste your money on imitations, go for the best when supporting expensive glass and bodies. This includes a good tripod too. If you do your research properly you should have no trouble finding out which are the best products. You get what you pay for.

[fabiobernardino]

I appreciate all your comments. I now know some new products as the Wimberly sidekick.

It seems without a doubt that the Wimberley is the top product with the top price (and quality).

If money wasn't an issue, we'd be all happy shooting with our D3X and some 600/4 IS on a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod with the full Wimberley gimbal. But it is (at least for me).

As noticed my gear is at the 1st post. If I had a Us$ 5,000 or Us$ 7,000 lens, I believe it wouldn't make a difference (cost wise) if I was spending $600 or $300 to get the best head available.

Btw, I decided for the Jobu Jr2. It seems well made, I didn't read any bad reviews and with the gear I already have it seems the best cost/performance for me right now. Don't forget I'm in Brazil, so there are also importing taxes.

The sidekick is interesting but my ballhead is Manfrotto's RC2, not an ARCA type. If that was the case, probably I would go with it.

I'll let you know my opinion when it arrives.

Thank you. This is a great forum.

[Roger Clark]

The sidekick is interesting but my ball head is Manfrotto's RC2, not an ARCA type. If that was the case, probably I would go with it.

It shouldn't matter what manufacturer head you have. What you need in order to balance any system is a clamp and rail where the rail is long so you can move the lens back and forth in the clamp to get best balance. The wimberly clamps and rails are arca-swiss standard. With many ball heads you can remove the clamp and put on a different one.

So regardless of the gimbal head you choose, you need to use a clamp and rail system, and you'll have more choices with the arc-swiss standard. I believe the really right stuff rails are also this standard.

Also watch for clamps and rails that have stops. The wimberly clamps and rails, for example, have a small screw at each end of the rail, so if your lens slips in one direction, it can't slip all the way out. This can prevent a disaster.

So, for compatibility put arca-swiss style rails on all your lenses and cameras, and arcs-swiss style clamps on all heads, whether ball head or gimbal head. Then you can put any camera/lens on any head quickly.

Roger

[Magnus Thornberg]

Because I belive that "third-party" producers like Benro can´t make just as sturdy and high quality tripods/gimbals as the original (Gitzo/Wimberley). I would not put my big glass that I have spend lots of money on someting I don´t trust and have not tried out.

Another thing about Benro is that I think their tripods/gimbals are complete rip-offs of the originals...I don´t think they have spent one minute to come up with their own design on their products.

That´s why I always will go with the real deal.

// Daniel

You say that you can´t belive that Benro can make as sturdy head as wimberly!? you still can buy all 3 products for the same price as one wimberly:) It doesn´t matter if Benro is a rip-off if they make a good product for less money!
I don´t think wimberly is worth the extra money though!

But i agree that the Wimberly is good! If you got the money go for it!
/Magnus

[Daniel Stenberg]

You say that you can´t belive that Benro can make as sturdy head as wimberly!? you still can buy all 3 products for the same price as one wimberly:) It doesn´t matter if Benro is a rip-off if they make a good product for less money!
I don´t think wimberly is worth the extra money though!

But i agree that the Wimberly is good! If you got the money go for it!
/Magnus

It seems like we have two diffrent stand-points there then :)

// Daniel

[Arthur Morris]

#1: What is a Bigma? (I am guessing that it is some type of telephoto lens.) If not, what lens are you wanting to put on your tripod head.

#2: I have never seen so much bad advice in a single equipment thread. The mis-information above is so rampant that I would not even know where to begin.

#3: I will sell you a Sidekick if you want but there is only one reason to ever even consider one and I would bet that nobody above know what that reason is. Could be wrong but not likely.

#4: If anyone would like some accurate info on tripod heads for big lenses click here: http://www.birdsasart.com/bn254.htm

#5: More than a decade ago I wrote a long piece on why I hate the Sidekick. Things have not changed a bit since then (excpet for folks who know the answer to #3. IAC, check out this rant:
http://www.birdsasart.com/b14.html. In spite of the above I am still good friends with David and Clay and all the folks at Wimberley.
#6: Since the introduction of both the Mongoose 2.3 and M3.5, the Sidekick makes 1000 times less sense than before.
#7: Please let me know what happens when you try to lock down (tighten) a Jobu head. If my recollection is correct, it works as badly as the King Cobra (which should only be used as a cod fishing sinker).

[James Shadle]

Robert said
"I have seen the Jobu Jr. 2 being used in the field and it seems to get the job done. I think I would prefer it over the Mongoose."
I could not disagree more strongly.

A buddy of mine owned the Jobo Jr. The "JR" designation is kind at best.

My son uses a Mongoose 2.3 with a D300 and Sigma 500mm F4.5
It works great.
I use a Mongoose 3.5 with my 600mm F4 AF-I (the heavy one) and a D700.
It works great.

You will not beat the fit and finish of the Mongoose product.

Artie said:
#1: What is a Bigma? (I am guessing that it is some type of telephoto lens.) If not, what lens are you wanting to put on your tripod head.

It is a Sigma 50-500mm F6.3. It is only slightly larger than the Canon 100-400mm F5.6

James

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks James for the Bigma info. Fabio, you should be using either one of the Mongoose heads. Period. As I said in my first post, some of the comments made above are so far off base as to be ludicrous.

James; my recollection is that when you try to tighten the vertical swing arm on a Jobu that it creeps 10-15 degrees..... Was that your experience?

[James Shadle]

Sid owned one. And I do remember that being one of the problem.
The other was it seemed to "flex" even with lighter lenses.
James

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks James. That's what I thought. It is probably too light to make a good cod fishing sinker....

[Roger Clark]

#2: I have never seen so much bad advice in a single equipment thread. The mis-information above is so rampant that I would not even know where to begin.

Art,
Would you please clarify what you consider mis-information? Broad statements such as this are confusing to me and I would bet others too. For example, do you disagree with my recommendation of using a clamp and rail such as the wimberly clamps and rails?

#3: I will sell you a Sidekick if you want but there is only one reason to ever even consider one and I would bet that nobody above know what that reason is. Could be wrong but not likely.

#4: If anyone would like some accurate info on tripod heads for big lenses click here: http://www.birdsasart.com/bn254.htm

#5: More than a decade ago I wrote a long piece on why I hate the Sidekick. Things have not changed a bit since then (excpet for folks who know the answer to #3. IAC, check out this rant:
http://www.birdsasart.com/b14.html. In spite of the above I am still good friends with David and Clay and all the folks at Wimberley.

I read your b14 years ago, and I pretty much agree with what you say. For a long time I never had a sidekick, only the full wimberly (the 3.8 pound version) for my 500 f/4. And I still agree with the problems of the sidekick today, yet I still have one and use it with smaller telephotos. But what I don't understand is that some of the core reasons for disliking sidekick also exist in the mongoose M3.5, for example the vertical mount which causes difficulty in sliding the lens back and forth to achieve balance. So why the glowing report for the M3.5 versus the sidekick in that regard?

The reason I got a sidekick was for use with smaller telephotos. For 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4, I find the sidekick adequate. I do a lot of different photography and when hiking I prefer to not carry a large gimbal head, which can be difficult to use for landscapes. I prefer a ball head (or pano head) for landscapes. Thus when I'm hiking, I'll carry a ball head on the tripod. But if I'm also carrying telephotos, then it is nice to have a gimbal option and the sidekick is a relatively light option that works well considering the compromise. Carrying a mongoose M3.5 plus a ball head is unnecessary weight for hiking I feel. The sidekick is very quick to add so setup to do some quick telephoto work is extremely fast (a few seconds).

So when I recommended the sidekick, it was knowing the user was working with relatively small telephotos,
the Bigma.

Roger

[Alfred Forns]

Roger I can answer some of your questions, I know what Artie was referring to.

We rather not use the sidekick since you have to take a ball head (weight) and the Mongoose is so light. It all has to do with the application, we mostly used longer lenses and occasional use for shorter lenses. For those Artie has a very small ball head which will fit in a pocket and does the job. btw the Mongoose has a neat flash arm, again compact and light weight.

Recommending the Jobu is not such a good idea. It works very similar to the King Cobra head and has a lot of creep. You point the lens down a bit and can't lock it down... if that is ok with you then the unit is fine.

Any of the units that hold the lens on the side can lead to disaster but all is a trade off I like the safety and convenience of the full Wimberley but use a Mongoose for long treks, the weight savings makes a difference.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Roger,

re:

Would you please clarify what you consider mis-information? Broad statements such as this are confusing to me and I would bet others too.

I was trying to avoid that as there is so much of it above but I will list a few below (without going into great detail as far as my reasoning is concerned as that info is contained in past Bulletins).

#1: Robert Amoruso wrote: I have seen the Jobu Jr. 2 being used in the field and it seems to get the job done. I think I would prefer it over the Mongoose.

Seeing a ballhaed and using one are two different things... Whenever I see someone using a head that I do not know I ask them if I can handle it for a minute. In all cases I have been disappointed.

#2: Fabio wrote: "Hi. Thanks for the replies so far. I had already checked Artie's page but the Jobu seems to have the best price/benefit ratio (at least for me). Since I will have to import, I'm paying almost twice the USA price including all the taxes of Brazilian customs."

Most times in life you get what you pay for. I have seen too many folks with lenses that cost from $2,000 to $10,000 working with inferior tripods and heads that prevent them from creating good images.

#3: Roger wrote: Fabio, Have you considered a simpler Wimberly sidekick?

#4: Maxis wrote: Another vote for the sidekick system. I used to use it with my 500mm and worked better than the Mongoose. Especially when you mount a flash bracket. IMO works better.

#5: Jerry Clement wrote: I can attest to the quality of the Jobu Gimbal heads, as I own and use the Jobu Black Widow LW with my 500mm lens, and find this Jobu gimbal head to be built very solid with fine movements. The Jobu Jr. 2 will do the job for you, as the Jobu Jr 2 is capable of supporting my 500mm f4 IS, although it is a bit on the light side for this particular lens.

When folks have never ridden in a Mercedes, they often love their jalopies. They use an inferior head never knowing how much better a quality head is because they have never experienced one.

#6: Magnus wrote: Why should you go for "the real deal"? Benro is half the price of Wimberly and almost the same design! I havn´t tried either of them but Benro seems most "bang for the buck" to me!

Here's a guy recommending a product he has never used!

#7: Fabio wrote: I appreciate all your comments. I now know some new products as the Wimberly sidekick.
It seems without a doubt that the Wimberley is the top product with the top price (and quality).

For example, do you disagree with my recommendation of using a clamp and rail such as the wimberly clamps and rails?

At first I was confused by your "clamp and rail" mention but when I realized that you were referring to Arca-Swiss compatible plates and clamps I agree 100% with you on that statement. As you implied, using a square or octagonal plate with a telephoto lens is insane as it prevents balancing the rig.

I read your b14 years ago, and I pretty much agree with what you say. For a long time I never had a sidekick, only the full wimberly (the 3.8 pound version) for my 500 f/4. And I still agree with the problems of the sidekick today, yet I still have one and use it with smaller telephotos. But what I don't understand is that some of the core reasons for disliking sidekick also exist in the mongoose M3.5, for example the vertical mount which causes difficulty in sliding the lens back and forth to achieve balance. So why the glowing report for the M3.5 versus the sidekick in that regard?

As I have written often in recent Bulletins, "If you are able to comfortably support your telephoto lens with your right hand and arm for 30 seconds while mounting it or adjusting the balance then the huge weight savings of the Mongeese and its excellent performance make it ideal." In addition, as long as folks have the heavy duty lens strap on their lens and drape it twice over the head when mounting or balancing the lens it will never hit the ground. (I have been recommending that same procedure for folks using the Wimberley head for about a decade after repeatedly dropping and smashing various telephoto lenses....)

The reason I got a sidekick was for use with smaller telephotos.

The Mongeese heads out perform the Sidekick 10 to 1 and weigh about 1/3 of a Sidekick/ballhead combo.

For 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4, I find the sidekick adequate.

Why settle for adequate?

I do a lot of different photography and when hiking I prefer to not carry a large gimbal head, which can be difficult to use for landscapes.

Agree.

I prefer a ball head (or pano head) for landscapes. Thus when I'm hiking, I'll carry a ball head on the tripod. But if I'm also carrying telephotos, then it is nice to have a gimbal option and the sidekick is a relatively light option that works well considering the compromise. Carrying a mongoose M3.5 plus a ball head is unnecessary weight for hiking I feel. The sidekick is very quick to add so setup to do some quick telephoto work is extremely fast (a few seconds).

As Alfred Forns said above, the ideal solution is to use the Mongoose for the short telephoto lenses while carrying the 14 oz Giotto's ballhead in your vest or your pack: http://www.birdsasart.com/giottos.htm
This combo is far lighter, far more efficient, and costs less. Making the switch takes about ten seconds longer than removing the sidekick. With the system you described above the Mongoose alone weighs less than the Sidekick alone and outperforms it by miles.

So when I recommended the sidekick, it was knowing the user was working with relatively small telephotos,
the Bigma.

As explained above in detail, this was a very bad recommendation. One of the Mongeese heads (depending on the size and the weight of the Bigma) is absolutely best for that lens.

Respectfully.

ps: What bugs me is that the info above is available for free with a few Google searches in the BAA Bulletin archives yet folks do not avail themselves of this resource (or better yet, subscribe for free and actually read them!)

[fabiobernardino]

Thank you for all the replies and suggestions. Unfortunately or fortunately
I have already put the order for the JobuJr2 kit. I'll let you know my impressions
when it arrives and after some use. After all this thread can be a useful resource
for future buyers regarding gimbal heads.

In the end if the Jobu doesn't satisfy my needs, we can always sell our stuff and buy
a better or suitable item for our needs.

Roger, thanks for the tips about the rails. And the Sidekick info. Probably a good
solution when travelling.

Arthur,
#1. Besides the Bigma (Sigma 50-500), a Canon 70-200/4. Sometimes both with a 1.4x TC.
My next upgrade will be the 70-200/4 IS to replace the non-IS.
#3. What is the reason ?
#7. It will be my first test with it. I'll let you know.
Thanks for the links. A lot to learn.


Some comments about my decision.

As previously written I never used or saw someone using a gimbal head. So
my decision is based on forums discussions and product pages.

As I never used a mogoose (neither any gimbal head) I can't talk about it.
Probably I'm all wrong about this but here are some points that I dislike
about the mongoose and the Sidekick:
1. having the weight of the lens rest on something horizontal is comforting
2. I know that locks can get loose so if you don't get it tight the lens can pop off
3. The knobs seem too small, I don't know how they would perform against large knobs


Also keep in my mind that this is only a hobby for me. I'm not a pro wildlife photog.
Actually what really got me into bird photography is the pleasure of walking around
with some fellow photogs chatting about everything (Raw x jpeg, life, travelling,
a new camera, a new lens, gear, PS x Lightroom, etc). Knowing different people and
places. As a bonus I also learn about birds.

I see in the forums here that even if you have a Mongoose or Wimberley and a 500/4 IS
still there is a good amount of pp in Photoshop. If the Jobu make it easier to take
my photos over the ballhead that I have now, I'm already happy.

I like the challenge that there is always something to learn and there is room for
improvements.

Regards,

[Roger Clark]

The Mongeese heads out perform the Sidekick 10 to 1 and weigh about 1/3 of a Sidekick/ballhead combo.

For 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4, I find the sidekick adequate.

Why settle for adequate?

I do a lot of different photography and when hiking I prefer to not carry a large gimbal head, which can be difficult to use for landscapes.

Agree.

I prefer a ball head (or pano head) for landscapes. Thus when I'm hiking, I'll carry a ball head on the tripod. But if I'm also carrying telephotos, then it is nice to have a gimbal option and the sidekick is a relatively light option that works well considering the compromise. Carrying a mongoose M3.5 plus a ball head is unnecessary weight for hiking I feel. The sidekick is very quick to add so setup to do some quick telephoto work is extremely fast (a few seconds).

As Alfred Forns said above, the ideal solution is to use the Mongoose for the short telephoto lenses while carrying the 14 oz Giotto's ballhead in your vest or your pack: http://www.birdsasart.com/giottos.htm
This combo is far lighter, far more efficient, and costs less. Making the switch takes about ten seconds longer than removing the sidekick. With the system you described above the Mongoose alone weighs less than the Sidekick alone and outperforms it by miles.

Art,
I'm not sure where you come up with the mongeese heads weight about 1/3 of a sidekick ball head combo.

Mongoose M3.5a = 1.5 pounds, MH1302-655 head = 0.80 pounds, total = 2.6 pounds.

Arca Swiss B1 ball head + wimberly clamp = 1.76 pounds, sidekick = 1.25 pounds, total = 3.01 pounds.

I currently have 7 ball heads, including 2 Giottos and 2 Arca-Swiss. While I don't have an MH1302 (I have an MH300 and a smaller one my son currently has so I don't remember the model). In general performance is proportional to ball diameter, given equal build quality. In my experience and opinion, the Giottos are good, but the Arca-Swiss are much better performance. The MH1302 looks quite interesting and I might pick one up, or at least test one out when I visit one of the stores that has them, but I would be surprised if it performed better than my Arca-Swiss B1.

So if I got a M3.5a, I would still choose to use my B1.

But there is another factor (for my case) that keeps me with a sidekick. I also do a lot of digital mosaics that include close subjects where parallax is an issue. Thus I need a panoramic head. A gimbal head to first order can work as a panoramic head. The full wimberly would be great except for one thing: the azimuth pivot does not go through the center line of the camera. With the sidekick, the ball head moves the camera out far enough that the azimuth axis is close to the camera center line. I made some adapters with wimberly clamps and plates plus a custom piece to make a versatile panoramic head. So the ball head, sidekick, and pano adapters allow me great flexibility in the field. The pano adapters weigh 1 Kg (2.2 pounds) but the rig is more stable than commercial pano heads I've seen and tested costing more than $600.

Thus with a ball head I can do normal photography, switch to telephoto in a few seconds with the sidekick, then switch to pano mode in a few seconds and make a large mosaic. Overall, this setup has saved me a lot of weight because I used to carry 35mm film cameras + telephotos + 4x5 then digital + telephotos + 4x5. Now it is all digital and my tripod head flexible setup. The M3.5a can not be used as a pano head as the center line is not in the correct position and can't be adjusted.

Digital mosaics have allowed me to surpass what I used to do with 4x5. Article here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

Roger wrote:

I'm not sure where you come up with the mongeese heads weight about 1/3 of a sidekick ball head combo.
Mongoose M3.5a = 1.5 pounds, MH1302-655 head = 0.80 pounds, total = 2.6 pounds. Arca Swiss B1 ball head + wimberly clamp = 1.76 pounds, sidekick = 1.25 pounds, total = 3.01 pounds.

You are adding up the wrong stuff (and your scale is off). #1: you do not need any ballhead when using a Mongoose.

#2: The Mongoose M3.5 weighs 13.5 ounces.

#3: The Sidekick weighs 1 pound, 3.2 oz. and I will take your word on the Arca-Swiss B-1 at one pound, 12 ounces for a total of 2 pounds, 15.2 ounces or 47.2 ounces.

#4: 13.5/47.2 = .286. The M3.5 therefore weighs well less than 1/3 of the weight of a ballhead/Sicekick combo.

[Arthur Morris]

Fabio, Good luck with your Jobu Jr. As long as you keep using it you will never know how much better a Mongoose is.

I did not understand your "What is the reason?" question above.

[Roger Clark]

Roger wrote:
I'm not sure where you come up with the mongeese heads weight about 1/3 of a sidekick ball head combo.
Mongoose M3.5a = 1.5 pounds, MH1302-655 head = 0.80 pounds, total = 2.6 pounds. Arca Swiss B1 ball head + wimberly clamp = 1.76 pounds, sidekick = 1.25 pounds, total = 3.01 pounds.

You are adding up the wrong stuff (and your scale is off). #1: you do not need any ballhead when using a Mongoose.

Hi Art,
I agree if you are only doing telephoto work that you don't need a ball head. But if you do other work, you do. After all, you were the one who said get the MH1302-655 head for other work.

I am pretty sure of my scale. It is a digital scale accurate to 0.01 Kg. I measured the sidekick, and B1 head with the digital scale.

#2: The Mongoose M3.5 weighs 13.5 ounces.

I got the weight of the M3.5a from the manufacturer web site. From the web site, it seems the 3.5 is no longer available, correct?

#3: The Sidekick weighs 1 pound, 3.2 oz. and I will take your word on the Arca-Swiss B-1 at one pound, 12 ounces for a total of 2 pounds, 15.2 ounces or 47.2 ounces.

#4: 13.5/47.2 = .286. The M3.5 therefore weighs well less than 1/3 of the weight of a ballhead/Sicekick combo.

Note: Sidekick at 1 pound 3.2 oz = 1.26 pounds, close to my measured 1.25 pounds.

OK, I agree with that assessment, although it seems the ratio would change a little with the 3.5a. But again, a reason for going with a sidekick is to also be able to use a ball head for other types of photography. So if that is the case I feel a fairer comparison would be to include a ball head with the mongoose. But I also agree that if you are only shooting with telephoto and do not do other work, then a M3.5(a) would be a better choice and lighter. Having just returned from safari in Tanzania, one guy had a tripod plus ball head and a "todd-pod" with ball head and sidekick for the vehicle. I see now it would have been better to have an M3.5a for his 300 f/2.8.
(I had my full Wimberly for my todd-pod.) Looks like I'll be putting an M3.5a on my list for those times I want to travel lighter.

Roger

[fabiobernardino]

Arthur, you wrote:
"#3: I will sell you a Sidekick if you want but there is only one reason to ever even consider one and I would bet that nobody above know what that reason is. Could be wrong but not likely."


I appreciate all your comments. I never read about the mongoose before and now I know. If yhe Jobu doesn't work well for me, I'll replace it no doubt.

Thank you.

[Arthur Morris]

For folks who are changing quite often and quite regularly from an intermediate telephoto to a short lens for scenices (with a plate on the camera body) and those who do short lens stitched panos as Roger described I am OK with them using the Sidekick/ballhead COMBO even though I would opt for the Mongoose and then switch to the Giotto's head for scenics.

[fabiobernardino]

Just to let you know that the product arrived and I used it for 1 week.
It worked as described and I could position my combo ( Sigma 50-500 + 50D ) at any angle.

So far so good.

Thank you for all the suggestions and considerations.

[Jay Gould]

I thought about starting a new thread; however there is a lot of discussion and history in this thread. For those that haven't followed this discussion previously, the history in informative.

I am looking at the right gimbal setup for a 400mm DO and a 1D3.

Importantly, I am similar to Roger in only one aspect - and it ain't ability and experience :D - I too like to go hiking and frequently change from long to short lenses depending upon what I encounter while hiking. the idea of unscrewing the ball head to install the Mongoose doesn't work. As you are hiking you never know what is around the bend and whether you are going to quickly want the long lens or you have the time to set up a short lens scenic.

Of course if you are going out for the day specifically to only use your long lens then you can simply install the Mongoose, and conversely if you are out for the day and you are not carrying the long lens then leave the Mongoose home. Fortunately or unfortunately I rarely go out for "purpose" photography.

I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 - love it; tall enough that I do not have to stoop at all; and the center column can be rotated to a horizontal plane for macro.

I also have the Manfrotto 488RC2 - weight: .67kg = 23.6oz.

Artie has indicated: 14 oz Giotto's ballhead; a savings of 10 oz.

The Mongoose 3.5 = 1.5lb/24 oz; the Sidekick weighs 19oz. They both need some type of a plate.

Mongoose requires the CP-42 (1.6oz); the Sidekick is a problem with the 488RC2.

Is anyone using the Sidekick/488RC2 combination?

On a website discussing Sidekick compatibility with various ball heads - http://www.tripodhead.com/products/s...patibility.cfm - it appears that the Sidekick is not/may not be compatible for the 488RC2. I have sent an email to tripodhead.com inquiring about the 488RC compatibility issue and what can be done to make then compatible without a lot of mechanical machinations.

Changing the head may solve the problem; I would prefer to make this head work if it can be done relatively easily.

Look forward to assistance resolving the gimbal issue.

Cheers,

[Roger Clark]

I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 - love it; tall enough that I do not have to stoop at all; and the center column can be rotated to a horizontal plane for macro.

I also have the Manfrotto 488RC2 - weight: .67kg = 23.6oz.

Artie has indicated: 14 oz Giotto's ballhead; a savings of 10 oz.

The Mongoose 3.5 = 1.5lb/24 oz; the Sidekick weighs 19oz. They both need some type of a plate.

Mongoose requires the CP-42 (1.6oz); the Sidekick is a problem with the 488RC2.

Is anyone using the Sidekick/488RC2 combination?

On a website discussing Sidekick compatibility with various ball heads - http://www.tripodhead.com/products/s...patibility.cfm - it appears that the Sidekick is not/may not be compatible for the 488RC2. I have sent an email to tripodhead.com inquiring about the 488RC compatibility issue and what can be done to make then compatible without a lot of mechanical machinations.

Jay,
At the moment I am traveling light and the ball head I have with me is the 488RC2. I simply unscrewed the clamp that was on it and put on a Wimberly clamp (the smallest one--forget the model #). It works fine with a sidekick.
I do like my arca-swiss B1 ball head much better than the 488RC2, but the 488RC2 is fine. I generally use the 488RC2 plus sidekick with 300 f/4 (plus TCs). I'll generally hand hold that lens except when doing long sessions where I would track slower moving subjects (like big animals) or when light levels drop.

[Jay Gould]

Jay,
At the moment I am traveling light and the ball head I have with me is the 488RC2. I simply unscrewed the clamp that was on it and put on a Wimberly clamp (the smallest one--forget the model #). It works fine with a sidekick. I do like my arca-swiss B1 ball head much better than the 488RC2, but the 488RC2 is fine. I generally use the 488RC2 plus sidekick with 300 f/4 (plus TCs). I'll generally hand hold that lens except when doing long sessions where I would track slower moving subjects (like big animals) or when light levels drop.

BINGO! :D

Roger, there is no hurry.

For me, since the "scientist's scientist" has told me that the 488RC2 is fine - "fine" is good enough when I am spending so much on the camera and lens and I already have the 488RC2.

When you return home and have the time if you could send me all of the nitty gritty details and some images - if I am not pushing my luck too far - and then I will know exactly what to buy and how to install. I will acknowledge I am not a mechanical wizard.

Cheers, Happy Easter, and have a good trip.

[Arthur Morris]

Of course if you are going out for the day specifically to only use your long lens then you can simply install the Mongoose, and conversely if you are out for the day and you are not carrying the long lens then leave the Mongoose home. Fortunately or unfortunately I rarely go out for "purpose" photography.

I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 - love it; tall enough that I do not have to stoop at all; and the center column can be rotated to a horizontal plane for macro.

I also have the Manfrotto 488RC2 - weight: .67kg = 23.6oz.

Artie has indicated: 14 oz Giotto's ballhead; a savings of 10 oz.

The Mongoose 3.5 = 1.5lb/24 oz; the Sidekick weighs 19oz. They both need some type of a plate.

Mongoose requires the CP-42 (1.6oz); the Sidekick is a problem with the 488RC2.

Is anyone using the Sidekick/488RC2 combination?

On a website discussing Sidekick compatibility with various ball heads - http://www.tripodhead.com/products/s...patibility.cfm - it appears that the Sidekick is not/may not be compatible for the 488RC2. I have sent an email to tripodhead.com inquiring about the 488RC compatibility issue and what can be done to make then compatible without a lot of mechanical machinations.

Cheers,

I do not know the 488RC2 head. I am sure that you can put your BIGMA on it and make images. Assuming that it is a type of ballhead, you will quickly learn the meaning of "ballhead flop." As for using the Sidekick/Ballhead Combo, 98.46% of folks who use it complain every second while using it. I just love that as I get to say, "I told you so." I believe that you originally asked me "what was best?" I am doing this for 25 years and I do not BS folks, so I told you honestly what would be best. If you wish to take the advice of others I fine with that as long as you realize that you will be using a less than ideal rig that makes the task of creating sharp, well composed images more difficult and less efficient.

[Jay Gould]

I do not know the 488RC2 head. I am sure that you can put your BIGMA on it and make images. Assuming that it is a type of ballhead, you will quickly learn the meaning of "ballhead flop." As for using the Sidekick/Ballhead Combo, 98.46% of folks who use it complain every second while using it. I just love that as I get to say, "I told you so." I believe that you originally asked me "what was best?" I am doing this for 25 years and I do not BS folks, so I told you honestly what would be best. If you wish to take the advice of others I fine with that as long as you realize that you will be using a less than ideal rig that makes the task of creating sharp, well composed images more difficult and less efficient.

Artie, I do understand that it probably is a less than ideal rig, and that a dedicated gimbal system would work more efficiently. However, because I would have to constantly be changing heads back and forth between, for example, the Mongoose and the ball head, I need to give this a try. You may well be/probably are right and if I fall in the 98.46% (pure!) of folks who complain and it doesn't work for me, then I will "fess up", give you the opportunity to tell me "I told you so", and pay for the change over.

Kinda like I am doing changing from a 40D/100-400 to a 1D3/400 DO at your original recommendation.

Too bad that the Mongoose does not convert so that you can mount a camera with a shorter lens.

I do appreciate where you are coming from and that you feel strongly and forcefully about what you believe. Thanks.