Manfrotto 393 - Simple Question (1 Viewer)

T

Taxboy

Well-known member

• Dec 29, 2012

• #1

As the budget is a little tight could I use a Manfrotto 393 to support a Canon 400mm 5.6 + a 1.4x converter rather than a more expensive ball head.

I already have a pan and til head for landscape work but can't get on with it for birding / wildlife

 

Jaff

Registered Member

• Jan 1, 2013

• #2

Simple answer is yes. I've heard also that the Jobu Junior is good for that setup.

 

J

johnf3f

johnf3f

• Jan 2, 2013

• #3

Also have a look at the Lensmaster RH1. I had the 393 but prefer the RH1. The RH1 is smaller lighter and a little cheaper than the 393 and is great for lenses up to 2.5/3 kilo + camera.
I am using mine for a Canon 1D4 + 300mm F2.8 IS and extenders and find it well up to the task, it also comes with two decent quality QR plates.

 

T

Taxboy

Well-known member

• Jan 3, 2013

• #4

Thanks for the replies - certainly a cheaper option than buying a quality ball head :t:

 

J

johnf3f

johnf3f

• Jan 4, 2013

• #5

Taxboy said:

Thanks for the replies - certainly a cheaper option than buying a quality ball head :t:

Click to expand...

I have tried using longer lenses on ball heads but cannot get on with them as they are far too slow to set up when photographing wildlife, though they are great for other uses.
Get a good (cheap) gimbal and be happy!

 

T

Taxboy

Well-known member

• Jan 5, 2013

• #6

johnf3f said:

I have tried using longer lenses on ball heads but cannot get on with them as they are far too slow to set up when photographing wildlife, though they are great for other uses.
Get a good (cheap) gimbal and be happy!

Click to expand...

Thanks for that always good to hear real world experience

 

M

MPeoples

Well-known member

• Jan 7, 2013

• #7

Taxboy said:

As the budget is a little tight could I use a Manfrotto 393 to support a Canon 400mm 5.6 + a 1.4x converter rather than a more expensive ball head.

I already have a pan and til head for landscape work but can't get on with it for birding / wildlife

Click to expand...

Hi,

Yes the Manfrotto 393 will support your Canon 400mm.

Best
Mike

 

J

johnf3f

johnf3f

• Jan 8, 2013

• #8

Have a look at the Lensmaster RH1, I find it a bit more convenient (and lighter) than the 393 - though the 393 will support anything currently made.

 

B

BBandW

Well-known member

• Jan 9, 2013

• #9

I've took delivery of the Lensmaster RH2 gimbal last weekend in place of a Manfrotto ballhead. The difference in ease of use was amazing and I'd never go back to a ballhead again. I believe the 393 and RH2 are pretty much the same price.

 

R

Roger P

Well-known member

• Jan 29, 2013

• #10

Purchased a 393 after reviews and price comparisons. I use it with 500+1.4 and find it ok once in situ but why does no-one mention difficulty of transport? Is just that I've not discovered how to get it to lock securely or is it, indeed, impossible? I am hesitating between drilling through one of the arms and inserting a bolt (why are there holes in one upright but not the other?) and selling it intact!
Any help from 393 users appreciated.

 

S

scrapper

Active member

• Jan 29, 2013

• #11

Hi Roger,
I made the following modification that may help. Once you have the U-shaped cradle at the height you wish for your lens, any of the spare pivot holes, which are already tapped, will take a standard metric set screw (I think it's M5). I used an Allen headed set screw. Mark through the U cradle hole you intend to use on to the outer frame and drill a small recess into the outer frame to a depth to take the nose of the set screw (there's no need to drill all the way through). This will lock the tilt. I haven't yet found a way to lock the pan movement. I also fitted a small spring around the shaft of the set screw to keep some tension on it to prevent it working loose.
Hope this helps,
Scrapper