• 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 head help please (1 Viewer)

Cashie

Cashie

Hello folks
United Kingdom
Hi,

I have just bought a Canon 500mm f4 IS USM which I hand hold quite a lot but would like some help with a new tripod head, I have the 055 nat3 legs & a 142RC nat head but this head doesn't seem good strong/enough around the mounting plate because of the weight.
Can anyone recommend another head without breaking the bank please.

Cheers

Paul :stuck:
 
I'd recommend looking at the 501 (£120) and the 393 (£110), both will hold your lens safely and secune I wasn't convincerely. Many people prefer the 393 for use with a long lens, but when I tested one I was not convinced it was stable enough (it held my camera/lens fine but the vibrations seemed too much) so I stuck to my 501. Try and get along to a shop and try both out, see which suits you best.
 
Cashie said:
Hi,

I have just bought a Canon 500mm f4 IS USM which I hand hold quite a lot but would like some help with a new tripod head, I have the 055 nat3 legs & a 142RC nat head but this head doesn't seem good strong/enough around the mounting plate because of the weight.
Can anyone recommend another head without breaking the bank please.

Cheers

Paul :stuck:
Click to expand...

Of course, you don't need to use a manfrotto head on the legs, almost any head should work on your existing post. Get a gimbal type head - it makes soooo much difference...honest! Worth every penny.
 
postcardcv said:
I'd recommend looking at the 501 (£120) and the 393 (£110), both will hold your lens safely and secune I wasn't convincerely. Many people prefer the 393 for use with a long lens, but when I tested one I was not convinced it was stable enough (it held my camera/lens fine but the vibrations seemed too much) so I stuck to my 501. Try and get along to a shop and try both out, see which suits you best.
Click to expand...

Peter, I was going to reply on the other thread - was the tension adjusment set correctly on the head? I remember reading a review ages ago where the reviewer had a problem with movement. I think there was a screw that could be tightened. Although I am surprised it caused you unsharp images.
 
mw_aurora said:
Peter, I was going to reply on the other thread - was the tension adjusment set correctly on the head? I remember reading a review ages ago where the reviewer had a problem with movement. I think there was a screw that could be tightened. Although I am surprised it caused you unsharp images.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure it was set up correctly, I could move the lens/camera smoothly and easily and it stayed in whatever position I left it (there was no creeping). When I tested it in the shop I though it was fantastic, however on my first day out with it I got very few critically sharp shots. I then set it up at home side by side with my 501 and found that when mounted on the 501 I got sharper shots. I then tested how long it took for vibrations to stop if a legs was 'tapped', the vibration were gone in ~2 seconds on the 501, but it was ~5 seconds on the 393, the vibrations seemed more obvious with the 393. It is quite possible that ehe problem was the legs, but both heads were tested on identical Manfrotto 055 legs, I'd cerainly be interested to do the test again on my newly aquired Gitzo legs...

I do wonder if my problem was made worse by not using an IS lens. I'd certainly be happy to be proved wrong and find that the 393 could work really well as it would save me being tempted to splash out on an expensive gimbal head.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys, I will go down to my local camera store tomorrow ( The London camera exchange ) & have a look at your recommendations, they are a manfrotto agent, I dont know about Gimbal but will try to find out about them, & where to get hold of them.

Paul
 
Cashie said:
Thanks guys, I will go down to my local camera store tomorrow ( The London camera exchange ) & have a look at your recommendations, they are a manfrotto agent, I dont know about Gimbal but will try to find out about them, & where to get hold of them.

Paul
Click to expand...

Gimbal is the way the head works rather than the manufacturer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal). Typical ones are the Manfrotto 393, Wimberley, Cobra side-kick etc.
 
Cashie see the other thread about gimbal heads from India also i think the 501 may be a bit light for a Canon 500 f4,those that use the 393 think it very good.I use a Kirk King Cobra that i got of ebay and find this works very well.
 
Last edited:
postcardcv said:
I'd recommend looking at the 501 (£120) and the 393 (£110), both will hold your lens safely and secune I wasn't convincerely. Many people prefer the 393 for use with a long lens, but when I tested one I was not convinced it was stable enough (it held my camera/lens fine but the vibrations seemed too much) so I stuck to my 501. Try and get along to a shop and try both out, see which suits you best.
Click to expand...

I use the 393 with a heavy setup and it works well for me. Perhaps you had a peculiar interaction between tripod and head? I use it with the Bogen 3246 tripod (Manfrotto 028B). In my opinion the 055 tripod is too light duty for the intended use of the 393. The 055 legs and the 393 gimbal fork head mount are mis-matched and not intended to be used together.

I use this setup with a 100mm pentax spotter at 40x and even at this magnification, which is way beyond normal telephoto magnification, it seems to be rock solid.

Anyway take a look at the Grosbeak shot it was taken with this setup at 1/60 of a second.

Sparrow
 

Attachments

  • setup 001.jpg
    setup 001.jpg
    105.7 KB · Views: 230
  • setup 005.jpg
    setup 005.jpg
    91.5 KB · Views: 251
  • GROSBEAK02.jpg
    GROSBEAK02.jpg
    88.8 KB · Views: 254
Last edited:
Ragna said:
also i think the 501 may be a bit light for a Canon 500 f4
Click to expand...

Nope, my old 501 works just fine with the 500/4. It's getting a bit tired (I've had it a long time and the quick release safety spring is broken so I have to be careful) and I sometimes think about replacing it, but the only thing I know would work well for me would be another 501.

I don't have the opportunity to try other sorts of head where I live, so while I'd like to look at a few of the most-recommended types, I'm not going to buy one without trying it. Meanwhile, the old faithful 501 is on its 6th camera and doing the job just fine. It copes effortlessly with the 500/4.
 
I took the opportunity to have another try of the 393 this weekend, in very dull conditions I did some test shots indoors with it. I took a shot of a resolution chart at ISO400, f4.5, 1/30th with my 501 and a 393 mounted on Gitzo 1349 legs. The 393 still felt slightly less stable than the 501, but the test shots didn't show this. The attached shot is has one side from each head, there really is little if anything between them in this test (can anyone see one being better than the other). I'd like the chance to field test the 393 on a Gitzo tripod as it may save me from a big spend.
 

Attachments

  • headtest.jpg
    headtest.jpg
    96.7 KB · Views: 233
postcardcv said:
I took the opportunity to have another try of the 393 this weekend, in very dull conditions I did some test shots indoors with it. I took a shot of a resolution chart at ISO400, f4.5, 1/30th with my 501 and a 393 mounted on Gitzo 1349 legs. The 393 still felt slightly less stable than the 501, but the test shots didn't show this. The attached shot is has one side from each head, there really is little if anything between them in this test (can anyone see one being better than the other). I'd like the chance to field test the 393 on a Gitzo tripod as it may save me from a big spend.
Click to expand...


The right side looks clearer to me.
 
Cheers mate,I cant see any difference at all, thanks for showing this test.

My dealer showed me another one called the Kirk king cobra but this one
works out very expensive too with the plate being a seperate item.

Paul
 
Ragna said:
The right looks a little bit sharper to be as well but not by much.
Click to expand...

opps I meant to post this the other day... the right side of the shot was on the 393 and the left on the 501. There is very little in it, but it does seem that the shot on the 393 has the slight edge.
 
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

K
confused about tripod head types for birding scope
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Peregrine Took
P
C
Manfrotto 190GOA4 + 128RC compatibility with Kowa 883, plus backpack/transport question
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Chris C
C
A
Help please
Replies
2
Views
695
Tringa45
T
T
help with mounting plate & head for a circa 1993 85mm Swarovski
Replies
6
Views
791
4John
4
T
Help with finding a quick release plate for my Bogen Manfrotto 3265 head.
Replies
2
Views
455
Bill Atwood
Bill Atwood

Users who are viewing this thread

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