Gimbal /side stick
Are there any big advantages in favour of a full Gimbal type mount over a sidestick mount this is regardless of cost .
They both seem to do the job very well there is the weight saving with the side stick and i guess it could be of more use for smaller lens such as a 100/200 f2.8 or 100/400 etc
but is there any thing else ?
Rob.
I use the Sidekick with the Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead, which is a very strong, smooth ballhead. The rig is no lighter than the Wimberley II, so that's not the reason to buy it. The advantage of the Sidekick is that you can quickly take the Sidekick off and use the ballhead as a... ballhead, for scenics or other types of photography.Originally Posted by Robert Hardy
I using mine for a 500/f4 and wouldn't consider a gimbal needed for a 100-200mm or 100-400mm, which I generally consider handheld lenses, except maybe for macro or long exposures. Depending on the lens/body weight ratio, the ballhead might be better for stationary subjects with those shorter lenses.
I assume that you plan to use the gimbal or Sidekick for a 500mm lens. IMHO, the two solutions are equivalent for that use. If you go to even larger lenses, then a full gimbal starts gaining an advantage, particularly if your ballhead is not extremely stout. With the Sidekick, your ballhead selection is critical, demanding the top of the line from companies like Arca-Swiss or Really Right Stuff, plus a few others.
Many thanks for taking the time to answer David, This is just the sort of info i was looking for and yes i do use a 500f4 as my main birding lens .
Thanks again
Rob.
I usually pack the Sidekick because I use the ballhead by itself more often for macro and landscape shots. Easier to only have to mess with one head/tripod combination.
Chris
0 .· ` ' / ·. 100
I have a high sarcasm rate. Deal with it.
include('sarcasm.php')
I use a Sidekick with a RRS BH-55 ballhead for my 500 f/4 without issue. Would the balance and fluidity of motion be better with a full, one-piece gimbal? Perhaps, but I find the flexibility overshadows any possible improvement with the full gimbal.
Rob,
1st, I have a sidekick and agree with Chris on its use. Also search the archive and there are threads where some, including Artie argue against the sidekick and give other options. If you do a lot of other work, like landscapes, macro, etc where you use a ball head, then the sidekick makes sense. Artie argues that if you don't use the ball head much, then other options (I think the mongoose) and a mini ball head weight less.
Personally, I rarely use my sidekick with my 500. I feel it is pushing the limits. Also if I am tired after a long day putting the 500 (or larger lens on a side-mount gimbal head) it gets difficult and raises the possibility of not getting the lens in the clamp and the lens falling. A bottom mount gimbal, like the full wimberly, is easier to mount a heavy lens in my opinion, especially if tired or in an awkward position. But it costs more and weighs more. It is nice to have both options.
I freely use the sidekick up to 300 f/2.8 (though I often just use the 300 hand held or on a beanbag).
Roger
I'm a little surprised that our burly Mr. Clark feels that he might not be able to handle his 500mm with a Sidekick. I do it all the time and experience no ambiguity or fear about my Wimberley lens plate locking with the Arca-Swiss quick-release (I use the screw type, not the lever type, to greatly reduce the chance of accidental release0. I DO double and triple check the security of the ball, the plate and the lens. The balance is perfect. IMHO, if it'll work with a 300/2.8 then it's fine with a 500/f4, given an adequate ballhead for the task.
If you don't already own a top-quality, high-capacity ballhead, then the Sidekick is no less expensive than the full Wimberley II. You'll spend roughly $350 on a ballhead that is sufficient to hold the Sidekick and a 500mm lens. Having a top-drawer ballhead available for things like night photography, scenics and macros is a good thing, IME.
I've tried the Wimberley II on my tripod, with my 500mm and it's no smoother than my A-S/Sidekick combination. The ballhead you chose must have a smooth pano, but, given that, it matches the separate gimbals.
Well, that's the first time I've ever been called burly!
I use my sidekick on an arc-swiss B1 ball head. It is a very good and smooth ball head. I also use it on a window mount with a B1G ball head (much better).
David, have you ever been on a safari, or photo trip where the schedule is so intense you are exhausted after a few days? On a safari, long drives rattle gear, making screws come loose. Constantly mounting and unmounting a big lens gets tiring. My concern, especially at the end of a long day is lifting a big heavy lens and holding it in place while screwing down the clamp. Occasionally on a full wimberly, I've found myself screwing the clamp down only to find the plate isn't actually in the clamp. On a vertical mount, such a situation poses greater risks for the lens falling.
No, I have never had a lens fall from incorrectly mounting the lens in the clamp.
The second concern with a heavy lens on a sidekick is the ball not being tight enough and the sidekick falling over. I have had this happen, though not catastrophically. I have head from other photographers who have had damage by such an incident.
So, for me the sidekick is a concern with a big lens (500 f/4 and higher). I prefer a bottom mount system for big lenses, like the full wimberly.
Roger
Again many thanks for views and comments it has been very helpfull to get more of an understanding of the sidekick type mount. V the full gimbal
Rob.
Well im well on the way to making a sidekick but have a question if you dont mind .
i can make it so my main lens 500f4isL is Hangs over the center of my tripod But if i then attache my 300f2.8is L it is not over the center as the foot is so much shorter .
Is this normal for a sidekick ?
on my gimbals all lenses are over the center of the tripod like any other Gimbal .
Rob.
I use a Sidekick and solved the mounting problem by first attaching it to the lens then "dropping" it intop the clamp on the ball head. I also use the traditional screw mount clamp on my RRS BH 55. This avoids the hassel of trying to lign up the lens mount with the Sidekick while it is on the tripod.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote