Wimberley heads etc etc (1 Viewer)

I'm in the process of working out how best to move up from Digiscoping to DSLR. I'm particularly intersted in the Gimbal type heads from Wimberley and Kirk from a mobility point of view. Action shots and finding a target that only stays put very briefly are what I've missed out on with digiscoping.

I'm currenly thinking along the lines of a 10D and a Sigma 500mm F4.5 telephoto lens, but I know I'll need a competely new support system to get the full benefit from the camera and lens.

I'd be grateful for any recommendations from those of you with experience of using big lenses for wildlife photography on what to go for and where best to go for it in the UK.

I'm going for the 500mm lens to be able to get the reach I want but I need a setup that I can still carry.

Hello Andy,

I have no experience of DSLR yet but am going thru the same process of moving to Digislr.
From what Ive asked and found out, when buying a tripod and legs the issue is how much you want to spend.

If cost isnt important then most people seem to point towards an Arca Swiss ball head and also Wimberly head.
(You can get a Wimberly called a sidekick which slots into your ballhead and costs alot less than a full blown Wimberly.)
For the legs, alot of people recommended a big Gitzo carbon fibre tripod.
Your looking at well over 1k for all those bits though.

If like me you haven't got a pile of cash lieing around then the choice is alot tricker I reckon.
It has took me weeks of looking online, looking at reviews, reading forums etc to just narrow down my search.
( I am at a major disadvantage though that I cant go to a camera shop and test the tripods.)

All in all it does seem to me that the rule of "you get what you pay for"
is definately applicable when buying tripods.

As for shops alot of posts I've read have recommended Robert White.
http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/
(hes has Gitzos, Manfrottos and the Arca Swiss stuff)

Hope that has helped a little.

Pete.

Andy Holt said:

I'm currenly thinking along the lines of a 10D and a Sigma 500mm F4.5 telephoto lens

Click to expand...

Hi Andy - I have a Canon 300D which I think is basically a cut down cheaper version of the 10D (still costs an arm and a leg though). Just one thing to keep in mind is that the 300D (and I assume the 10D - but best to check) with a 500mm lens is effectivly a 800mm lens as the 300D has a smaller image size than a film 35mm camera and therefore the focal length of a 35mm lens is multiplied by 1.6. I actually have the Canon 75-300 zoom (therefore really 120-480) with image stabilisation (costs the other arm and leg) but I am not totally happy with it and I dont think I would get another one if anything happened to this one.

Terry

Thanks Pete

I know what you mean. I thought birding optics were expensive once upon a time.
I suppose it's a question of where you compromise with all this. I figure the Sigma lens is a good option. With the current under 2k price for the 500mm F4.5 I reckon I can get a complete camera, lens setup with a good tripod and head for less than the cost of a 500mm IS Canon lens.

I'm hoping some of the experienced guys might be able to pass an opinion on where to cut corners and where not to.

300d

yellow_belly said:

Just one thing to keep in mind is that the 300D (and I assume the 10D - but best to check) with a 500mm lens is effectivly a 800mm lens

Click to expand...

I've picked up on that thanks Terry. As a digiscoper I'm keen to get as much magnification as I can afford and carry.

I have a lot more experience with a digital slr than with digiscoping, so I guess I have done the evolutionary process in reverse, to some degree.

The Sigma 500mm f4.5 HSM is a good choice, especially if combined with telextenders. I think the price is still quite a bit more than $2,000, however, unless you would be satisfied with the older, non-HSM version and found it used somewhere.

However, as someone who has done a fair amount of slr bird photography using both film and digital formats, let me offer that the so-called "magnification factor" people discuss with such awe and reverence is largely mythical. Yes, the angle of view you get with a 500mm. lens mounted on a digital slr is approximately that of a 750mm. lens on a 35mm. camera, but at the same time *the overall image is smaller*, so you don't really gain much, if anything. I think of this phenomenon in terms of having a 35mm. slide with a bird framed in the center. What you're getting with the digital slr is equivalent to taking that slide and using a knife to slice away the outer portion of the frame. The bird itself, which is what you really care about, is not any larger than it would have been with the 35mm. format.

So in terms of nailing those little birds and actually producing finished photographs to share, a 500mm. using digital format is about the same, really, as it would be using 35mm. format.

So get those 1.4x and 2x telextenders, the best you can afford.

As for supports, my longest lens is a manual focus Nikon 500mm. f.4 (digression: older, non AF lenses are CHEAP on the used market, people, something to consider, especially when for bird photography straightforward autofocus frequently doesn't give you the result you want anyway, i.e., your point of focus invariably needs to be adjusted manually so that the bird's eye is in focus). I have owned an Arca B1 ballhead for many years, and so last year I added a Wimberley Sidekick to this setup. It works fine.

Were I to get a lens that was any larger than the 500mm. f4 with teleconverters I now use, I would definitely get a full-sized Gimbal head. Wimberley's is still the standard, with the difference being that it top-loads, as opposed to Kirk's King Cobra and the newer Jobu Gimbal head, which have clamps that load sideways. You pay extra, but most photographers who use very large, heavy lenses claim that this additional feature (easier, safer) is well worth the additional expense.

One correction to what I wrote above: In rereading the thread I realized that Andy was referring to "2k" in terms of pounds sterling. In U.S. dollars that's about right for what these lenses are going for.

Let me share that I have my own eye on the newer Sigma 300-800mm. zoom, that goes currently for $4500. It's a little slow (f5.6) but the convenience of being able to spot a bird at 300mm. and then zoom in to frame it is alluring, and people who own these lenses praise their quality. Someday!

Doug Greenberg said:

However, as someone who has done a fair amount of slr bird photography using both film and digital formats, let me offer that the so-called "magnification factor" people discuss with such awe and reverence is largely mythical. Yes, the angle of view you get with a 500mm. lens mounted on a digital slr is approximately that of a 750mm. lens on a 35mm. camera, but at the same time *the overall image is smaller*, so you don't really gain much, if anything. I think of this phenomenon in terms of having a 35mm. slide with a bird framed in the center. What you're getting with the digital slr is equivalent to taking that slide and using a knife to slice away the outer portion of the frame. The bird itself, which is what you really care about, is not any larger than it would have been with the 35mm. format.

Click to expand...

Hi Doug - an interesting statement but on first thoughts I think you are only comparing the physical size of a digital sensor with the size of a 35mm frame, which doesnt mean much.

I would have thought that the number of pixels and printing resoloution is the determining factor as to how big/small an image is. For example if the digital sensor is 3 megapixels and you decided to print a shot at good magazine quality resolution of 300 pixels/inch the result would be a particular size. However if the digital sensor is 6 megapixels, printing the shot at the same resolution it would be twice the size.

So I am not absolutely convinced that this is 'largely mythical' ?

Terry

Good points.

I am basing my conclusions on my experience using telephoto lenses on a Nikon D100 and comparing it to my experience shooting 35mm. I have found that in terms of my actual capacity to produce finished photos, using a 400mm. lens on the D100 is NOT equivalent to using something akin to a 600mm. lens on a 35mm.

What Terry says suggests that if I were to use a dslr that has an 11 megapixel capacity as opposed to 6.1 megapixels the basic images produced at high quality could be larger, sort of akin to going to a larger format. Though the field of view would not change, my lenses would in a sense be "more powerful" under these circumstances. But this suggests to me that there are complexities involved in comparing 35mm. to digital that render simple "magnification" equations dubious.

My point has been that people should be cautious about believing that their 400mm. lens is "really" a 600mm. when they start shooting digital. This conversion is apparently strictly true in terms of "field of view," but field of view doesn't tell the whole story in this case. Experience out in the field trying to photograph birds will demonstrate this.

Doug Greenberg said:

this suggests to me that there are complexities involved in comparing 35mm. to digital

Click to expand...

Hi Doug - I am with you there

Terry