• 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.

getting a gimbal, but which one... (1 Viewer)

postcardcv

postcardcv

Super Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
For the last two years I've been using a Manfrotto 501 head for my camera and long lens (Sigma 500 f4.5). I really like the 501, it's rock solid and easy to use... however having had a play with a gimbal type head I can see how they would make some shots much easier (birds in flight).

I have tested a Manfrotto 393 head and dispite my earlier issues I can see that it will work well. On my Manfrotto legs it was not up to the job, but on my new (well secondhand) Gitzos it seem to be fine. In my (quick) test it seemed up to work well and keep the set up as stable as my 501 does.

What I want to know is what more would I get if I went for one of the big name gimbals (like Wimberley or a Kirk cobra)? If there's not much in it perhaps I should bite the bullet and buy the Manfrotto. However if there is an advantage to spending more then I'll stick with my 501 and start saving.
 
Postie,
I know a number of people that use a 393 & are happy with it. I personally wanted a bit more functionality, so went for a Wimberly sidekick with a
Kirk BH1 ball head. This means i can use my tripod for other work such as landscapes or macro with short lenses. Yes it is expensive, but i now have a set up that will do what i want. Once you put a full gimbal on your legs, you are limited to long lens work (unless you swap heads). For the record i use this set up with a Nikon D2x with a Sigma 500mm f4.5, often with teleconvertors attached, on a set of Gitzo 1548 legs. This is rock solid with the sidekick & ballhead locked down. Just food for thought.......
Regards Rob.
 
postcardcv said:
For the last two years I've been using a Manfrotto 501 head for my camera and long lens (Sigma 500 f4.5). I really like the 501, it's rock solid and easy to use... however having had a play with a gimbal type head I can see how they would make some shots much easier (birds in flight).

I have tested a Manfrotto 393 head and dispite my earlier issues I can see that it will work well. On my Manfrotto legs it was not up to the job, but on my new (well secondhand) Gitzos it seem to be fine. In my (quick) test it seemed up to work well and keep the set up as stable as my 501 does.

What I want to know is what more would I get if I went for one of the big name gimbals (like Wimberley or a Kirk cobra)? If there's not much in it perhaps I should bite the bullet and buy the Manfrotto. However if there is an advantage to spending more then I'll stick with my 501 and start saving.
Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

As you know I'm using the 393 on Gitzo legs and have played with a Wimberley a couple of times, just out of curiosity.

I reckon that with our lens (Sigma 500mm f4.5) the 393 is fine, it can support and hold the weight of the lens at any angle and the pan and tilt is lovely and smooth. I can't see any reason to change it until I get a 500mm f4 at which point it may be worth going to a Wimberley, genuine one that is! However, I'd try the 393 first, Andy's review praised it with a big prime.

Think you've picked up on the 393's big advantage over the 501. Flight shots are a doddle. Normally I hate using a tripod for flight shots but the 393/gitzo setup at Gigrin Farm was great to use.
 
Peter, I would also agree with Paul I have same combo 393 and sigma 500 and I find them an excellent pairing especially as it saves you 3-4 hundred pounds.Craig
 
paul goode said:
I can't see any reason to change it until I get a 500mm f4 at which point it may be worth going to a Wimberley, genuine one that is! However, I'd try the 393 first, Andy's review praised it with a big prime.

Think you've picked up on the 393's big advantage over the 501. Flight shots are a doddle. Normally I hate using a tripod for flight shots but the 393/gitzo setup at Gigrin Farm was great to use.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice so far, I see a gimbal on the way soon...

Paul - I like the way you talk about getting a 500 f4 as when rather than if... ;) perhaps once I've got my gimbal head I'll have to plan a trip to Gigrin.
 
Last edited:
Hi Paul,
would you reckon using a 393 with lenses shorter than a 500mm prime an overkill? Is it worth?
Flight shots/panning are easier with a 393 or a 501?
Thank you
Max
 
gmax said:
Hi Paul,would you reckon using a 393 with lenses shorter than a 500mm prime an overkill? Is it worth?
Flight shots/panning are easier with a 393 or a 501?
Click to expand...

The main reason that I want to get a gimbal type head is to make flight shots easier. I get on fairly well with the 501 for flight shots, but having tested the 393 it is clear that it will be better for folloing fast subjects in flight. With the 501 you have to loosen off to the pan and tilt to allow fast free movement for flights shots (and it's still not as 'fluid' as a gimbal), so if you let go of the camera/lens it will just flop. However with a head like the 393 you have very smooth movement, but a combination of balance and friction means you can let the camera/lens go in any position and it will stay where you leave it.
 
postcardcv said:
The main reason that I want to get a gimbal type head is to make flight shots easier. I get on fairly well with the 501 for flight shots, but having tested the 393 it is clear that it will be better for folloing fast subjects in flight. With the 501 you have to loosen off to the pan and tilt to allow fast free movement for flights shots (and it's still not as 'fluid' as a gimbal), so if you let go of the camera/lens it will just flop. However with a head like the 393 you have very smooth movement, but a combination of balance and friction means you can let the camera/lens go in any position and it will stay where you leave it.
Click to expand...

Thank you Pete, excellent info.
Would you suggest me buying a 393 for my actual kit (400mm+Tc), I'm sure I would appreciate the advantages over my 128RC, but what about the 501?
Thanks,
Max
 
gmax said:
Thank you Pete, excellent info.
Would you suggest me buying a 393 for my actual kit (400mm+Tc), I'm sure I would appreciate the advantages over my 128RC, but what about the 501?
Thanks,
Max
Click to expand...

It's always hard to know how someone else will get on with gear... I think that either the 393 or the 501 would be a step up from the 128 (which is a great birding head). The 501 is just so solid, it works in much the same way as the 128 but smoother and more stable. I know of others who use the 393 with a 400mm, the lens looks a bit small in it but it work very well. I guess if you are happy doing flight shots handheld and want the familiar feel of a video head then the 501 is the one to go for. However if you want to use a tripod for flight shots then a gimbal head like the 393 clearly has the edge. When I do get my gimbal head I will still keep a 501 as I far prefer using a video head when using a scope.
 
paul goode said:
Ever the optimist.... ;)
Click to expand...

and why not... I know I dream of owning that lens one day, perhaps a nice little 300 f2.8 too!

Anyway back to gimbals. I've cracked and bought one, I went for a Black Widow gimbal (made by Jobo), which I bought from another Norfolk based BF'er. It's very similar to the Kirk Cobra and seems very nice to use (though I've yet to test it in the field). The main reason I went for it over the Manfrotto is that it is designed to work with any lens (even a big 600 f4 or 400 f2.8), so I figured it would still be fine if I ever get a big Canon prime.
 
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.

Similar threads

yarrellii
Ultralight tripod/head for a 400 g (14 oz) scope
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
has530
has530
M
Manfrotto 055cxpro4 vs Gitzo gt2545t for 65-85mm scopes and scopac? Huge weight difference. What about stability?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Peregrine Took
P
Y
Best tripod head for attaching/detaching a camera from the scope
Replies
7
Views
1K
etn991
E
T
help with mounting plate & head for a circa 1993 85mm Swarovski
Replies
6
Views
785
4John
4
T
Tripod backpack? ( UK )
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Thrupenney Bit
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top