Gimbal & CF Tripod

Messages
12,578
Edit My Images
No
I know that this is a gear question - but you guys seem to know more than most…….. so I've posted in on here
I reckon I need a good Gimbal for my newly acquired 300mm f2.8 and x2TC
The Wimberley Head Mk II seems the best - but it is £520
I'm looking around for a used one - I suppose that is the way to go

I have a really good Gitzo G320 tripod, but it's (heavy) metal and after carrying it around for a few hours yesterday with the 300m attached I need help
What is the lightest 4 section CF tripod that I can get to "do the job"

Any suggestions

Cheers
 
What is the lightest 4 section CF tripod that I can get to "do the job"

Gitzo 3542LS or the earlier models 3540LS and 3541LS would be adequate
 
I can understand your comments about weight, its a common problem, especially as the years creep on and energy levels fail. I can only speak from my own experiences so for what its worth, I went from a Manfrotto 055XPRPB alli to the equivalent carbon version, the 055CXPRO3 Carbon Fibre Tripod. This has reduced the weight but its still a consideration when on a long walk, however, it is a solid unit and they do make a 4 section version too.
Manfrotto make a gimbal, the 393 head which I used successfully for a good few years, and at around £130.00 compares very favourably. I was lucky enough to spot and grab a second hand Wimberly, and I have to say that I am more than happy with it, and there is certainly a difference between this and the cheaper gimbal head models, if the difference is worth the extra cost is debateable. I would certainly suggest taking a look at the Manfrotto 393 before making a decision, its a very popular head with the birding community and does a good job in my opinion. Hope this helps.
 
Interesting:
The Wimberley Mk ll weighs 1.4kg and costs £520 plus £55 for a plate
The Lens master RH-2 weighs 1.21kg and costs £150 including the plate

The Gitzo 3542LS - CF goes up to a high of 146.5cm, weighs 1.96kg and costs £649
The Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 CF goes up to a height of 175cm, weighs 1.65kg and costs £239
both fold down to about 65cm

so its £1224 at the top end and £389 at an almost "top end"

The LensMaster traveller also looks good as it will take up a 400mm lens
 
Last edited:
The Gitzo 3542LS - CF goes up to a high of 146.5cm, weighs 1.96kg and costs £649
The Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 CF goes up to a height of 175cm, weighs 1.65kg and costs £239
both fold down to about 65cm

The Gitzo has no centre column and the Manfrotto height would be with its centre column fully extended (not ideal) Also unless the Gitzo 3542 has grown considerably from the one I have (3540) I think the closed length would be less than 65cm
 
The Gitzo has no centre column and the Manfrotto height would be with its centre column fully extended (not ideal) Also unless the Gitzo 3542 has grown considerably from the one I have (3540) I think the closed length would be less than 65cm

Thanks Rich - just checked - closed length is 24" = 60cm
 
Thanks Rich - just checked - closed length is 24" = 60cm

Still not sure that is right Bill, seems a bit long, are you sure that isn't for the three section model? Mine is the four section one and is 55cmm closed, one of the reasons I bought it so it could be carried easily.
Admittedly the newer versions could have increased in folded length, but they are all pretty much the same and wouldn't have thought it had got that much longer.

The systematic series have a larger diameter top plate than the tripods with a centre column, makes them more stable and an ideal base for the type of head you are interested in. More than tall enough for me when extended, with a head and 5D mounted I have to stand on tiptoes to see the top lcd (for reference purposes i'm six foot tall)
 
Last edited:
Thanks again Rich - presumably the Gitzo 3542LS - CF will also be OK as a "travel" tripod as well - light enough to take with me when I travel by air?

if you want the best, I suppose you have to spend the money!!
 
Just checked out of curiosity Bill and the folded length is 57.5cm, gone up an inch on mine and weighs slightly more too (roughly 0.25kg) Checked the 3541LS as well out of interest and that also comes in shorter and lighter than the newer one.

Its fine for travelling and carry mine all over the place, strong and light, but unfortunately not cheap. I think the series 3 is the ideal compromise although I do have an older series 1 that folds down to 48cm, but useless for the lens and head we are talking about here.

Might be worth keeping your eye out for a s/hand 3540 or 3541, saw one go last week on the bird forum for £380 and that included some camo leg covers
 
Just checked out of curiosity Bill and the folded length is 57.5cm, gone up an inch on mine and weighs slightly more too (roughly 0.25kg) Checked the 3541LS as well out of interest and that also comes in shorter and lighter than the newer one.

Its fine for travelling and carry mine all over the place, strong and light, but unfortunately not cheap. I think the series 3 is the ideal compromise although I do have an older series 1 that folds down to 48cm, but useless for the lens and head we are talking about here.

Might be worth keeping your eye out for a s/hand 3540 or 3541, saw one go last week on the bird forum for £380 and that included some camo leg covers

I've got to "do my time" on here before I can look at the Sales section
 
IMO, all you need in a tripod for gimbal use is something rated to hold your gear weight safely... I would add a few on top of the gear just because. The purpose of a gimbal is not for use locked down w/ slow SS's. If you're thinking you might want/need maximum steadiness out of the tripod as well, then go for 2-3 times the weight rating. If you want similar stability (not weight limit) out of CF as with aluminum you end up with a similar weight tripod. (although RRS's carbon tubes use a unique weave and are reported to be more stable).
Also keep in mind CF is more prone to damage and uv breakdown (the resins) over time.
I own both Gitzo and Benro CF tripods. The Gitzo is a little better in build quality IMO. But it's questionable if the difference justifies the cost...

As for Gimbal heads, I've been using a Benro GH-2 for several years now without issue. My only complaint is the panning tension doesn't adjust very linearly. In has a quick ramp-up to it. I think it's the "best bang for the buck."

Also, IMO you should avoid side mount Gimbals and gimbals without vertical height adjustment. Particularly if you go with a lighter weight tripod.
A side mount does a great job of putting the pivot point at the cameras center of mass vertically, but it may very well not center the weight over the tripod. If I put my 400mm f/2.8 w/ the tall foot on a sidemount gimbal it is very likely to pull a tripod over. If you get one that is not a side mount but does not adjust vertically then the center of mass will be over the tripod center, but may not be aligned with the pivot. To me, the side mount is a bigger issue.
You can use those types of gimbals of course, but you won't be getting the full functionality/benefit of using one.
 
Last edited:
I bought the Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 Carbon Fibre Tripod, went for the most compact strong tripod, I made a spread sheet of all the top carbon tri pods, and the Manfrotto came out best really weight wise. It is a bit big, but steady, carry mine aroun tied to the side of my Lowepro Photo Hatchback 22L AW, with one leg in the side pocket, hardly noticable really with my camera gear.
 
The lensmaster Traveller looks ideal - low weight and will take an 800mm lens


http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/t1.htm


"Although small this sidemount Gimbal can hold the longer super telephoto lenses such as 300F2.8 - 500F4- 600F4 -800f5.6 with or without converters,
it can also take a small lens such as a 50mmf1.8 or 17/85 f4/5.6 using the supplied L bracket
"
 
Have a look at the Benro and Induro gimbal heads Bill. I've just ordered an Induro for my 500 mm. It's almost identical to a wimberley but two thirds of the price and comes with a lens plate.

I've always thought wimberley as overpriced and having used both heads now I really struggle to see where the extra cash is justified on the wimberley.
 
i have the lens master RH2 i bought off of my lad ,its a lot lighter than the manfrotto 393 i had previously and seems to perform better overall ,my tripod is a c/f KOOD which i bought rather cheaply from a camera shop in bicester called imagex ,might be worth contacting them
 
i have the lens master RH2 i bought off of my lad ,its a lot lighter than the manfrotto 393 i had previously and seems to perform better overall ,my tripod is a c/f KOOD which i bought rather cheaply from a camera shop in bicester called imagex ,might be worth contacting them


Yup, had a 393 meself, and loved it for the great price, though its an awkward shape to carry in a rucksack.

PS Jeff - just up the road from you in Witney !

Small planet :pompous:
 
For travel I got the Redged TSC 427K CF tripod - really small when folded and light - comes with a small head - RNB-2N which is good.
The tripod is a firm favourite and I use it when walking any distance as well as when travelling
When packing I take the Lensmaster as it breaks down and fits in the suitcase more easily than the 393, but I do prefer the 393 to use everyday.
I have even tried the Nikon 300mm f2.8VR on the Redged and it copes and with my 300mm f4 it is really good.

Clearly not as good or stable as the bigger Gitzo's and I have just picked up a "mint" G1327 CF and it is just quality.

The Wimberley will have to wait - I ordered one, but it never came as the selling company would not delivered to an address other than that on my CC Account, I'm in France for some time ……. but to tell you the truth the 393 is very good.
 
Feisol carbon tripods are very good and not too expensive I have the Tournament and it has served me well, however I have just sold a carbon racing bike and put the cash into a Gitzo 3542 LS yes expensive but I am really pleased with it, rock solid with a big lens and really well made you do get what u pay for!
 
Yup, had a 393 meself, and loved it for the great price, though its an awkward shape to carry in a rucksack.

PS Jeff - just up the road from you in Witney !

Small planet :pompous:
not really i bought from them online ,i'm on the north wales coast :runaway::runaway::runaway:
 
If that's any good Brian it's a great deal - any experience of it?

Gramps

I have only looked at one of these Chinese "clones" in the flesh - well two actually - one made in CF and the same in metal - both were quite poorly made - maybe they will get better ……. but then the prices will increase substantially

Are there any reviews around?
 
Gramps

I have only looked at one of these Chinese "clones" in the flesh - well two actually - one made in CF and the same in metal - both were quite poorly made - maybe they will get better ……. but then the prices will increase substantially

Are there any reviews around?

That's my worry Bill, I haven't looked for any reviews on this one though.
 
I've got one coming from an ebay seller and it was listed as new but cosmetically imperfect which doesn't worry me at all got it for a penny under £50 so worth a punt. Should arrive today will report back when I get hands on ;)

PS there are several reviews, one on "U" tube, Google is your friend ;)
 
Last edited:
I've got a lens master gimbal if any one wants it.
Post code for pick up is ne388lp
 
all I would say is that I now have maybe 6 tripods - the last two i bought were the more expensive and the best - the latest being a Gitzo.
The last two I bought are the only ones I now use
I am interested in bird photography - I use a tripod as much as i can - probably 80% of the time
I am also interested in taking close ups of Dragonflies and Butterflies - I use a good CF portable tripod as much as I can.

I also have quite a few "heads" - the best being an Arca Swiss ……. and the best Gimbal, the great value for money 393

For me the tripod is one of my mosts used pieces of equipment and in terms of IQ it is really important

Given the choices again I would buy the best I could afford as soon as I could

just my views
 
Just after my last post my £50 gimbal turned up and as described it's got some mat black paint /powder coat missing so will be a great match for most of my kit that's been dragged around the fields and the boot of my car a little. I think the main difference between this and the Wimberley is that the Wimberley runs on bearings and this is on bushes. Overall I'm well pleased with it the action in both planes is silky smooth and infinitely adjustable. If there is a downside it's more gear to lug around .

View attachment 16582

View attachment 16583
 
Will be interested to hear how you get on with it :)
 
Just after my last post my £50 gimbal turned up and as described it's got some mat black paint /powder coat missing so will be a great match for most of my kit that's been dragged around the fields and the boot of my car a little. I think the main difference between this and the Wimberley is that the Wimberley runs on bearings and this is on bushes. Overall I'm well pleased with it the action in both planes is silky smooth and infinitely adjustable. If there is a downside it's more gear to lug around .
FYI, that isn't adjusted "correctly." For best performance/functionality the camera needs to be lowered so that it's center of gravity is aligned with the upper pivot point vertically and fore/aft. Then just a slight amount of drag should be applied to smooth out panning movements.

I have the Benro GH2 which I've used/abused for years now. I've completely disassembled it and it has crappy unsealed bearings along with teflon bushings. The lower lock/drag is bronze. IMO it's of "descent" construction but not how I would build one. That said, I've never had a problem with it other than needing to clean/grease it after some serious abuse. I have no idea what the inside of a Wimberly looks like.
 
FYI, that isn't adjusted "correctly." For best performance/functionality the camera needs to be lowered so that it's center of gravity is aligned with the upper pivot point vertically and fore/aft. Then just a slight amount of drag should be applied to smooth out panning movements.

I have the Benro GH2 which I've used/abused for years now. I've completely disassembled it and it has crappy unsealed bearings along with teflon bushings. The lower lock/drag is bronze. IMO it's of "descent" construction but not how I would build one. That said, I've never had a problem with it other than needing to clean/grease it after some serious abuse. I have no idea what the inside of a Wimberly looks like.
Sorry did I claim it was adjusted properly ?
 
Give the guy a beak, he was trying to be helpful.


on the topic, i have a benro tripod and bh2, works fine and has done for a few years now.
Sorry did I claim it was adjusted properly ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mex
FYI, that isn't adjusted "correctly." For best performance/functionality the camera needs to be lowered so that it's center of gravity is aligned with the upper pivot point vertically and fore/aft. Then just a slight amount of drag should be applied to smooth out panning movements.

I have the Benro GH2 which I've used/abused for years now. I've completely disassembled it and it has crappy unsealed bearings along with teflon bushings. The lower lock/drag is bronze. IMO it's of "descent" construction but not how I would build one. That said, I've never had a problem with it other than needing to clean/grease it after some serious abuse. I have no idea what the inside of a Wimberly looks like.

presumably it was in the position because he was removing the grip to replace the battery in the camera

that's what I generally do as it is easier than taking it off the Gimbal
 
Back
Top