The Sidekick

[Jay Gould]

Hi,

This thread is being started in spite of Artie's very valid warnings and misgivings about The Sidekick.

I have decided to try the Sidekick because I do not go out for a day and only concentrate on one type of photography. The idea of constantly changing heads doesn't appeal to me.

Unfortunately, I currently have the Manfrotto 488RC2 ball head (great head!); unfortunately because it is not compatible with the Sidekick system.

Those of your that have the Sidekick and are happy using it and willing to admit using it :D , what ball head are you using?

I will need to support a 1D3 and a 300 f/2.8.

Thoughts?

Cheers, Jay

[Alfred Forns]

Ball head wise there is not much to think about Jay ..... the RRS !!! One smooth working head.

Look at the BH-55 if you are using the sidekick Without it would go for the BH-40.

[Desmond Chan]

Hi,

Those of your that have the Sidekick and are happy using it and willing to admit using it :D , what ball head are you using?

You can go here and take a look at what Wimbley recommend:

http://www.tripodhead.com/products/s...patibility.cfm


Here's their ballhead recommendations:

http://www.tripodhead.com/faqs-ballh...mmendation.cfm


I use Markins M-20.

[Jay Gould]

You can go here and take a look at what Wimbley recommend:

http://www.tripodhead.com/products/s...patibility.cfm


Here's their ballhead recommendations:

http://www.tripodhead.com/faqs-ballh...mmendation.cfm


I use Markins M-20.

Hi, I looked at those documents; I assume you are happy with the Markins from you recommendation; now I will look at the Markins M-20. Where did you purchase the Markins? Cheers, Jay

[Desmond Chan]

Hi, I looked at those documents; I assume you are happy with the Markins from you recommendation; now I will look at the Markins M-20. Where did you purchase the Markins? Cheers, Jay

I see that you're in Australia, you can start from here:

http://www.markins.com/

This I think is related to Nikonians.org:

https://www.photoproshop.com/usa/

Or select the region you like:

https://www.photoproshop.com/

[Maxis Gamez]

Kirk large ball head is a GREAT head to use with the sidekick.

http://www.kirkphoto.com/ballheads.html

Plus they have free shipping this weekend!

[Norm Dulak]

My wife and I use sidekicks with Markins ball heads. I have an M20, and she has a Q3. They are both excellent ball heads, and Markins is highly recommended by the Nikonians.

Norm Dulak

[Charles Glatzer]

Jay,

With the money saved on the 300 vs 400 get the RRS BH-55, Wimberley sidekick, with wimberley or RRS camera and lens plates.
Check out www.tripodhead.com for additional product info.
The alternative is the Mongoose and BH-40, with RRS or Wimberley lens and camera plates.

The Wimberley universal camera plate works well, and you do not have to buy a new plate every time you buy a new camera.

Buy once and be done with it ;)

Chas

[Roger Clark]

Jay,
I put together a web page regarding the 488RC2 and the sidekick:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/tripod.heads

Regarding the 488RC2, it is OK, works fine. I do like my arca-swiss B1 ball head better. It is a little larger but holds the weight of the 300 f/2.8 and sidekick well. I've not used the 400RC2 with the sidekick and 300 f/2.8, only with my 300 f/4, for which it did fine. It might do fine with the 300 f/2.8, I just haven't used it that way. But I have the 488RC2 on a smaller CF tripod which I take when I'm trying to travel a little lighter. When I take the 300 f/2.8, I go with the B1 ball head on a 1228 Gitzo CF tripod.

[Jay Gould]

Jay,

With the money saved on the 300 vs 400 get the RRS BH-55, Wimberley sidekick, with wimberley or RRS camera and lens plates. Check out www.tripodhead.com for additional product info.
The alternative is the Mongoose and BH-40, with RRS or Wimberley lens and camera plates.
The Wimberley universal camera plate works well, and you do not have to buy a new plate every time you buy a new camera. Buy once and be done with it ;) Chas

:D With what money saved? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Yes, the 300 is $1,400 less than the 400; however, I have already spent that six ways to Sunday! :eek:

For the moment, the Mongoose is not an alternative; I am willing to make the experimental investment and try the Sidekick so that I can easily switch from the, e.g., 1D3/300 to the 1D3/16-35; when I get a 5DX so that I have one full sensor for landscapes etc, I would want to be able to switch from one camera to the next without removing a lot of hardware.

The recommendations thus far are the RSS BH-55; Markins M-20, Kirk BH-1, and the Arca-Swiss Z1. All are compatible with the Sidekick.

Roger has the Arca-Swiss B1 and the 488RC2; he has been traveling and he believes the 488 is modifiable to take the Sidekick; I have just received his verdict that it is modifiable however " the ball must be tightened extremely tight to prevent the camera from flopping over". I do realize that the 488 is the lightest and holds the least load of the various ballheads under consideration.

I will probably opt for one of the stronger ballheads as I am concerned about the maximum load capacity/weight of equipment for my setup. I am leaning towards the Markin M-20. The max weight for the 488 is 50% of the weight of the 1D3+300 f/2.8; that weight is only +- 10% of the capacity of the Markin.

For those also considering ballheads, this is a very good review of the Markin: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...ins/index.html

Norm/Des: you are both using the M-20 with the Sidekick. Have you had any problem with ball flop as described by Artie? I will be using the Sidekick with about 9 lbs (1D3_300f/2.8).

Cheers, Jay

[Jay Gould]

Jay,
I put together a web page regarding the 488RC2 and the sidekick:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/tripod.heads

Regarding the 488RC2, it is OK, works fine. I do like my arca-swiss B1 ball head better. It is a little larger but holds the weight of the 300 f/2.8 and sidekick well. I've not used the 400RC2 with the sidekick and 300 f/2.8, only with my 300 f/4, for which it did fine. It might do fine with the 300 f/2.8, I just haven't used it that way. But I have the 488RC2 on a smaller CF tripod which I take when I'm trying to travel a little lighter. When I take the 300 f/2.8, I go with the B1 ball head on a 1228 Gitzo CF tripod.

Roger, everyone has helped me choose my new gear; however, you are over the top. If BPN had a helpful award, to create a web page as busy as you are and having just returned from a trip so I can see the 488 in use, YOU WIN!!

Thanks, Roger. :D

[Roger Clark]

Roger has the Arca-Swiss B1 and the 488RC2; he has been traveling and he believes the 488 is modifiable to take the Sidekick; I have just received his verdict that it is modifiable however " the ball must be tightened extremely tight to prevent the camera from flopping over".

Jay,
The statement about tightening the ball head to keep the sidekick from flopping over applies to all ball heads, not just the 488. This, I believe, is the crux of Arie's concern, and is certainly valid. I have never had the sidekick flop over, but I have found it creeping over slowly and had to tighten the ball a little more to stop it.

[Charles Glatzer]

The ball will not flop after tightening with an RRS BH-55. Once you tighten the ballhead orientation you do not touch this again when using the sidekick. Thereafter, use the ballhead panning knob for horz, and the sidekick knob for vert. The biggest problem is the clamp loosening and the sidekick pulling out of the clamp. You can use a set screw if desired, there is a 1/4-20 hole in the sidekick. Make sure the sidekick is tight in the clamp every time you think about it, especially, prior to placing the rig over your shoulder.

Chas

[Roger Clark]

Roger, everyone has helped me choose my new gear; however, you are over the top. If BPN had a helpful award, to create a web page as busy as you are and having just returned from a trip so I can see the 488 in use, YOU WIN!!

Thanks, Roger. :D

Thanks, Jay. Although I'm not out to win anything. I just feel that many have helped me come up to speed over the years (in other forums as well as here more recently), so it is nice to help others in the same boat. And I'm still learning (hope to never stop learning, as well as never stop shooting till they pry the camera from my cold dead fingers ;)). I do read many other threads learning, even if I don't comment.

[Norm Dulak]

The notion that the RRS-BH-55 is the "best out there by far" is a bit of an overstatement. The Markins M-20 is also superb, and it just may be a much better value.

Norm Dulak

[Jay Gould]

Jay,
The statement about tightening the ball head to keep the sidekick from flopping over applies to all ball heads, not just the 488. This, I believe, is the crux of Arie's concern, and is certainly valid. I have never had the sidekick flop over, but I have found it creeping over slowly and had to tighten the ball a little more to stop it.

Roger, I am guessing - you are the scientist! - that if the load capacity of the head = 50% of the weight of the camera/lens you are going to have to tighten significantly more than if the load capacity = 10%.

True?

Jay

[Jay Gould]

The notion that the RRS-BH-55 is the "best out there by far" is a bit of an overstatement. The Markins M-20 is also superb, and it just may be a much better value.

Norm Dulak

Given you experience, any experiential words of wisdom pertaining to using the Sidekick with the M--20? Jay

[Roger Clark]

Roger, I am guessing - you are the scientist! - that if the load capacity of the head = 50% of the weight of the camera/lens you are going to have to tighten significantly more than if the load capacity = 10%.

True?

Jay

Yes.

Also, when I throw the camera on tripod over my shoulder, whether wimberly or not, I also always hold on the the camera neck strap in case something comes loose.

I've never had the lens plate come loose in a wimberly clamp, except on safari in Tanzania where the vibration of the vehicle over the rough terrain seems to loosen all bolts.

[Ed Cordes]

I use a Sidekick with the RRS BH 55. I like it but have learned that the knob on the sidekick that tightens the clamp holding your lens must be checked and double checked. I wish the knob were a bit larger so there is more leverage when tightening. I may retrofit one on my own.

[Jay Gould]

I use a Sidekick with the RRS BH 55. I like it but have learned that the knob on the sidekick that tightens the clamp holding your lens must be checked and double checked. I wish the knob were a bit larger so there is more leverage when tightening. I may retrofit one on my own.

Hi Ed, if you do a retrofit of the knob please post details and images at a later date so that we all can have the benefit of your experiment. Thanks, Jay

[Desmond Chan]

Norm/Des: you are both using the M-20 with the Sidekick. Have you had any problem with ball flop as described by Artie? I will be using the Sidekick with about 9 lbs (1D3_300f/2.8).

I'm not sure of what the ball flop issue you're referring to, but I have encountered no problem with Markins. My heaviest lens is the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR that weighs 7.2lb. My camera is a Nikon D300 plus battery pad.

[Norm Dulak]

I use my sidekick, Markins M-20 combo with a D300 and my 13 pound Sigma 300-800 mm super zoom lens, with no problems.

[Joe Milmoe]

Hi Jay :D

Again, just my opinion, but I think the Markins M20 is best choice.

The RRS Bh-55 head has great reviews (a la "best ballhead ever!"). It does look and feel fantastic. Although, it is quite heavy and can't hold a candle to the Markins M20 (even M10) in terms of "sweet spot" operation.

Again, another hard one for me to explain, but see this video for example.

http://www.markinsamerica.com/downlo...800mm_high.wmv

When using a ballhead with telephoto or heavy macro setup (lens/brackets/flashes, etc), I prefer to leave the head partially locked as shown, and rotate the setup without having to fully lock the ball. The RRS simply couldn't handle this and required the ball to be locked (and still creeped). My "upgrade" path was the M10 -> Bh-55 -> M20. Just for grins, I've set it up with the 600 + 2x and it does well. It's compact and a great deal lighter than the RRS.

Another easy decision IMO!

[Jay Gould]

An issue has arisen between Wimberley and Markins as to the correct plate to use with the Sidekick.

The Sidekick plate is larger than the Markins plate.

Those of you using the Sidekick, are you using a Markins plate with the Sidekick, or are you using the Sidekick plate and it also works with the Markins?

In my case I am using the Sidekick with the EF 300 f/2.8.

Sidekick: 4.43 x 1.5 x .38
Markins: 2.8 x 1.4 x .3

Apparently, the extra length of the Sidekick is so that you can slide the plate along the clamp to find the best balance point.

What are you all using?

Thanks, Jay

[Jay Gould]

Hi, after posting this question I have received emails from both Markins and Sidekick indicating that the larger Sidekick plate will work in the Markins QR plate. Based upon the balance issues and the ability to slide the longer Sidekick plate in the Sidekick clamp, I am purchasing the Sidekick plate.

I hope all of this helps someone in the future!

Cheers, Jay

[Desmond Chan]

Those of you using the Sidekick, are you using a Markins plate with the Sidekick, or are you using the Sidekick plate and it also works with the Markins?

You mean the lens plate? I use the Markins plates on my Nikon lenses. In my case, both the 300f2.8 and the 200-400 use the same plate. Mind you, I didn't know about the Sidekick plates though until your post :)

[Roger Clark]

Jay,
I would go for at least a 4-inch plate. When you add a TC you must shift the lens a couple of
inches to get the best balance. And if you put your 40D on versus the 1D3, the balance point will be very different, so the longer plate on the 300 f/2.8 is a real must. I have a 4-inch plate on my 300 f/2.8 and sometimes push it to the edges.

[Jay Gould]

Jay,
I would go for at least a 4-inch plate. When you add a TC you must shift the lens a couple of
inches to get the best balance. And if you put your 40D on versus the 1D3, the balance point will be very different, so the longer plate on the 300 f/2.8 is a real must. I have a 4-inch plate on my 300 f/2.8 and sometimes push it to the edges.

Thanks Roger, that is what I have opted to do!

BTW, do you use the Sidekick Flash Bracket?

Cheers, Jay

[Roger Clark]

BTW, do you use the Sidekick Flash Bracket?

I have not yet. I have with the full wimberly and I have the wimberly flash bracket system. Adding that to the foot means you'll need more length on the plate too.

[Jay Gould]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

I need advice!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have just received the Markins M-20; a beautiful machined ball head. I have also just learned because there is no information on the Markins website to the contrary, that what Markins calls a quick release is a knob that you have to turn to lock and unlock your camera or lens.

I saw the picture of the knob; I wrongly assumed that it was a spring loaded knob that you pulled out to allow the plate to be put in place and then you released the knob and it locked into place.

I assumed wrong!

When I complained to Markins, their bottom line was:

The screw style quick release has been around for many decades for its reliability.

While they are willing to refund the purchase price; they want me to pay for the shipping both ways - they are not even willing to split the baby.

Question: are many using the screw knob - BS - quick release, or are most using the lever type as is found on the RRS BH-55, and so many others including my current Manfrotto 488RC2.

I am concerned that screwing the knob in and out is going to get old quickly; especially in a place like Antarctica where I might be switching from the 300 to the 70-200, and from the 1D3 to the 40D many times in one day.

What do you think BPNers?

Thanks, Jay

[William Malacarne]

I have never liked the lever type knob due to the fact it is easy to catch a sleeve or something else on it and accidentally open it.

Bill

[Roger Clark]

Jay,
For years, before getting my 500 f/4, I used quick release plates, some with the lever and others with a combination button plus screw lock. Look at it this way: if you accidentally open the quick release and the camera or lens slips out completely, it is a bad and dangerous design. And it becomes more dangerous with heavier equipment. Once I got the 500 and switched to the wimberly clamps and plates, it is obvious for safety that is the only way to go: screw that locks down tight and ig comes a little loose, the plate slide up to a stop and will not come out.

Yes, it takes a few seconds to tighten or loosen the screw but is is a good system for the big lenses and heavy cameras.

You certainly would not want your 300 f/2.8 + 1DIII to fall off the tripod in Antarctica, or anywhere else!

Roger

[Joe Milmoe]

Hi Jay,

Sorry I didn't understand what you were asking over PM.

I think you will find most folks have the "QR plate" unless they opt for the "clamp" on an RRS head.

Like I mentioned, the Sidekick originally did not work with clamp heads. It looks like they now sell adapter plates, but still have fitment warnings.

I think you will find the QR plate to be totally fine. You will find it on most heads, even the wimberley and mongoose heads.

If you're really worried about how fast you can draw and re-clamp a new lens, you can take out the safety stop screws on your lens plate. This will let you just barely loosen the ballhead clamp to slide the lens out and slide another in. Can't say I advise this though :)

[Jay Gould]

Thank you everyone!

Gosh, I would be lost in this new undertaking if it weren't for BPN. :o;):D

I will stay with the Markins; it is a beautifully machined and smooth head; and apologize to them for making an issue out of a nonissue.

They are aware that I asked this question on BPN; I will direct them to all of the positive responses.

Cheers, Jay