• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Manfrotto 393 Long Lens head (Gimbal type) (1 Viewer)

Keith Reeder said:
Based on the oft-used description of the 393 as a "poor mans' Wimberley (with the similarity of function that implies), I'm pretty sure that some people really do mean that, with the 393 properly set up, balance alone will keep the camera/lens where you leave it...

They do, it will, and I've already described/explained the requirements for this to happen. As you've used a Wimberley head you should realise that if the lens can be moved with so little pressure then, while balanced, it is critically unstable. Setting the head up with the right amount of friction and balance is critical. Increasing friction will increase the pressure required to adjust the angle of the lens but will also make it less likely to be moved by 'accidental' pressure. With lower friction there is also a greater risk of the photographer moving the lens while taking the shot. Using the 393 with the locking nuts set quite tight it still requires only minimal effort to move the lens. I can honestly say that I will never go back to using a pan and tilt head for photography. The great test will come in July when I mount the 393 on a monopod and take it out on the first of this year's Northumberland pelagics (details to be posted soon on 'Sea Watch' forum and 'Northumbrian Birding' thread).

martin
 
Hi everyone,

Ive only recently come across this piece of kit the Manfrotto 393, and was wondering if it would work effectively with a Canon 400 f/5.6 lens, or would this be 'overkill' due to this lens not being so big? At the moment Im using a 128RCNAT head on a Manfrotto 190 tripod (green with black rubber grips). My camera is a Canon 20D.

Would appreciate someones observation,

Thanks,
 
tracker said:
Hi everyone,

Ive only recently come across this piece of kit the Manfrotto 393, and was wondering if it would work effectively with a Canon 400 f/5.6 lens, or would this be 'overkill' due to this lens not being so big? At the moment Im using a 128RCNAT head on a Manfrotto 190 tripod (green with black rubber grips). My camera is a Canon 20D.

Would appreciate someones observation,

Thanks,

Hi Tom sorry I cannot comment on the 393 as I have never used it. But what I can tell you is the 400 F5.6 works very well with a gimble type head.

I use it on a BWG head similar to the King Cobra and I wouldn't go back to a normal pan & tilt head. I even use this head with my scope (Swarovski 80).

Hope this is of some help.

Pete
 
Thanks for the suggestion, Pete. Not sure of the price of the gimbal type head, but I quite liked the price tag on the 393.

I'll check out your suggestion, thanks :t:
 
tracker said:
Thanks for the suggestion, Pete. Not sure of the price of the gimbal type head, but I quite liked the price tag on the 393.

I'll check out your suggestion, thanks :t:

Tom I am not suggesting you go for a gimbal like mine just saying that a gimbal works well with that lens. I think there is a big difference in price mine cost £300+ I believe the 393 is quite a bit cheaper and should work just as well. Best bet if poss try one out.

Best of luck

Pete
 
tracker said:
Hi everyone,

Ive only recently come across this piece of kit the Manfrotto 393, and was wondering if it would work effectively with a Canon 400 f/5.6 lens, or would this be 'overkill' due to this lens not being so big? At the moment Im using a 128RCNAT head on a Manfrotto 190 tripod (green with black rubber grips). My camera is a Canon 20D.

Would appreciate someones observation,

Thanks,

Hi Tom,

Only just seen this thread. I've recently bought a 393 to use with a Sigma 500mm prime. It works a treat but I must admit even that lens looks a bit lost amongst all the scaffolding. With the 400mm it will certainly work fine but may look a little weird....

Paul
 
Hi Paul,

I wondered along those lines too; how weird it would look, and whether I could bypass that for the comfortable 'ride' the 393 could give me.

Thanks for the input! :t:
 
I finally got to try one of these heads today and kind of wish I hadn't as it's going to lead to more spending... I've been using my 350D and Sigma 500 f4.5 on a Manfrotto 501 and thought this was a good set up, but the 393 is so much nicer to use. It only took a minute to get it set up so I could let go of the camera at any point and it stayed put, very smooth movement too. I still have slight reservations about using it with a scope, but I'm sure the ease of use with camera and long lens will tempt me to buy one...
 
Romy Ocon said:
Here are a couple of long shots taken with the gimbal head on Manfrotto 475B tripod...
Hi Romy

I'm thinking about a 475B tripod. Do you (or any other owners) know if the 3/8" head screw can be removed/replaced, or is it a permanent fixture ?

Cheers
David
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top