markinvictoria Loc: Victoria TX

When I still had my old 50-500 Bigma...w/o OS...I wanted to try a gimbal head. Not wanting to spend $500+ for a Wimberly...I went for one of the cheap Beike BK-45 spin offs for about $50. Knowing about it's quality pitfalls...using U-Tube...reworked it...cleaning out all the heavy grease, smoothing some of the rough surfaces, a little gun oil and Loctite...now have a very usable gimbal for 1/10 the price of a Wimberly.

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

But I would think twice about the wisdom of placing, $2000-$14000 worth of gear on a $100 gimbal. There is a reason why there are $700 gimbals. It may not be a great approach to say that these are somehow no better than the $100 knockoff. Just sayin'

If you want quality and accountability and a great customer service experience, then you do have to spend bigger bucks. You definitely won't get that for $100.

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

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

This might be of interest, btw.

https://photographylife.com/hand-holding-large-lenses-vs-using-a-gimbal-head/

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I wouldn't use one on a bet. I prefer the tilt/pan tripod heads.
--Bob

RRS Loc: Not sure

It's almost impossible to mount a camera on a gimbal, it won't fit. You could maybe add an extra long mounting plate to the bottom of the camera body but I don't think it would balance and that alone would defeat the purpose of the gimbal head. Gimbals are designed to be used on long lenses that have a mounting ring. If you have an "L" bracket on your camera you can leave it on if your using a lens with a mounting ring.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Mary, I haven't seen a true gimbal, not the side mount on a ball head, that won't hold any lens and camera combo out there. I use a "JOBU" made in Canada.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Bob, have you ever tried one? Do you own a 400mm, 500mm, or 600mm prime or do any BIF?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Do you have large, telephoto lenses? Making them more useful on tripods is the primary purpose of gimbal heads (another use for some gimbals, I'll detail below... see ***).

I use several such lenses and have two different types of gimbals for use with them. I've been using one of them for about fifteen years, mostly for sports and wildlife photography.

With one exception (which I'll explain below in more detail... see ***), lens MUST have a tripod mounting ring and that ring MUST be fitted with an Arca-Swiss style lens mounting plate (unless it has the Arc-style dovetail built in). The reason this type of mounting is necessary is because it allows some forward and backward movement of the lens & camera, to achieve equilibrium where the heavy rig can be controlled very easily with a light touch.

You also will need a relatively sturdy tripod to use a gimbal... Personally I use Gitzo Series 3 tripods with mine (approx. 35 lb. capacity, I think) and couldn't imagine using much lighter-duty tripod with them. Some people do, though... Some even use a gimbal on a monopod, tho I don't see much purpose in that (I think a simple, single-axis monopod head that's a lot smaller, lighter and less expensive can pretty much serve the same purpose).

There are two primary types of gimbal heads: GIMBAL ADAPTERS (single axis) that are used in conjunction with a standard, heavy duty ballhead and FULL SIZE GIMBALS (dual axis) that completely replace any other type of head on a tripod.

Gimbal ADAPTERS slide into and are locked down in the Arca-compatible quick release platform of a ballhead (see illustration at https://tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm). Examples are the Wimberley Sidekick, Induro GHBA and Jobu BWG. Basically these are intended for use with lenses up to around 8 lb., such as 500mm f4 (although I do know of folks using them with bigger, heavier 600/4 and 400/2.8). All Adapters are "side mount"... meaning that the foot of the lens tripod ring is rotated to the 9 o'clock or 3 o'clock position, which is part of the reason that adapters aren't recommended for the very heaviest lenses. The adapter provides the tilt axis, while the ballhead it's mounted in provides the panning axis. Adapters allow you to quickly switch a tripod back and forth between standard use and long lens/gimbal use. Again, a ballhead used with an adapter needs to be reasonably heavy duty. Two that I use are rated for 50 lb. capacity. I don't think I'd go much below a 32 or 35 lb. rating for the ballhead.

FULL SIZE gimbal mounts completely replace any other type of head on the tripod, making it pretty much "large lens only" dedicated (unless you carry a second head with you and swap it out as needed, possibly requiring tools). Examples of these include the Wimberley WH-200, Nest Carbon Fiber, Induro GHB2, Jobu DMG-HD4 and a host of others. All these are dual axis, providing provide both tilt and panning movement. Most of these have a single, sturdy vertical post that supports a mounting arm that attaches to the lens tripod mounting ring foot. The Manfrotto 383 is a somewhat unusual U-shape design, using two vertical posts with a mounting platform in between. This gives it an impressive capacity rating at a very reasonable cost, but also makes it a little bit bulkier and heavier than many of the other designs. Plus the 383 uses two tilt-axis locking knobs, where the others are controlled by a single one.

Nearly all full size gimbals "cradle" the lens with a platform underneath, so the tripod mounting foot of the lens is a the 6 o'clock position. This is one reason that full size gimbal are preferred for use with the heaviest telephoto lenses. There are a few exceptions: full size gimbal that are side mount (like the adapters) only or that can be reconfigured to provide either type of mounting. But those are more the exception than the rule.

Because the Arca-compatible lens plate is oriented along the lens axis, it isn't possible to mount a camera with a short lens (without tripod ring) directly into a full size, bottom-mount gimbal. This is the reason I say the full size type of gimbal pretty much dedicates the tripod for long-lens-only use. However, there are adapters that can be used (Wimberley Module 8 or M-8, for example). Of course, this is an additional cost and another item to carry with your tripod. I haven't ever used one of these adapters, so really can't say good nor bad about them.

*** Using a Wimberley Sidekick for the past 15 years, I found another nice use for it is vertical/portrait orientation mounting of a camera w/short, lighter weight & collarless lenses. So long as the camera is fitted with an Arca plate (which it will need to be, if using it with any ballhead that uses that quick release system) works great and takes place of buying an "L-bracket", which are expensive and add bulk and weight to any camera. This is the exception I mentioned above, to the "rule" that lenses must have a tripod mounting ring. In fact, any of the side mount gimbals can be used this way (though I think it's most practical with the gimbal adapters, since those can simply be removed to also allow horizontal/landscape orientation mounting of the camera w/short lens, directly in the ballhead that remains on the tripod the whole time). I use custom fitted "anti-twist" Arca plates on my cameras... they cost a bit more, but are much, much better than "generics" that can all-too-easily slip at the worst possible moment.

Something else to be aware of is that gimbal mounts generally work best with IF/IZ lenses... "Internal focusing" and "internal zooming" lenses that maintain the same length regardless of focus distance or zoom setting. IF/IZ lens will stay in balance on the gimbal, once you've set the equilibrium by sliding the lens forward or backward in the Arca-type mounting platform (somewhat longer-than-usual Arca-type lens plates should be used to facilitate this adjustment, too). Lenses that aren't IF/IZ, such as many of the more affordable tele-zooms, will go slightly out of balance as you zoom and/or focus them and the length changes. It's not a huge problem to deal with... I have little to no problem using one lens of this type on my own gimbal heads. And, if wanted, to help with this the Nest Carbon Fiber gimbal head has some form of fluid dampening. I don't know of any other gimbals that offer that.

Finally, on both my tripods that I use with either type of gimbal head, I also have a leveling platform installed. This is because it's usually most ideal to have the tripod leveled as perfectly as possible, especially when using the panning action of the head to follow moving subjects. Many tripods have a bubble built-in and leveling can be achieved by tweaking the leg length. However, that's a little fiddly to do and if you move the tripod you usually have to go through the procedure all over again! A leveling platform adds about 1 lb. to the weight of my tripods, but I don't mind because it allows for more rapid adjustments using a single handle/lever/locking mechanism. Some types of leveling platforms preclude using a center column, so any tripod needs to be tall enough to be comfortable without needing to raise the center column. (Keep in mind that a gimbal head raises up the camera/lens a bit higher than many other types of heads... And, personally I don't use center columns very much anyway, since they tend to reduce stability a lot).

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

At least a couple of us have these lightweight bases that fit into the arca swiss Wimberley mount and have an arca swiss on the top end to accommodate an L-bracket camera plate. It is relatively short,so it is sometimes necessary to move it on the Wimberley for wide camera adjustments,but it does the trick. There is another taller one that Bill de has,but it is quite pricey. I find it useful for easy carrying should I wish to use a lens with no collar.

http://www.amazon.com/Desmond-DAC-01-Tripod-Compatible-Oversized/dp/B01NAPAIYC/ref=sr_1_87?m=A117K1DEQYNJIS&s=merchant-items&ie=UTF8&qid=1487525724&sr=1-87

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Yes, I have tried one. I have a 400mm, a 500mm mirror, and borrowed an 800mm from a friend a few times. I've photographed some BIFs but not many. The pan/tilt works well for all of that.
--Bob

RRS Loc: Not sure

Thanks Dave, I try and learn something new every day, now I can go back to bed.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Thanks Bob, one thing I will say for the P&T head is that it is a lot lighter and I would prefer that over a ball head for a long prime.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

LOL, I feel your pain! Always something to contemplate in this hobby!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I believe this is the one that Bill purchased: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=waa2&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=