Ball Head vs Gimbal
Mar 5, 2018 11:35:11 #
bsprague wrote:
Shorten a leg opposite the camera and the weight will be centered.
OK, that should do it. But I'm still going to upgrade this current tripod, just not confident enough in it with all that $$$ sitting on top.
Mar 5, 2018 13:50:13 #
Blaster34 wrote:
OK, that should do it. But I'm still going to upgrade this current tripod, just not confident enough in it with all that $$$ sitting on top.
Stability is very important, and even with the weight centered a light weight tripod can fall over with heavier gear. Too top heavy. Also, some places where people like to take photos are prone to wind gusts... I also am not a fan of the center post that can extend the height of the tripod. Better to get a tripod that can extend from the legs to be taller than you are! This comes in handy when shooting on uneven ground, such as the bank of a river. Make sure the legs are "fat" rather than skinny, that also makes a difference.
Go to the ReallyRightStuff website and look in the "Learn" heading for tripod information. Excellent information on what to look for, even if you don't buy from them.
Mar 5, 2018 14:23:31 #
SusanFromVermont wrote:
Stability is very important, and even with the wei... (show quote)
Thanks Susan and absolutely, I have reservations/concerns about putting expensive gear on a flimsy or an unsteady tripod, primary reason I'm looking to upgrade. Will be looking for more than a cheap tripod for future use....and yes, RRS has some great tripods
Mar 5, 2018 16:42:21 #
Your idea works very well with my Canon 100-400 + 1.4 Thanks for idea
Mar 5, 2018 17:00:38 #
ps5039 wrote:
Your idea works very well with my Canon 100-400 + 1.4 Thanks for idea
You are very welcome!
When I go to Yellowstone I see a lot of big Canon and Nikon lenses. All the gimbals I've seen seem sized for the big stuff. I doubt that the ballhead technique would work for anything much bigger/heavier than a 100-400.
Mar 5, 2018 19:12:19 #
Mar 6, 2018 05:46:51 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
To photograph Birds In Flight with a tele, a Gimbal head is a must, in my opinion.
Looking for the best one?
Nest Gimbal
Sold by a UHH
http://www.cameracottage.com/equipment
Looking for the best one?
Nest Gimbal
Sold by a UHH
http://www.cameracottage.com/equipment
This looks like a real nice gimbal. I am currently using a [pro]master GH25. I am glad I paid only $70 for it. It was offered as a special when I purchased my Tamron 150-600 G2 lens. ~FiddleMaker
Mar 6, 2018 05:56:44 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
To photograph Birds In Flight with a tele, a Gimbal head is a must, in my opinion.
Looking for the best one?
Nest Gimbal
Sold by a UHH
http://www.cameracottage.com/equipment
Looking for the best one?
Nest Gimbal
Sold by a UHH
http://www.cameracottage.com/equipment
Only if you have set up and know the fightpath etc., otherwise it's a complete waste of time. When I am out walking I always use my Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6 and my Olympus 300mm f4 handheld. I would never have time to set up my tripod and gimbal under normal cirumstances. The only time I use that set up is in a hide on an estuary.
Mar 6, 2018 06:39:55 #
Jerrin1 wrote:
Only if you have set up and know the fightpath etc., otherwise it's a complete waste of time. When I am out walking I always use my Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6 and my Olympus 300mm f4 handheld. I would never have time to set up my tripod and gimbal under normal cirumstances. The only time I use that set up is in a hide on an estuary.
you bring up a good point. Birds and even the Navy's Blue Angels will never give you enuf time to fart around with a tripod and gimbal.
Mar 6, 2018 06:42:51 #
Ron E B
Loc: UK Hertfordshire
I have used an Acratech GP ball head very successfully with my Canon 100-400mm lens. The head is designed so that when angled at 90 degrees it serves as the equivalent to a gimbal in that the when the lens is balanced it has a very smooth action. the head is not cheap (I believe around $300-400) but is very light (around 0.9 pounds) and beautifully constructed and claims to be OK with camera+lens weights of up to 25 pounds and lenses up to 400mm f4. I would not use this for my 500mm f4 but as a lightweight head for multiple use I can heartily recommend it.
Mar 6, 2018 06:53:42 #
Ron E B wrote:
I have used an Acratech GP ball head very successf... (show quote)
I'll Google Acratech GP. But at my age I am more likely to be thinking about cremation urns rather than ball heads.
Mar 6, 2018 06:57:36 #
Ron E B wrote:
I have used an Acratech GP ball head very successf... (show quote)
Wow !! I Googled Acratech and these look like really nice ball heads. Yes, you are correct - they are not cheap. But if they will do what a gimbal would do, these ball heads would fit the bill.
Mar 6, 2018 07:25:15 #
I have both a RRS ball head and pano gimbal. Use the pano gimbal 100 times more than the ball head even though both are quality pieces. My preference even with lenses as small as an 85 and 24-70. I also use it for indoor studio shooting. I had a Wimberly in the past but find the RRS to be much more versatile with options and the numbers on the components make it easy to repeat settings. Your ideas and use may vary...
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Mar 6, 2018 09:30:42 #
FiddleMaker wrote:
Wow !! I Googled Acratech and these look like really nice ball heads. Yes, you are correct - they are not cheap. But if they will do what a gimbal would do, these ball heads would fit the bill.
You may find one used at KEH or the like. I did and saved a bundle. I also use their leveling base. Both work well for me. They do seem well made and made in USA.
Mar 6, 2018 10:48:42 #
I use a Wemberly Sidekick gimble that fits on your ballhead. It is great for long lenses that have a lens collar and foot, but doesn't work for mounting to the camera body . . . in that case i just remove the sidekick and use the ball head . . .
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.