Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Gimbal heads

  1. #1
    Johan Kruger
    Guest

    Default Gimbal heads

    Hi, I am keen to buy a gimbal head, currently have no experience with these. From what I see there are mainly two types, one the lens foot mounts on the side and one on the bottom. I anyone has experience with both types of gimbal please lemme know which kind works better.
    Thanks

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Johan,
    What size lens, and how strong are you? The answer may shift what works well for you. For me, I find that the bottom mount style is best for the 500 f/4, especially when loaded with flash and 1D bodies. If a side mount, you would need the strength to hold the lens with one hand while you tighten the clamp with the other. I find I'm OK with 300 f/2.8 on a side mount, but prefer the bottom mount for the 500, especially after a long day of hoisting the lens on and off the mount.

    Roger

  3. #3
    Johan Kruger
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks Roger, what you saying makes perfect sense. Will be for a 500 or 600 (depending on how far I can twist the wife's arm :) )

  4. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Posts
    311
    Threads
    25
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Roger's advice is spot on and important. My wife and I have both a Wimberley Sidekick and a full Wimberley II. The Sidekick is OK for me for lenses up to a Nikon 200-400, but I have to mount it for my wife. The issue is holding the lens in one hand, with the plate aligned to the jaws, and tightening the jaws with the other hand. We use the Wimberley II for a Sigma 300-800, no way would I even consider the Sidekick for that. I would say no way for a 600 f/4 on a Sidekick, maybe OK for a 500 f/4 if you can hold it still in one hand for a minute or two with the foot vertical on the side. Won't take that long to tighten, but you want a safety margin for when you're tired.

    Another advantage of the Wimberley II is that the height adjustment lets you get a decent center of gravity with a flash. Not perfect, but not wildly unstable either. The Sidekick really only has 2 advantages, cost and occasional flexibility. The cost is only an advantage if you already have or will get a decent ball head. The flexibility is only an advantage if you will often switch between ball head and gimbal use.

  5. #5
    Johan Kruger
    Guest

    Default

    thanks for taking the time to advise alan, i am definately getting the full gimbal head.

  6. #6
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I need to be brief here. The Sidekick is only for those who will be using a telephoto one minute and then a short lens on the camera the next and even there it is not the best solution. In addition the Mongoose m3.6 is far superior to the Sidekick (we do sell them to folks who will not listen :) in terms of performance and it is much, much lighter. As far as Wimberley vs. Mongoose M3.6 we recommend the Mongoose for the 500 and the 800 (and the new 600 coming soon) but recommend the Wimberley for the old 600 and the old 400 2.8s.
    I have been doing this for 27+ years and I do not BS folks. We sell only what I use and have used. Let me know if you have any additional questions. There is lots more on the two heads at the links and in various Bulletins.
    Last edited by James Shadle; 10-29-2010 at 12:03 AM. Reason: advertising links
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  7. #7
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    ps: We ship stuff to South Africa and around the world every week. In MHO, the Wimberley for a 500 f/4 is a big mistake. Performance is a tie and the Mongoose weighs 2+ pounds less. We do however sell lots of Wimberley VII heads.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  8. #8
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    14
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    "In MHO, the Wimberley for a 500 f/4 is a big mistake."

    Please elaborate.

  9. #9
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I did above a bit: Performance is a tie and the Mongoose weighs 2+ pounds less.

    It is pretty simple. I use the Mongoose with my 800 f/5.6 and make sharp images at ridiculously slow shutter speeds so there are no rigidity issues with the Mongoose. And it is way lighter, easier to travel with, and pans smoothly. For me it's a no brainer. Again, we sell tons of both. I am just sharing what works for me.

    My rule is if you can support the weight of your lens comfortably with your right hand for 10 seconds (while you are mounting it) then the Mongoose is for you. I cannot do that with the 13 pound lenses so if I had the old 600 or the 300-800 thing I would be using a Wimberley.

    Any questions :)

    ps: And the new Mongoose, the M3.6, has locks to prevent slippage while walking with the lens.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  10. #10
    Johan Kruger
    Guest

    Default

    Okay, nobody can say this forum does not provide an overwhelming amount of advice and knowledge :) Tried so search the web a bit for Mongoose products, dont really find much. Stupid question, with it mounting on the side, is it not the same as buying the sidekick head ? But to quote the description you have in your shop (about the wimberley) "If you own a 500 or 600mm autofocus lens this is your tripod head. Period." ;)

    Thanks again for all the input

  11. #11
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    JK, Lots in Bulletins and on our web site. A Mongoose is similar to a Sidekick only in that it is side mounting. It weighs at least two pounds or more less than any Sidekick/ballhead combo. If you search the Bulletin archives you can find tons of info on all involved parties.

    Thanks for the heads up on the old Wimberley text. I shall go edit it now.

    Go to the store, read everything there and in Bulletins on the Mongoose heads, the Wimberley, the Sidekick, ballheads, and the Giottos tiny ballhead solution. If you want to learn there is hours worth of stuff to read.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  12. #12
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks again JK, the text at the store will soon read as follows:

    If you own a 12 or 13 pound lens like the Canon 400 f/2.8 L IS, the 600mm f/4L IS, or the Sigmonster, the Sigma 300-800 zoom lens, then this is your tripod head. Period. This unique head incorporates an elevated tilt mechanism and adjustable platform to perfectly align the center of gravity of a big lens for perfect balance. Perfect balance means that your 12 to 14 pound lenses behave as if they were weightless. Images not possible with a ball head are routine with a Wimberley with those huge lenses. And the V2 is ideal for photographing birds in flight. No more wrestling with your large lens. Just point.... and shoot, even with one hand! Beware of inferior imitations such as the Jobu and King Cobra heads. The V-2 is elegantly designed to perform with great efficiency.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Art,

    I use both a sidekick and full Wimberly. I do use the ball head for landscapes often so the sidekick is a good fit for me and I have never thad a problem with it. I have also used the sidekick with the 500 but I do not recommend it. The 500 f/4 is 10.6 pounds with hood and front cover. Add 3+ pounds with a 1D body, and another couple of pounds with TC, flash bracket, flash and better beamer, and you are up in the 15 to 16 pound range. Depending on ones strength, especially after a long day, it can get tough to mount it on a side-mounting head, especially in awkward situations (e.g. safari vehicle) when you are trying to hurry to get a particular shot. So I would say the cut point of side versus bottom mounting heads depends on the person and their strength. For reference, I'm 5 feet 10 inches and routinely carry a 40 to 50 pound pack on a photo hike (can no longer do the 70 pounds--too hard on the hips).

    Roger

  14. #14
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks for your input. I never have a problem with the 500 or the 800 on the Mongoose which is of course a side-mounting head. I would not think of putting the old 600 on it (even though Robert O'Toole did so for years). And you sound a lot stronger than me :) But surely it will vary from photographer to photographer. If I have have the pleasure of running into you in the field I will loan you a Mongoose and show you my Giotto's tiny ballhead. As someone who helped put Wimberely heads on the map and used one exclusively for about a decade, I can say from personal experience that ignorance is bliss. Until you work with a big lens on a Mongoose you have no idea how much lighter they are and how efficient they are to use.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Thanks for your input. I never have a problem with the 500 or the 800 on the Mongoose which is of course a side-mounting head. I would not think of putting the old 600 on it (even though Robert O'Toole did so for years). And you sound a lot stronger than me :) But surely it will vary from photographer to photographer. If I have have the pleasure of running into you in the field I will loan you a Mongoose and show you my Giotto's tiny ballhead. As someone who helped put Wimberely heads on the map and used one exclusively for about a decade, I can say from personal experience that ignorance is bliss. Until you work with a big lens on a Mongoose you have no idea how much lighter they are and how efficient they are to use.
    Artie, I would like that. I'm sure we will cross paths again. I can certainly appreciate the mongoose. It is impressively light. If it weren't so expensive, I would probably buy one for my next African safari. I already have the full wimberly and a sidekick.

    My experience with these kinds of mounts dates back to about 1970 with astronomical telescopes. The mongoose and wimberly style is called a one-armed fork. A good friend, a retired Boeing engineer was making one-armed forks for telescopes when I was in high school. I've make two-armed fork mounts.

    Here is my detailed view of the one-armed (gimbal) mounts. For tracking action, they are great because if properly balanced you can have zero added friction (the knobs loose) and the camera stays pointed perfectly in the same direction if you take your hands off the camera. Then when something moves, you can quickly move the camera+lens to follow, and with the tension loose, there would be no jerking motion--just smooth pan. Can this be achieved with each gimbal system?

    With the full Wimberly, yes, regardless of configuration. For example, mount the flash on a flash bracket with the better beamer, and move the wimberly foot down to rebalance the system. Thus one can always have the system in perfect balance, providing the smoothest action tracking, whether horizontal, pointing up or down.

    With a side mount system, because the lens is symmetric, and the camera mostly so, the system is nicely balanced for tracking. If one adds a flash, the flash must be mounted to the side, symmetric with the altitude axis. in order to keep perfect balance. If one mounts the flash above the lens (my preferred way), then the system is top heavy so if you point up or down from horizontal, the system becomes increasingly unbalanced.

    So, the way I see it, is the side mount design is a good compromise, reducing size and weight with good balance but not perfect as one adds complexity, like flash. The bottom mount design with variable placement of the foot position is the ultimate in ability to balance the system, at the cost of more bulk and weight.

    A double-armed fork would add more stability (of course if well made), at the cost of even more bulk and weight.

    Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these points.

    Roger

  16. #16
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    173
    Threads
    39
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I have both the Mongoose and Wimberly II.

    I agree with Roger - the balancing capability when using flash and Better Beamer is a big Wimberly plus for me. I'm not able to do a lot of hiking around - so the addition of bulk and weight is not an issue.

  17. #17
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Dave and Roger, I understand what you are trying to say, I think :)

    There is a difference (to me at least) between balance and whether or not a tripod head with a lens and or flash on it can "sit like a dog" when pointed up or down...

    With or without a flash attached either the Wimberley or the Mongoose can be balanced perfectly by moving the plate in the jaws fore or aft. Period.

    The next step in insuring absolutely efficient lens handling is to check and see if your rig "sits like a dog" when pointed up or down. In most cases it will not. With the Wimberley head, this problem is addressed by moving the platform either up or down on the swing arm until the the rig "sits like a dog" when it is pointed up or down. With some lenses you need to use a low foot in order to accomplish that. With the 600 f/4 IS L and the original foot, for example, it is not possible to have the lens "sits like a dog" when pointed up or down.

    Do note that the "sit like a dog" balance point will change when you add a flash to the mix, just as the traditional balance point will when you add a flash, a teleconverter, or an extension tube or two.

    With side-mounting gimbal heads like the Mongoose or the Sidekick,it is not possible to get the rig to "sit like a dog" when pointed up or down as the clamp is in a fixed position and cannot be adjusted up or down.

    Do realize that a very great percentage of folks who espouse the use of a Wimberley head are not aware of the above info :)

    For me the good news is that with both my 500 and my 800 the traditional balance point and the sits like a dog balance point are so close that performance and efficiency of the Mongoose are not reduced appreciably.

    So with performance and efficiency pretty much equal the lighter weight of the Mongoose M3.5 and M3.6 heads has made my choice an easy one. And since I have made sharp images of static subjects with the 800 at shutter speeds as slow as 1/6 sec. I am not at all buying the "Wimberley is more rigid" argument :)

    Roger, I am confused by your comment about mounting the flash to the side....

    It is interesting to note the comparison of the scientific approach here (Roger) to the practical approach (moi).

    Respectfully posted.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  18. #18
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Posts
    311
    Threads
    25
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Roger, I am confused by your comment about mounting the flash to the side....

    It is interesting to note the comparison of the scientific approach here (Roger) to the practical approach (moi).
    I'm like what I think Roger is, using a scientific approach and language to understand and explain what I see in practice. I agree with Artie that what matters is what works for each individual.

    The flash to the side comment has to do with balancing. Excuse the reversion to science. Getting the perfect "sits like a dog" balance whether pointed up, down or flat requires getting the center of gravity of the system (lens, body, etc.) aligned with the horizontal axis of rotation - both horizontally and vertically. The side mount heads let you do a front to back adjustment for horizontal alignment. The bottom mount heads (at least the Wimberly, the only one I've used) let you do a height adjustment for vertical alignment. The side mount heads depend on the symmetry of the lens and body to be close to vertically aligned.

    If the vertical alignment is off then the center of gravity is either above or below the axis of rotation. If it is below then the system will want to return to horizontal when you let go of it. If it is above then the system will be stable when perfectly horizontal, but if tilted up or down a little it will be unstable and want to point up or down even more.

    This is where the flash issue comes in. If you mount a flash in the usual over the lens fashion on a side mount then you can get perfect balance when horizontal. But if you point up a little, the flash moves back making things back heavy, and the system wants to point up even more. And the opposite if you point down a little. But if you mount the flash to the side in line with the axis of rotation, then it does not disturb the center of gravity and you can still get the system to sit like a dog.

    hope this helps,
    Alan

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Dave and Roger, I understand what you are trying to say, I think :)

    There is a difference (to me at least) between balance and whether or not a tripod head with a lens and or flash on it can "sit like a dog" when pointed up or down...
    Artie,
    It seems we are saying the same things. I agree with everything you say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Do realize that a very great percentage of folks who espouse the use of a Wimberley head are not aware of the above info :)
    I strongly agree! I have helped many people in the field properly balance their rigs with a wimberly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    So with performance and efficiency pretty much equal the lighter weight of the Mongoose M3.5 and M3.6 heads has made my choice an easy one. And since I have made sharp images of static subjects with the 800 at shutter speeds as slow as 1/6 sec. I am not at all buying the "Wimberley is more rigid" argument :)
    I don't see anywhere in the thread anyone challenging rigidity of either mongoose or wimberly system. I did say a double-armed fork design would be more stable, and I stand by that. It is good to have a choice of weight versus flexibility, so having both a mongoose and a wimberly would be nice. But having made and used a double-armed fork, I would not go back as the weight and bulk are too much for most of my photography, and the smaller. lighter one-armed fork is adequate. For a bigger telescope though a two-armed fork is needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Roger, I am confused by your comment about mounting the flash to the side....
    Hopefully, Alan covered this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    It is interesting to note the comparison of the scientific approach here (Roger) to the practical approach (moi).

    Respectfully posted.
    I think we pretty much agree on all points. I would hope that science and practicality merge to give the best overall result. Hey I'm more an experimentalist than theorist (though I do both). Theory can help point to the weak point(s) in an experiment that may not otherwise be obvious. And experiments can (and often do) point to the weak points in a theory. The recent water on the Moon discoveries are a classic case of both of these conditions.

    Roger
    Last edited by Roger Clark; 10-31-2010 at 12:28 PM.

  20. #20
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Alan, I am with you till the third paragraph (though I had to read what you had to say several times) :)

    It seems that folks are implying that on a Mongoose the flash is not centered over the lens and then basing there arguments on that premise.

    Am I in error with my thinking there?

    As you might guess, I would argue that with the 4th GD Integrated Flash Arm that the flash is centered over the lens....
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  21. #21
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Roger, I pretty much agree that we are seeing eye to eye.

    I do have a question here:

    "I don't see anywhere in the thread anyone challenging rigidity of either mongoose or wimberly system. I did say a double-armed fork design would be more stable, and I stand by that. It is good to have a choice of weight versus flexibility, so having both a mongoose and a wimberly would be nice. But having made and used a double-armed fork, I would not go back as the weight and bulk are too much for most of my photography, and the smaller. lighter one-armed fork is adequate. For a bigger telescope though a two-armed fork is needed."

    #1: Nobody in the thread was challenging the rigidity of the Mongoose but the incorrect yet generally accepted as truth "word on the street" is that the Wimberley is far more rigid. In fact, lock a Wimberley head up as tight as you can with a rig on it and then twist it and you will find plenty of play. Same as with the Mongoose. And surely a double-forked head would be more rigid. But here is my point: if we can routinely sharp images at 1/30 sec. and even slower with an 800mm lens then do we need a more rigid head?

    Surely yes for celestical photography but surely no for general nature photography. Not to mention the size and weight and the resulting travel problems.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  22. #22
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Posts
    311
    Threads
    25
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Alan, I am with you till the third paragraph (though I had to read what you had to say several times)

    It seems that folks are implying that on a Mongoose the flash is not centered over the lens and then basing there arguments on that premise.

    Am I in error with my thinking there?

    As you might guess, I would argue that with the 4th GD Integrated Flash Arm that the flash is centered over the lens....
    I did not mean to imply that on a Mongoose the flash is not centered over the lens. Note that I own a Sidekick and Wimberley flash brackets, have never seen a Mongoose in person. The BAA store flash brackets page has a nice photo of the Wimberley F-6 bracket, showing the flash above the lens. There is no in-use photo for the Mongoose integrated flash arm. I'm assuming the Mongoose IFA is like the Wimberley F-6, the flash is attached to the lens and points up and down with it.

    This flash over the lens placement moves the overall center of gravity up. Since a side mount has no height adjustment the CG of the lens+body+flash system is now above the axis of rotation.

    Repeating my earlier 3rd paragraph: If the vertical alignment is off then the center of gravity is either above or below the axis of rotation. If it is below then the system will want to return to horizontal when you let go of it. If it is above then the system will be stable when perfectly horizontal, but if tilted up or down a little it will be unstable and want to point up or down even more.

    Think of the side mount like a tetter totter that starts in balance. Now attach a weight below the center. It will still sit flat OK. If one side goes down though, the weight goes toward the other side, making things want to go back to being flat. Push down on one side and let go, it will in fact go back to being flat. Move the weight to above the center. If perfectly balanced it will still sit flat. If one side goes down though, the weight goes toward that same side, making that side want to go further down. Push down on one side and let go, that side will drop to the ground.

    This was explaining the practical experience I see with a Sidekick plus flash. Balance everything without the flash. It sits like a dog, whether pointed up or down. Add a flash and it still sits in balance when perfectly flat, the lens aimed horizontally. Point up a little and the weight of the flash is now on the body side of the balance, making it want to point up more. With a bottom mount you can adjust the height to keep the CG centered.

    I'm not saying this is a compelling reason to use a bottom mount. Just an aspect to the behavior of both gimbal mounts. With the Sidekick the flash unstability can be reduced some by adding friction, I imagine this works on a Mongoose also. I think weight of the lens and each individual's comfort and ability to hold it in 1 hand is the most important factor. I always mount the lens alone to the Sidekick, then attach the body, to keep the 1 hand weight down.

    I still shudder about the time I tried to mount the 200-400 in pre-dawn dark, set the bottom of the lens foot in the jaw, wasn't holding it straight and had the top of the foot out of the jaw. The clamp came tight, I took my hand away, and the lens came with it. Still in my hand luckily, but too close a call. Good argument for all-hazard insurance I suppose.

    Alan

  23. #23
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Posts
    311
    Threads
    25
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I should add that the discussion of side mount and flash is technically interesting, but maybe obscuring a critical point Artie has made many times. A point that stems from the same root cause.

    With a bottom mount head you must adjust the height for every different lens/foot combination, whether you're using a flash or not. The diameter of the lens and height of the foot will affect the height of the CG, causing the tetter totter effects if not aligned with the head's horizontal axis. And readjust it if you add or remove a flash. With no flash you want the centerline of the lens aligned with the axis of rotation.

    With a side mount and no flash you're automatically close to vertical alignment, no matter what the lens diameter or size of the foot.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Roger, I pretty much agree that we are seeing eye to eye.

    #1: Nobody in the thread was challenging the rigidity of the Mongoose but the incorrect yet generally accepted as truth "word on the street" is that the Wimberley is far more rigid. In fact, lock a Wimberley head up as tight as you can with a rig on it and then twist it and you will find plenty of play. Same as with the Mongoose. And surely a double-forked head would be more rigid. But here is my point: if we can routinely sharp images at 1/30 sec. and even slower with an 800mm lens then do we need a more rigid head?

    Surely yes for celestical photography but surely no for general nature photography. Not to mention the size and weight and the resulting travel problems.
    Artie,
    In general I agree. But if you start adding TCs, I have found even the wimberly inadequate. There was a thread where I was stacking two 2x TCs on a 500 mm (so 2000 mm f/16) and taking pictures of the planet Jupiter. (Why? Because of the challenge!) Or think of needing the focal length to image a very distant but rare bird. I used mirror lock-up, and ISO to give about 1/100 second exposure, and waited 8 to 10 seconds before firing the shutter after raising the mirror. But I still I got movement of about 2 pixels (on a 1DIV). The wimberly on a CF tripod was not rigid enough for this focal length. I solved the problem by simply placing another tripod under the camera with a slight amount of pressure. That stopped that last little vibration and I can get very sharp images at 2000 mm focal length. It proved to me that if I need the reach in any situation, the optics can deliver it, but stability is the key to sharpness in that situation.

    Roger

  25. #25
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    A few hodgepodge comments. Early in my career I dropped most every bid lens that I owned always from being careless while mounting it on a Wimberley head.... The amount of instability caused by adding a flash to the Mongoose set-up is negligible at most, and as I think that I said in my first post there is not much front to back instability with either my 500 (that I rarely use) or my 800 with or without the flash in place.

    As for Roger's comments, I am sure that my gut feelings have no basis in science but my feeling is that with ultra long focal lengths, say 1140mm on a 1.3 camera for example, even mirror lock and the 10 second self-timer rarely if ever (for me) produce sharp images at shutter speeds of one second or higher..... I used the two tripod method 15-20 years ago and believe that I wrote about it in the original ABP.

    I hope that neither of you take it personally but for my whole career I have shied away from the scientific explanations and theories and leaned strongly to the practical, simply trying to figure out ways to make sharp and pleasing images. And I think that I am too old to change course :)

    None-the-less thanks for your comments. I have tried to follow and I am sure that many will find this discussion useful.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  26. #26
    Co-Founder James Shadle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Valrico, Fl
    Posts
    5,108
    Threads
    1,419
    Thank You Posts
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    "I agree with Roger - the balancing capability when using flash and Better Beamer is a big Wimberly plus for me. I'm not able to do a lot of hiking around - so the addition of bulk and weight is not an issue."

    I use the old style Wimberly flash bracket on the foot of my lens while mounted to a Mongoose 3.5a
    I'm able to move the bracket forward or back enough to perfectly balance the lens with a flash mounted on it.

    Best of both worlds.

  27. #27
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Posts
    311
    Threads
    25
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    I hope that neither of you take it personally but for my whole career I have shied away from the scientific explanations and theories and leaned strongly to the practical, simply trying to figure out ways to make sharp and pleasing images.
    Artie,
    I sure don't take offense, and appreciate that you don't mind the pedantry. Seems like your practical approach has given you some amount of modest success. And that's what matters in the end.
    Alan

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    As for Roger's comments, I am sure that my gut feelings have no basis in science but my feeling is that with ultra long focal lengths, say 1140mm on a 1.3 camera for example, even mirror lock and the 10 second self-timer rarely if ever (for me) produce sharp images at shutter speeds of one second or higher..... I used the two tripod method 15-20 years ago and believe that I wrote about it in the original ABP.
    Artie,

    Perhaps my observations at 2000 mm explains why sharpness is an issue around 1100 mm. Even with mirror lockup, the shutter causes vibration. At 2000 mm I observed about a 2 pixel smear on the wimberly and 1DIV. That is about 10 micron vibration of the sensor. So at about 1,000mm, it would be about a 5-micron vibration and a 1-pixel smear. The only solution is a higher shutter speed, greater than 1/200 second and assistance from IS/VR. But as focal length increases, it gets harder and harder to make sharp images.

    And no I don't take offense at people's different experiences and observations.

    Roger

  29. #29
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincs UK
    Posts
    180
    Threads
    29
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Roger
    could you not just put the camera on B with something covering but not touching the front of the lens then time your exposure by fireing the shutter waiting untill the vibration has gone uncover the lens then cover it after exposure..
    Rob.

  30. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hardy View Post
    Roger
    could you not just put the camera on B with something covering but not touching the front of the lens then time your exposure by fireing the shutter waiting untill the vibration has gone uncover the lens then cover it after exposure..
    Rob.
    Rob,
    Yes, certainly. That method is called the "hat trick exposure" dating back to probably the 1950s (before my time) when people wore hats more. They would use their hat to cover the lens. But that only works for longer exposures, say 1/5 second or longer, and with poor reproducibility. That is not good for a moving subject (like the Moon or planet with the rotation of the Earth). I have used the "hat trick exposure" many times, but I use a piece of cardboard, and for exposures of about a second or more.

    Roger

  31. #31
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincs UK
    Posts
    180
    Threads
    29
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Clark View Post
    Rob,
    Yes, certainly. That method is called the "hat trick exposure" dating back to probably the 1950s (before my time) when people wore hats more. They would use their hat to cover the lens. But that only works for longer exposures, say 1/5 second or longer, and with poor reproducibility. That is not good for a moving subject (like the Moon or planet with the rotation of the Earth). I have used the "hat trick exposure" many times, but I use a piece of cardboard, and for exposures of about a second or more.

    Roger
    ah yes the time is too short for that unless you use a tracking system were you can stop down with a low iso .
    Rob.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics