Thoughts on Wimberly Sidekick vs the full monty Wimberly Gimbal II?
So I'm putting together a birding system - got my lens picked out (Nikon 300 F4 + 1.7 teleconverter), and I got my tripod picked out (Gitzo 3530LS). I THOUGHT I had my head picked out - the Wimberly Gimbal Type II - until I started reading up on the Sidekick and the convenience factor of being able to swap out the Sidekick for when I want to shoot more traditional landscape shots (sun sets, etc...).
The problem is that, I really don't anticipate swapping out "systems" all that much. At least, I don't "anticipate" that need - I could be totally wrong and find otherwise. But I'm leaning toward the Gimbal Type II as I anticipate that when I go out on the morning for bird shots, my "mindset" is on bird shots, my kit will reflect that, and I will want the outfit that's maximally set up to that end.
I know there is no "right" or "wrong" answer here, but I'd like to get feedback maybe from folks that have experience using both systems?
Thanks!
Brian
Last edited by Brian Kent; 05-02-2010 at 03:02 PM.
Sorry - one more point. I currently don't own a good quality head. So, if I went with the Sidekick system, I'd need to not only buy the Sidekick, but a good head - probably the RRS BH-55 (seems to be an industry standard!). So, cost wise, I may be able to save some money just by going with the Gimbal II option (but, obviously, lose flexibility. sigh . . .)
Brian
I use a RRS BH 55 and Sidekick with my Canon pro body and 500 with 2X TC. I like it a lot and have no problems with stability. I do find I must check the knob that secures the lens to the quick release of the Sidekick. I used to have a bad habit of not tightening it completely. I am over that now!
I went with the Wimberly II and an additional plate that attaches to a conventional camera plate. The extra plate allows mounting the camera body directly to the Gimbal Head so I can use shorter lens as well.
I find the Wimberly II very stable and easy to use.
I have both a full wimberly (model 1) and sidekick, as well as 300 f/4, 300 f2.8, and 500 f/4.
For a 300 f/4 in my opinion, the full wimberly is overkill. I often use the sidekick with 300 f/4 and 300 f/2.8, and occasionally 500 f/4. I find the sidekick inadequate for the 500 but work when needing to travel lighter. 300 f2/8 is ok on either but I prefer the full wimberly. On the 300 f/4 I prefer the sidekick but that is probably because I usually take the 400 f/4 when I want to travel lighter and I use the sidekick on a smaller tripod than the wimberly. A ball head + sidekick and easily weight more then a wimberly, so you would need to check your situation.
Well right now I am using the RRS BH55 and a Sidekick.
I have no problem with the Sidekick at all, but while I haven't weighed it you probably are not
saving that much weight from my combo and the full Wimblerly. The BH 55 is pretty heavy in it's own right.
Good luck in your quest. I guess the biggest decision you have to make is how often
you will use the BH 55 without the Sidekick. I use mine a lot so I feel pretty good about my
decision.
Again, being new to birding I don't really have much experience to fall back on. However, I don't anticipate "weight" to be much of a determining factor in my decision. That's mainly because I don't anticipate doing a lot of hiking with this set up. I'm thinking I'll be driving to the parks in my area and walking a few hundred hards to where I'll plant myself; maybe reposition a bit over the hours, but no serious hiking.
I'm thinking the weight delta isn't all that much anyway - maybe a pound at most either way? That's comparing the BH 55 + Sidekick vs the full Wimberly. Doesn't seem that much of a difference for me to get concerned over - but again, being a newbie maybe I'm severly understimating this weight issue.
As Garry said, the determing factor here is how much I'll be using the BH 55 without the Sidekick. I can't be for sure, but I suspect not that much. And indeed, I suspected that a full Wimberly on a relatively light lens like the 300 F4 may be overkill. But I guess I'd rather err on the side of too much stability vs not enough.
Still have not made a decision - I may end up calling the folks over at Really Right Stuff and talking it over with them; I hear they can be very informative.
Thanks for the feedback folks - not an easy decision for me to make, but at least there probably isn't a "wrong" decision here; it's likely a win-win either way! :-)
Brian
I started out with the BH-55 and a sidekick for my Nikon 200-400 and it has worked out fine. They will both handle the weight without any problems. However about a month ago I rented a 600 for use on a week long outing. The BH-55 and sidekick worked in a pinch but it was evident that it isn't ideal with any of the big lenses. If you don't think you'll use the ball head for other things too much, and ever anticipate either acquiring or renting one of the big lenses, then the Wimberley II is the way to go.
I use the BH-55/Sidekick setup on a Gitzo 3530LS tripod with a 500 f/4 and love it.
I went through this same decision process about a year ago, and the thing to remember in my opinion is that you can't go wrong with either setup - it comes down to your own personal preferences.
I compared both setups side-by-side, and that really showed me they both work well. In the end I went with the sidekick, for the following reasons:
1) Already owned a RRS BH-55 ballhead
2) Like to switch back to just the ballhead for shorter lenses and different subjects
3) I like to hike, and the sidekick packs away in my backpack easily, etc.
4) Using a 400 f/5.6 (or even the 70-200 f/4) on the sidekick for static shots works great
Did a bit more research - I think I really need to call Wimberly
Thanks for all this great feedback folks! On the Wimberly site, they say that using the Sidekick with a smallish lens like the 300 F4 may be hard to balance with a "pro" body, i.e. D300s with vertical grip. I'll need to ask them about this when I phone them. Garry Gibson - did you have any issues balancing your 300 F4 on the Sidekick?
Brian
Hey Brian.. yes, 'balancing' a smaller lens doesn't work well on a sidekick (in terms of using it fluidly, etc). But using the sidekick as a ballhead for static shots, you can do that (while locking down the sidekick) as I mentioned in my #4 point earlier. I do this when I don't want to remove the sidekick to use just the ballhead (and when I know I'm going right back to mounting the 500 f/4 for example). Hope that makes sense.
In terms of balance... the 500 f/4 balances beautifully on my sidekick, and is very fluid in pivoting, etc.
Last edited by John Blumenkamp; 05-03-2010 at 11:34 AM.
To your original question, if you don't think you'll ever take the gimbal off, then there's little or no advantage to the Sidekick.
I use the Sidekick with a Arca-Swiss Z1 for my EF 500mm f/4L IS. It balances perfectly and moves smoothly and freely. My only concern is keeping the quick release plate on the ballhead tight so the whole kit and kaboodle doesn't fall off. I keep the tripod at a 45-degree angle when carrying it over my shoulder and check the tightening knob EVERY time I pick it up.
Jobu Design BWG-J2K Junior 2 Compact Gimbal Head Kit with HM-J2 Adapter
If you don't plan on getting bigger lens in the near future this is great. I bought one about a month ago and love it. All the advantages of the big ones plus light, fits into backpack. Cost $250.00 from Adorama.
Larry <><
Thoughts on Wimberly Sidekick vs the full monty Wimberly Gimbal II?
Reply With Quote
