Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Tripod heads
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 next>>
Apr 30, 2013 07:15:33   #
Buildrt Loc: Sarasota Fl
 
Have you considered a Wimberly?
bcheary wrote:
Which would be the better head for a long lens to be mounted on a Manfrotto 3221W tripod. The Manfrotto 3030 or the Beike gimbal? I recall MT Shooter had good things to say about the Beike.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 07:35:43   #
JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK
 
Buildrt wrote:
Have you considered a Wimberly?


I didn't suggest them because of the sub £100 question and assumed that the poster was looking for something in that price range.

Wimberley are good, I have used them extensively in the past, however, when compared to Lensmaster and the quality of the actual "movement" there is little in it, Lensmaster ARE an unrefined piece of kit, in the way that "jeeps" are, but mine have spent a great deal of time "in the sea" :) and down hillsides :)

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 10:45:57   #
Jblanke Loc: Metairie, LA
 
I am an RH-2 LensMaster very satisfied customer.I used this year during the migratory season and it is a great alternative to substantially more expensive counter parts. It is hand made in the UK with classic fit and finish and it is both smooth as silk and built to last. I could not be happier with it. Contact Rob Hardy at LensMaster.co.uk. You won't be sorry.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 11:24:10   #
JayB Loc: Northeast US
 
JR1 wrote:
That is something I forgot, of course the RH2 is better for most peoples needs, thanks


That's the question I've been wanting to ask. Why is the RH2 better for most peoples needs? As opposed to the RH1, that is? I want to order one, but I don't have a strong feeling for which one (except for the comparative lightness of the RH1), and I can't just buy both willy-nilly. Thanks!

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 12:03:00   #
JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK
 
Because if you follow the link to lensmaster and look at them side by side the RH1 has a "side mounted" mount where as the RH2 has a standard lower mount, unless you lens has a rotateable mount the camera would be permanently in portrait mode.

Watch the video and look at the photos on the link I posted

http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/rh1.htm

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 12:14:58   #
Jblanke Loc: Metairie, LA
 
JR1 wrote:
Because if you follow the link to lensmaster and look at them side by side the RH1 has a "side mounted" mount where as the RH2 has a standard lower mount, unless you lens has a rotateable mount the camera would be permanently in portrait mode.

Watch the video and look at the photos on the link I posted

http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/rh1.htm


Also, some users assert that a larger lens is more comfortably attached to the RH-2 because it allows you to rest the weight of the camera/lens on the horizontal arm while positioning and tightening the lens. The RH-1 is both lighter and a bit less costly than the RH-2. However, both are very economically priced when compared with Wimberlys, Jobis, etc. And the workmanship is evident. I am very happy with mine. I like it more now that I have had a chance to use it a good bit in the field.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 12:15:11   #
JayB Loc: Northeast US
 
JR1 wrote:
Because if you follow the link to lensmaster and look at them side by side the RH1 has a "side mounted" mount where as the RH2 has a standard lower mount, unless you lens has a rotateable mount the camera would be permanently in portrait mode.

Watch the video and look at the photos on the link I posted

http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/rh1.htm


I'm aware of the difference in the heads, thanks, and I have investigated the website and videos thoroughly. I thought you might have another reason in mind (besides the rotating collar issue) that may make the RH2 a better general-use choice. Apparently not.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 12:30:41   #
Jblanke Loc: Metairie, LA
 
In my mind, the price/weight differential is not material enough to sway my choice of the "more flexible" of the two.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 12:37:25   #
craggycrossers Loc: Nottingham, UK
 
aerides wrote:
I'm aware of the difference in the heads, thanks, and I have investigated the website and videos thoroughly. I thought you might have another reason in mind (besides the rotating collar issue) that may make the RH2 a better general-use choice. Apparently not.


When I was with the maker, Rob, I asked him "why do two?" The "side mount" was his "first shot out the cannon". Feedback from RH-1 buyers showed some concerns from users about holding the camera and lens combination, rotating collar or not, and trying to attach it to the side. There were fears about dropping expensive kit when holding it in the manner needed to attach it to the side mount. This, I believe, was one of the reasons that caused him to have a rethink and come up with the RH-2, which is much more easy to mount with the quick-release plate, and allows the user to hold the underside of the camera/lens combination, giving a more secure feeling to the attachment process.

I like to just use the term "the RH-2 is just a little more versatile". I believe I remember him saying he sells them RH-1 : RH-2 in the proportion 33% : 66%.

Go for it ...... join the happy band of enthusiastic users who haven't needed to pay an arm-an-a-leg to get something that does the job just fine. Every company has to start from "small beginnings" !

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 15:36:29   #
imagemeister Loc: Stuart, Florida
 
Here is what I use to move fast on a monopod - also have same setup on my small tripod - Manfrotto 222 + 234RC - use it with 300 2.8 W 2X. Also has a neckstrap attachment if you want to feel "safer".



| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 16:41:10   #
JayB Loc: Northeast US
 
craggycrossers wrote:
When I was with the maker, Rob, I asked him "why do two?" The "side mount" was his "first shot out the cannon". Feedback from RH-1 buyers showed some concerns from users about holding the camera and lens combination, rotating collar or not, and trying to attach it to the side. There were fears about dropping expensive kit when holding it in the manner needed to attach it to the side mount. This, I believe, was one of the reasons that caused him to have a rethink and come up with the RH-2, which is much more easy to mount with the quick-release plate, and allows the user to hold the underside of the camera/lens combination, giving a more secure feeling to the attachment process.

I like to just use the term "the RH-2 is just a little more versatile". I believe I remember him saying he sells them RH-1 : RH-2 in the proportion 33% : 66%.

Go for it ...... join the happy band of enthusiastic users who haven't needed to pay an arm-an-a-leg to get something that does the job just fine. Every company has to start from "small beginnings" !
When I was with the maker, Rob, I asked him "... (show quote)


I'll totally go for it! It's just that if there's any possible way for me to buy the wrong thing, I usually do. Thanks for the input! :thumbup:

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 16:48:42   #
JayB Loc: Northeast US
 
imagemeister wrote:
Here is what I use to move fast on a monopod - also have same setup on my small tripod - Manfrotto 222 + 234RC - use it with 300 2.8 W 2X. Also has a neckstrap attachment if you want to feel "safer".


I'd like to see you in action with that set-up.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 19:27:55   #
imagemeister Loc: Stuart, Florida
 
aerides wrote:
I'd like to see you in action with that set-up.


Maybe I should do a video ? One of the people I shoot with just got the same set up for Canon 100-400 ....

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 20:22:35   #
shirl2sg Loc: Northern Minnesota
 
bcheary wrote:
Which would be the better head for a long lens to be mounted on a Manfrotto 3221W tripod. The Manfrotto 3030 or the Beike gimbal? I recall MT Shooter had good things to say about the Beike.


Good to hear about the 3221W. My husband just bought a Manfrotto 3221W tripod with a Bogen 3063 head at a garage sale for $40, both in really good shape. I've already order a quick release for my camera at B&H for $20. This was a good deal, I think, but the tripod is kinda heavy. Can someone tell me if this purchase was worth it. The Bogen 3063 is a flow head, the guy said he used it for camera's, but is it a video head? Can you carry a tripod on a plane? This tripod seems long and would have to be put in a suitcase corner to corner. I think I'll leave this in my car most of the time....still need to look for something lighter I can carry when hiking. Great to hear about the different heads I should be looking at.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2013 21:09:11   #
JayB Loc: Northeast US
 
imagemeister wrote:
Maybe I should do a video ? One of the people I shoot with just got the same set up for Canon 100-400 ....


Great idea. I'm sure it would be instructive. Especially if some actual shoots were filmed. And then you could do a voice over commentary so you're not trying to talk and shoot at the same time.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2020 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.