windshoppe wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing from members who have some experience with this product. I'd be using it with an Acratech ball head on a Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod. My gear would primarily be a Canon 7DII with the 100-400 lens with or without the 1.4 extender. It would seem to be a way of avoiding the problem of restricting the use of the tripod with a full Gimbal--assuming that it works well. Any information would be appreciated.
Hi,
I've been using a Sidekick for around 15 years and it's a very good product. And, yes, the primary benefit is that your tripod can be switched back and forth between use with the gimbal or not, quickly and easily without any tools. The tripod isn't more "long lens only" dedicated, the way it is with full size gimbal that completely replaces the ballhead (unless you carry that head with you too, as well as any tools needed to switch it with the full gimbal head in the field). I use my Sidekick primarily with a Kirk BH1 ballhead on a Gitzo Series 3 Systematic tripod. A second tripod I use has a cheaper Smith-Victor BH8 ballhead, also heavy duty rated for around 50 lb and works fine with the Sidekick (though it isn't as well made as the Kirk head, and wasn't as smooth until I did some work on the S-V). A third tripod I use in the field has a full size gimbal and is "long lens only".... That gimbal is a cheap knock of that works okay, but I'll probably upgrade to a better one some day.
The Sidekick works well with my 100-400mm II, though that lens extends and changes balance slightly when it's zoomed to longer focal lengths. Any gimbal works best with internal zooming/internal focusing lenses that don't change balance, such as the 500mm f/4 and 300mm f/2.8 that I also use on it. I've used those with 1.4X and 2X teleconverters, too... but haven't used the 100-400 II with TCs yet. Really this change in balance is a relatively minor thing with the 100-400 II. It's close enough to equilibrium that the lens and Sidekick combo works well. I can't recall ever using the Sidekick with the original 100-400 or other non-IF/IZ lenses. I have occasionally used it with smaller 70-200/2.8 and 300/4, but tend to use those lenses hand held most of the time.
Another benefit of a "side mount" gimbal such as the Sidekick... something that doesn't get discussed much... is that it also works well to vertically orient a camera when using it with a shorter lens. I've done that with it occasionally, too. In other words, if your camera has an Arca-plate on the base, too (which it probably does, since your ballhead must have an Arca-type QR platform)... with the Sidekick there's little or no need for a bulky, expensive L-bracket too. The Sidekick can serve a similar purpose, positioning the portrait/vertical orientated camera pretty well centered above the ballhead. It's not precise enough for multi-image panorama work, but fine for a lot of things.
I believe the Sidekick is rated for use with up to Canon 500mm f/4 (about 7 lb.)... but not recommended for the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4, which are among the heavier lenses in the Canon line-up. A full size head with the mounting platform underneath (instead of side mount), is recommended. However, I've seen and read of folks using those bigger lenses on Sidekicks, apparently without problems. The 500mm is about twice the weight of the 100-400mm though, so the Sidekick will handle your lens pretty easily.
Of course, along with the Sidekick you'll need an Arca-compatible lens plate for the foot of the tripod mounting ring on your lens. If it's the 100-400 II, because of the curved shape of the original foot it's difficult to find a good fitting lens plate that won't allow the lens to twist. Also, the foot's knurled knob that can only be finger-tightened isn't too confidence inspiring, let's the foot loosen too easily. The solution with that lens is a replacement foot that has a built-in Arca-style dovetail. There are at least three different companies manufacturing them: Really Right Stuff, Kirk Photo and Hejnar Photo. After comparing them, I got the Hejnar product and it's been working very well for about a year now. But again, AFAIK, this is only a recommendation for the "II" version of the lens... I don't know that it's necessary with the original version (and I've had no problem using various Arca-type lens plates from various manufacturers on my other Canon lenses.)
In addition to the Sidekick and lens plate, some other things you might find very useful are Wimberley's modular flash brackets... With the side-mount platform of the Sidekick you really only need two of the module pieces. The lower module clamps onto the Arca-dovetail of the tripod foot or lens plate, then a second module positions the flash over the lens. Works really well. I even use it sometimes when hand holding the camera, lens and flash... not using a tripod. (With full size gimbal with platform that mounts underneath the lens, the flash bracket is a three piece module.)
Another thing I find very useful with any gimbal head is a leveler. That goes under the head, between it and the tripod leg set, and makes possible to quickly set the head to a level. That can be important for the best panning action. If your tripod leg set and/or ballhead have a sight bubble on them, you can use leg length adjustments to accomplish the same thing... but that's a more time-consuming, fiddly process. Especially if moving around and re-positioning the very often on unlevel ground, it's a lot faster and easier to just roughly set the leg length, then use the leveling platform to fine. The leveler that fits my Gitzo has a short handle the protrudes below the tripod. All it takes to reset level is twist of that to loosen, some slight movement of the head assembly to center the bubble, then re-tighten the short handle. I don't know if the same is possible with Manfrotto tripods.... I think the leveler for them has a lever to unlock and relock it. (I have a big, heavy old Bogen/Manfrotto that I only use for studio work... It has a leveling platform, too. But it's "old school" type with three knurled knobs that are turned to adjust it.)
I have not used the alternatives (they weren't available when I bought my Sidekick 15 years ago): The slightly less expensive Induro GHBA is similar in design to the Wimberley. The Jobu BWG Micro is smaller, rated for less weight (tho probably enuf for a 100-400mm) and it's more vertical, doesn't have the offset design like the Sidekick and GHBA do (which serves to position most lenses more directly over the ballhead's rotation point). There's also a heavier duty and more expensive ProMedia gimbal adapter that mounts without tilting the ballhead off to the side, the way needs to be done with the other three.
Hope this helps!