Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Gimbal Head Adapter
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Aug 9, 2017 00:18:26   #
RonM12
 
Rather than purchase a Gimbal head, I'm considering buying a Wimberly Arca Sidekick Ball to Gimbal head adapter. Induro also offers a Gimbal head adapter which is about $50.00 cheaper than the Wimberly. I have a RRS BH-55 ball head that I would use with either adapter. Does anyone have experience using either one of these adapters? My guess is that they have some limitations compared the a dedicated Gimbal head. However, I like the idea of not having to swap out heads plus, the ability to carry the adapter in my tripod case. I do mostly landscape photography, but would like to have something to use for my 200-500mm for wildlife photography.

| Reply
Aug 9, 2017 01:34:31   #
AK Grandpa
 
I have one and like it . . . It's not as small as you might think and I doubt it would fit in a tripod case . . . It's also fairly heavy . . . I changed out my sirui 10x ball head for the 30x ball head due to the weight and bulk of the side kick, especially with a 150-600 lens. However, it works well with very smooth action. Of course, the best part is you can easily remove it and use your ball head . . . Stop in at your local camera store and check it out before buying . . .

| Reply
Aug 9, 2017 06:54:10   #
mborn
 
Personally, I tried the SideKick and did not like it. I prefer a gimbal head the mounts the lens flat rather than to the side. Easier control to pan etc. What I bought instead was a Jobu Design WIDE ANGLE ADAPTER BRACKET 3 which allows me to use the camera in portrait mode on the gimbal head http://www.jobu-design.com/Wide-Angle-Adapter-Bracket-3_p_72.html

| Reply
Aug 9, 2017 14:19:22   #
RonM12
 
I haven't look at one in person, probably a good idea to do so before I buy. Thanks!

| Reply
Aug 9, 2017 14:29:17   #
RonM12
 
I'll admit I have some reservations over the side mount set up as to the stability and potential stress on the lens mount with that configuration. Thanks for your response.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 06:45:57   #
pjeffers
 
RonM12 wrote:
Rather than purchase a Gimbal head, I'm considering buying a Wimberly Arca Sidekick Ball to Gimbal head adapter. Induro also offers a Gimbal head adapter which is about $50.00 cheaper than the Wimberly. I have a RRS BH-55 ball head that I would use with either adapter. Does anyone have experience using either one of these adapters? My guess is that they have some limitations compared the a dedicated Gimbal head. However, I like the idea of not having to swap out heads plus, the ability to carry the adapter in my tripod case. I do mostly landscape photography, but would like to have something to use for my 200-500mm for wildlife photography.
Rather than purchase a Gimbal head, I'm considerin... (show quote)


I have the sidekick...and the bh55 ballhead...works well but I don't think it is as fluid as a I thought it might be...the side mount is a bit cumbersome until you get used to it...the idea of not swapping heads is why I went this route but might look at a full gimbal...and save this for traveling.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 08:04:45   #
Notorious T.O.D. (a regular here)
 
I have to say that these look interesting but to me you are putting even more weight on the ball head for it to support. Personally I have the RRS Arca type plates on the bottom of my Ball Head and Pano Gimbal Head and I can use the lever release to switch between them faster than you can say Toms Your Uncle.

That being said I have to say that I have never fallen in love with my Ball Head, especially with any larger or heavier lens on it. It has too much tendency to want to flop around when making adjustments for my liking. I find I much prefer to use the Pano Gimbal Head even for indoor studio type work. I use it even with my 24-70 and 85 lenses. Much better control and easier to reset to a previous setting. If I could only have one I would have the Pano Gimbal.

Which brings the question of how often you would really use both on a outing. If I am going out shooting I am probably going to choose one or the other and probably the Pano Gimbal unless I decide to go with a monopod and tilt head on it. That is the real lightweight solution compared to a tripod and any head. Good luck with your selection.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 08:48:54   #
Mundj
 
RonM12 wrote:
Rather than purchase a Gimbal head, I'm considering buying a Wimberly Arca Sidekick Ball to Gimbal head adapter. Induro also offers a Gimbal head adapter which is about $50.00 cheaper than the Wimberly. I have a RRS BH-55 ball head that I would use with either adapter. Does anyone have experience using either one of these adapters? My guess is that they have some limitations compared the a dedicated Gimbal head. However, I like the idea of not having to swap out heads plus, the ability to carry the adapter in my tripod case. I do mostly landscape photography, but would like to have something to use for my 200-500mm for wildlife photography.
Rather than purchase a Gimbal head, I'm considerin... (show quote)


If you are considering a Gimbal head you might check Cameracottage.com.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 09:25:43   #
Bob Boner
 
I had the sidekick and replaced it with the gimbal head. I prefer to have the lens supported from below rather than from the side.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 10:02:10   #
wapiti
 
Personally, I tried the SideKick and did not like it. I prefer a gimbal head the mounts the lens flat rather than to the side


| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 10:03:06   #
wapiti
 
Bob Boner wrote:
I had the sidekick and replaced it with the gimbal head. I prefer to have the lens supported from below rather than from the side.



| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 12:08:59   #
In-lightened
 
I have a Kirk ballhead as well. I have used it with a Wimberly sidekick plus a 400mm 2.8 prime. It works and it's heavy! I have also used it with the Nikon 200-500. No problems there either. I recently purchased a Wimberly gimbal head. I have to say if I am out in the field for the day for wildlife, I prefer the gimbal head. I guess it depends on what the day might offer and how much I want to tote the weight. I also have a Nest tripod which offers an option to purchase a second plate. Easy enough to switch plates-one with a ballhead, the other with the gimbal head. But that's also a pretty heavy option. Camera Cottage sells Nest products including a gimbal head. I really like their options. Best of luck!

| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 12:58:24   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
RonM12 wrote:
Rather than purchase a Gimbal head, I'm considering buying a Wimberly Arca Sidekick Ball to Gimbal head adapter. Induro also offers a Gimbal head adapter which is about $50.00 cheaper than the Wimberly. I have a RRS BH-55 ball head that I would use with either adapter. Does anyone have experience using either one of these adapters? My guess is that they have some limitations compared the a dedicated Gimbal head. However, I like the idea of not having to swap out heads plus, the ability to carry the adapter in my tripod case. I do mostly landscape photography, but would like to have something to use for my 200-500mm for wildlife photography.
Rather than purchase a Gimbal head, I'm considerin... (show quote)


Well, here is a lot of info on gimbals - http://www.carolinawildphoto.com/gimbal_list.htm

Personally, I do not like traditional ball heads or gimbals. Presently, I use and really like a video fluid pan/tilt head - especially for following action with large lenses.......that have a tripod collar - otherwise, you will need a good L bracket or equivalent.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/KINGJOY-VT-2510-Video-Fluid-Dydraulic-Damping-Damper-Tripod-Ball-Head/192020961090?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649


(Download)

| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 13:47:30   #
petego4it
 
Thanks Imagemeister, interesting. I've not had a gimbal so far, thinking about it, but prefer I think video fluid damping like you show; was looking at Manfrotto with collapsible handles. The Kingjoy is interesting tho. What are all those intermediary adapters you're using between in the pic and how did you happen to assemble them? Does not look QR. Thanks. Downsides vs. gimbals? Is the horizontal rotation also selectively damped at the base?

| Reply
Aug 10, 2017 17:22:46   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
petego4it wrote:
Thanks Imagemeister, interesting. I've not had a gimbal so far, thinking about it, but prefer I think video fluid damping like you show; was looking at Manfrotto with collapsible handles. The Kingjoy is interesting tho. What are all those intermediary adapters you're using between in the pic and how did you happen to assemble them? Does not look QR. Thanks. Downsides vs. gimbals? Is the horizontal rotation also selectively damped at the base?


The adapters are just aluminum U-channel to act as a spacer/carry handle. There is another adaptation at the head itself using a Manfro QR because I also have Manfro grip action ballheads that I like to use also.

The horizontal panning action is also dampened - but I must say the dampening is not selectable - but rather a fixed preset for both pan and tilt with the tilt having a certain amount of auto spring-back action also. The "spring-back" is quite nice - as if you are pointing up or down and let go , it returns to very close to level position - assuming of course that you have properly balanced the lens/camera to begin with - this reaction is very similar to what a gimbal does - but is not so dependant on the tripod head being leveled as with a gimbal. I mostly use the fluid head on my monopod - but I have adopted a QR system for my different heads and tripods/monopod so I can move it quickly if I have to.

IMO, the fluid head can be cheaper, lighter, smaller and less finicky than a gimbal - and, I believe the only dampened gimbal is the Nest.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 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 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.