willE Loc: Arkansas

What is your preference, and why?
Recommendations please.

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

Cheap, beautifully built and works a treat...mostly using it with my D500 (or D7200) and my Sigma 150-600mm lens.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

CO

I have a Jobu Jr.3 gimbal. It weighs only 1.5 pounds but can support up to 12 pounds. It has finely adjustable friction on the tilt axis and they designed a bushing for the panning axis that gives smooth panning motion. It has more than enough capacity for my D5000 with 80-400mm lens which together weigh about 7.5 pounds.

willE Loc: Arkansas

Thank you

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I have a Movo GH800 carbon. It’s basically a Wimberley knock-off. But for my rarely needed requirements, it more than satisfies.

willE Loc: Arkansas

Thank you

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For medium size/weight lenses I prefer a good video fluid head ( Manfro 502) . For LARGE lenses ( 500/600 f4) if using for BIF, I prefer a side-mounting gimbal for speed of motion.
.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I have a Nest Gimbal. I saw one in the classifieds a bit ago. I love mine for bif with my d500 and my 150-600mm sigma

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The best value out there is likely the Manfrotto 393 - it is a double yoke design, supported on both sides of the lens - a lot more stable than a low cost Wimberley knockoff. And it's only $200.

https://www.adorama.com/bg3421.html?gclid=Cj0KCQiAv6yCBhCLARIsABqJTjbnglH5dqN9Ief0hjCazhkvPwl1-9XFA8pmJ1fm2t4qgGwH9Nex8wkaAm1uEALw_wcB&gclid=Cj0KCQiAv6yCBhCLARIsABqJTjbnglH5dqN9Ief0hjCazhkvPwl1-9XFA8pmJ1fm2t4qgGwH9Nex8wkaAm1uEALw_wcB&utm_source=adl-gbase-p

The picture shows it with a 600mm F4 and likely a D300S or a D700 on it.

I added one thing - purchased an Arca-Swiss clamp and mounted it on the Manfrotto quick release plate - so that I could use all of my lenses that have Arca-Swiss standard plates.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Very cool Gene and I agree about the stability issue with large lens on a windy day just having their focus blown out by the quiver-effect from a sudden gust of wind at just the worst moment. Never a worth while experience.

The extra $100 bucks is worth the aggravation because discovery is not a desired option. Hahahaa

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The lens and camera together weighed almost 13 lbs - I think the Manfrotto 393 is rated at over 44 lbs. I don't know of any low cost cantilevered gimbal that can outperform this. And it is a simple design, nylon friction surfaces, easy to adjust tension, and really cold temps - like -5° - don't make it jam, move slowly, etc - which is one characteristic of cheap gimbals and some low cost video heads. It doesn't lock - but I wouldn't buy a gimbal for its locking capability. The whole point is to be able to track motion without any encumbrance. If I wneed something that locks I use my Arca-Swiss Z1 ball head.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Here is an info listing of most Gimbals - http://www.carolinawildphoto.com/gimbal_list.htm

The LensMaster RH1 is a good side mount.
.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

I actually prefer a side-mounting gimbal for studio portraiture...
While many folks believe they don't need to stabilize a short telephoto when using studio strobes this simply isn't true. You only have to test this couple of times to realize how much acuity you're leaving on the table hand holding a 85mm; 105mm; 135mm; and a 180mm optic.

The beauty of a side-mount gimbal is no "L-Bracket" is needed...
My choice of Side Mount Gimbal? Enduro GHB-1; Best of the best:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655339-REG/Induro_485_001_GHB1_Gimbal_Head.html

Put a long (115mm) Swiss Arca plate on your Pro-Grade Body and you can easily zero out the Enduro GHB-1 to neutral balance for finger touch control in a side mount portrait orientation... Love it!

Albeit for sports I'm a Wimberley Head kinda of guy... especially for my AF-S 200-400mm f/4G IF ED VR
There are compelling reasons why commercial shooters pony up for the Wimberley...

willE Loc: Arkansas

Thank you

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Do check out the link imagemeister provided above. It shows you the different types of gimbals available.

I use two tripods with gimbal setups...

One I've used for around 5 years is an inexpensive "J-type/bottom mount" that's a Chinese copy of the original Wimberley WH-200 (https://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm). This is what I call a "full size" gimbal because it fully replaces any other tripod head making it "large lens only" (unless you remove the head and switch it with a "standard" tripod head of some sort). This type of head ranges in price from around $100 to $500 or more. They can support a relatively hefty camera and lens (10+ lb.), are fairly large and the metal ones typically weight around 3.5 lb. You can shave roughly 1 lb. weight buying a carbon fiber, but the price will be higher. (Beware of "fake" carbon fiber that are merely metal wrapped with CF to look the part... also be wary of "no name" manufacturers since carbon fiber is tricky to work with.) J-Type/bottom mount gimbals are among the most adjustable, so can accommodate a wide range of lens sizes. There are also J-type/side mount variants, which typically recommend use with slightly less heavy gear (perhaps up to 8 or 9 lb. lenses). There are also some gimbals that are convertible from side to bottom mount, though it may be necessary to buy separately sold accessories.

The other gimbal I've used a lot for 20 years is a Wimberley Sidekick SK-100 (https://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm). This is a "gimbal adapter" that's used in conjunction with a medium to heavy duty ball head (I use a Kirk BH-1, rated for 50 lb.). The Sidekick side-mounts to a lens, providing the tilt axis movement. The panning axis is done by the ball head itself. To work with a gimbal adapter, the ball head must have an Arca-Swiss quick release platform as well as a separate panning axis. There are several brands of these now, ranging in price from around $100 to $250 for the Sidekick. Induro makes a close copy of the Sidekick for around $200. Jobu makes a "Mini" that's about $110, but is only usable with smaller, lighter lenses (such as 70-200mm, 300mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6, 100-400mm). To use the Jobu with some lenses requires a spacer, which Jobu sells as a separate accessory. There are also some Chinese knock-offs of the Sidekick now, selling for around $125.

One of the biggest advantages of a gimbal adapter is that the tripod can quickly and easily be reconfigured to use without the gimbal... i.e., with smaller, collarless lenses on your camera. There's no need to swap heads, like there is with the full size gimbal discussed above. While the Sidekick is recommended for up to 8 lb. lenses and have personally used it with 500mm f/4, I've seen people use them with heavier (such as 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4) without any problem. The Sidekick itself weighs about 2 lb., while a heavy duty ballhead typically weighs a little over 1 lb. So the combination ends up weighing about the same as a metal, full size gimbal. But the Sidekick and ballhead are considerably less weight than carrying both a full size gimbal and some sort of standard head to swap out with it, plus any tools that might be needed to do that swap. (No tools needed with the Sidekick.)

All gimbals require a lens with tripod mounting ring and some sort of Arca-Swiss quick release compatibility. A few lenses have an A-S dovetail built in, notable several recent Tamron telephotos. But most require a lens plate, or a replacement tripod mounting foot, or even a replacement tripod mounting ring. This is an additional cost to use a gimbal. They sometimes come with a "generic" lens plate, but a better one with some sort of "anti-twist" feature might be recommended. Figure $25 to $40 for a quality lens plate. A replacement tripod mounting foot is lens-specific and costs $75 to $150. If necessary, a full replacement tripod ring will be lens-specific and typically cost upward of $200.

The Manfrotto U-shaped gimbal Gene shows is one of the lower cost options and somewhat unique. Out of the box it comes with and uses a proprietary lens plate (extras are available if needed for add'l lenses). But it also can be modified pretty easily to use more common and widely available Arca-style lens plates. The Manfrotto 393 and one or two other similar gimbals are able to handle heavy lenses at a lower cost, but are themselves among the heftiest gimbal heads.

The Arca-Swiss plate (or Manfrotto's plate) are a little longer than the lens' tripod mounting foot, to allow the camera/lens/accessory rig to be slid slightly forward and backward for equilibrium. This is the "secret" of gimbals. When set up properly, they allow big heavy lenses to be used smoothly and easily with a very light touch. Lenses that are IF and IZ (internal focusing and/or zooming), that don't change length and remain balanced will work best. Lenses that change length (non-IF and/or non-IZ) will often be a little out of perfect balance, as the barrel extends and the lens changes length. One of my lenses (100-400mm) is this type, but I only find it a minor inconvenience. The main thing to remember with a lens of this type is that the tilt axis needs to be tightened and locked when you aren't holding the camera or lens, because if it's left loose the change in equilibrium can cause the rig to tip forward or backward.

I use my gimbals most often with 100-400mm (~4 lb.), 300mm f/2.8 (~ 6 lb.) and 500mm f/4 (~ 8 lb.) lenses. Typically those lenses are fitted to a camera weighing about 2 lb. (w/grip and batteries), and sometimes also a teleconverter (~ 1/2 to 3/4 lb.), a flash (~ 1 lb to 1.5 lb.) and flash bracket (< 1 lb.). No problem with either gimbal supporting even the heaviest of these combinations.

I don't use either gimbal often with 300mm f/4 (~ 3 lb.) or 70-200mm (~ 2.5 to 3 lb.) To me these lenses seem too small and light to balance very well on a gimbal. (I have not tried the Jobu "Mini", which might be more appropriate). But, to be fair, I bought these lenses primarily for hand held or monopod use anyway... i se them when I need to be as mobile as possible.