Manfrotto 393 (or any other gimbal system)

Alzibiff

Alzibiff

Messages
189
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,
Can anyone who uses the Manfrotto 393 head explain to me how the tilt function works and whether the camera/lens combination is truly balanced so that they stay where they are put - similar to the Wimberley or is that too much to ask?

From the images I have seen, I can see how the Manfrotto head can pan but not tilt too easily.

Looking for an alternative to the VERY expensive Wimberley set up which I guess is the ultimate gimbal system. Either it will be the Manfrotto or the Indian Wimberley look alikes as described on EBay.

Thanks in advance,
Alan
 
I have one and hang my long lenses underneath it.I.E. the head is fully erect so the lens is directly beneath the fastening at the top of the head.The plate is then attached to the tripod foot on the lens and then clamped onto the head. The 393 has a lock on it as well,so that if you fail to tighten the clamp properly the plate will not fall out of the clamp until you press the secondary lock button.........It is nice to hear a click of the safety catch rather than a crash of a lens meeting earth if you forget to tighten up properly.

The head then spins freely on the base pivot and tilts on the pivots halfway up the side bars.

Simple,effective and quite cheap.
 
Thanks Fracster but when tilted, does the camera and lens combo stay where it is put, still can't visualise the tilting operation - does the "rectangle" made by the 393 "frame", effectively bend in the middle by the two knobs and fold back and forwards as the lens tilts?

Alan
 
Yes, as long as you tighten the clamp onto the mounting plate......:)

And yes, it effectively bends in the middle.

I use one with my 300-800 and rate it highly.

I`ll see if i have any pics of it in use, I doubt it,but i`ll have a look..............Can`t see any, but it really is a very simple device.Where the two knurled fixings are on the side bars, it pivots on those.The top part will swing 360 degrees on them.The lens can be mounted so that it is sat on top or or hung off the mountimng plate.For a heavy lens like mine,I prefer it to be hung underneath.

Like this;

393.jpg


Image from warehouseexpress.........http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=11050
 
I use my 600mm on mine. Although I've only had them both only 3 weeks or so, I'm very impressed with it.

I find I can hold the monopodwith my left hand & move the camera/lens anywhere I want with the other hand, provided the whole thing is balanced when you attach the lens/camera, it does tend to stay at whatever angle you put it.

Considering it's 1/4 or so of the price of a Wimberley it seems very good value for what it does. (mind you, I've never used a Wimberley myself, which could be 4 times as good as the 393 I suppose)
 
i use mine different to that diagram i fold the top part down into the bottom half so that the mounting plate is on the top. The mounting foot is then positioned under the lens attached to the tripod collar.When the lens/camera is fitted to the 393 it needs to be adjusted so that when the thumbs screws on the side of the 393 are loose the camera/lens needs to balance when at rest. It pans and tilts easily and is a really good piece of kit. It is difficult to explain so i hope you can make sense of it:)
 
I find t`other way gives a lot more flexibility. Horses for courses though and it is a good piece of kit however you use it.
 
Hi,

I have one as well and it it superb, it even allows more vertical movement than the Wimberley and it's only a 1/4 the price, not pretty but it does the job, kind of like myself really (y)

Mike.
 
I have the 393 setup for use with my Canon EF 500. I find it a great bit of kit. I walk around with my manfotto 055mfv with the 393 on complete with 1D MK3 and EF500, very secure, very rigid and a lot cheaper than a Wimberley head ;)
 
With the way fracster shows it, if the rig was left unattended on a tripod, then you rely on tightening the knobs for it to stay put (though squirrels might try and nick it).

The other way of using it is more Wimberley-ish and you can use the long plate to balance the rig, but you can't point as high in the sky as the other way.
 
No, well not really, the knobs are adjustable so that they give more friction.If the lens is balanced proerly via the mounting plate then it stays put in any position.
 
No, well not really ;)

One way is unstable equilibrium, relying on the knob friction :naughty:

The other way is stable, so if the rig is balanced so it's horizontal, that's the position that it'll settle into whatever the knob tightness.
 
I have a Dietmar Nill gimble head which I paid 500 quid for and the 393. In many respects I prefer the 393. You need to mount the lens in the 393 shoe then slide it either backards or forwards until the mass hangs vertically and is balanced around it's centre of gravity. You want it neither nose heavy or camera heavy for smoothest operation. Obviously you keep a hold of it while you're doing this. Once balanced, tighten the lens plate in the shoe, apply a tad of torque to each of the side knobs and the lens will tilt and stay at whatever crazy angle you put it at. If you slack off the tripod mounting collar on the lens, you're also free to rotate to portrait orientation as you wish.

The only downside of the 393, is that for some reason best known to them, (Manfrotto) they've opted for an arca type plate wider than the accepted generic size, so it's a pain if you want to swap lenses. I'm told you can get extra plates though.

A big plus for the 393 is the built in safety device in the head which prevents the whole lot sliding out of the shoe if you have a blonde moment and forget to tighten up.
 
Alzibiff said:
Thanks Fracster but when tilted, does the camera and lens combo stay where it is put, still can't visualise the tilting operation - does the "rectangle" made by the 393 "frame", effectively bend in the middle by the two knobs and fold back and forwards as the lens tilts?

Alan
Click to expand...

That's not the best way to use it tbh, it's a lot safer with the top 'U' frame downwards.
 
I use mine in the down poistion to, it holds my 500mm f4 and 1d at any angle it's all down to how tightly you adjust the screws, I bought a spare plate for my 300mm f2.8, for £100 it's one of photography's bargains, I see even Canon use them when demoing long lenses at shows etc that recommendation enough for me (y)

Why would anyone use it in the position shown at the top of the thread? :shrug:
 
Agger said:
Why would anyone use it in the position shown at the top of the thread? :shrug:
Click to expand...
Nope. It's Frac -I think he was dropped on his head when he was a kid. :LOL:
 
Agger said:
Why would anyone use it in the position shown at the top of the thread? :shrug:
Click to expand...

So you can angle it further up or down with a longer combo attached.
 
For occasional use I can understand that but unless you take proffessional photo's of the moon then surely the lower position is the only way to use it:shrug:(y)(y)


photon said:
So you can angle it further up or down with a longer combo attached.
Click to expand...
 
It just defeats the whole idea of buying a smoothly moving gimbal in the first place. You're going to need a lot more tension on those knobs, which surely makes smooth movement difficult, and if you inadvertently let go of the camera with the knobs slacked off it's going to tip over with a heck of a thump given the weight involved with a long lens.
 
Top advice everyone. Decided to go with the Manfrotto 393 rather than the Indian Ebay Wimberley look alike after all of the above.

Now ... to wait until the Focus on Imaging show at the NEC (never been to one of these before so don't know if this sort of tackle is on show and on sale) or place my order now?

Alan
 
I was sure that the 393 was fine for the 500mm, but for the 600mm it was pushing it. Fracster is using it with his Sigmonster? That's a lot of weight!
 
A tip I picked up from Romy Ocon's site about the 393, was that if you remove the rubber boot from the pan locking knob, ( just pull it off) you'll see a hole in the side of the knob which houses a small Allen screw. Using an Allen key you can tighten or slacken the screw to get your preferred amount of panning resistance just right.
 
Thanks for the tip CT, have placed my order for one of these with Fotosense via their website. (Called them this lunchtime but there were none in stock in Bolton otherwise I would have it in my sticky paw as I write ..... maybe not as I am tripeing with two hands :) )

Alan
 
stylgeo said:
I was sure that the 393 was fine for the 500mm, but for the 600mm it was pushing it. Fracster is using it with his Sigmonster? That's a lot of weight!
Click to expand...

I use the 393 with my 600f4 and 40d with battery grip and ive had no probs with it (to me its well worth the money) (y)
 
I use my 393 the same way as fracster. (Lens foot on top of lens) It does not balance perfectly as a true gimbal does, (ie stay exactly where you leave it), but returns to horizontal if the friction knobs are fully loose.
If I try to use it the other way (lens foot underneath lens, with the "U" bracket in a "U" position), then the lens will bang into the tripod/mount if the friction knobs are loose.
 
Looked at the mount a bit more - In an ideal world you want the centre of the lens to be directly opposite the friction knobs (ie the pivot point.) If the lens centre is above the pivot, when the friction is released the lens will swing down (either forward or back.)

If the lens centre is below the pivot point (and the lens was balanced in the clamp) the lens will swing to horizontal when the friction is released. With my 600mm the U bracket has to be upside down to get the lens centre below the pivot. With smaller lens, you can either use one of the alternative pivot points on the U bracket, or use it as a U shape to get the setup to balance.
 
tappilappi said:
Looked at the mount a bit more - In an ideal world you want the centre of the lens to be directly opposite the friction knobs (ie the pivot point.) If the lens centre is above the pivot, when the friction is released the lens will swing down (either forward or back.)

If the lens centre is below the pivot point (and the lens was balanced in the clamp) the lens will swing to horizontal when the friction is released. With my 600mm the U bracket has to be upside down to get the lens centre below the pivot. With smaller lens, you can either use one of the alternative pivot points on the U bracket, or use it as a U shape to get the setup to balance.
Click to expand...
It sounds like the problem peculiar to the 600mm then might be the supplied Manfrotto plate not being long enough to balance the 600mm.The plate is nowhere near as long as a Wimberley P9 plate which I use.

The non standard Arca mount is the biggest drawback of the 393.
 
I use mine the same way as Joe t does and with the 600 it balances spot on with the friction knobs loose
 
macky799 said:
I use mine the same way as Joe t does and with the 600 it balances spot on with the friction knobs loose
Click to expand...

Well that's how it should be. You can of course turn the head through 180 degs to put the foot closer or further away from you if you need more balancing leeway. Anyone with the 393 will understand that I think. :D
 
CT - It's not the plate that is the problem, it is the height from the bottom of the foot to the centre of the lens. If I use my 393 the same way as Joe the centre of the lens (height ways, NOT length ways) becomes above the pivot point. To use it as Joe does I would need a deeper "U" bracket.
 
tappilappi said:
CT - It's not the plate that is the problem, it is the height from the bottom of the foot to the centre of the lens. If I use my 393 the same way as Joe the centre of the lens (height ways, NOT length ways) becomes above the pivot point. To use it as Joe does I would need a deeper "U" bracket.
Click to expand...

Mines is above the pivot point as well but if you balance the lens and body with the friction knobs loose so the hole lot stays level, then tighten the knobs and after that you can move it to any angle let it go and it should stay there (seems to work for me) (y)
 
tappilappi said:
CT - It's not the plate that is the problem, it is the height from the bottom of the foot to the centre of the lens. If I use my 393 the same way as Joe the centre of the lens (height ways, NOT length ways) becomes above the pivot point. To use it as Joe does I would need a deeper "U" bracket.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, I'm really struggling to envisage where you're having the problem, especially in view of Macky's last post. Matt (The mod) uses an 800 Sigmonster on the 393 and I don't think it's modified in any way.

The whole secret is well described by macky - slack off both torque knobs- slide the lens back or forwards so that it hangs level - tighten the plate in the mount - apply a tad of torque to the knobs and you should be good to go.
 
CT said:
A tip I picked up from Romy Ocon's site about the 393, was that if you remove the rubber boot from the pan locking knob, ( just pull it off) you'll see a hole in the side of the knob which houses a small Allen screw. Using an Allen key you can tighten or slacken the screw to get your preferred amount of panning resistance just right.
Click to expand...

That is in the FTM Cedric.....:naughty:

You guys should read it.

For me and what I do.It is better to be as shown, for others it may be different,simple as that.All said and done, it is a good piece of versatile kit.
 
fracster said:
That is in the FTM Cedric.....:naughty:

You guys should read it.

For me and what I do.It is better to be as shown, for others it may be different,simple as that.All said and done, it is a good piece of versatile kit.
Click to expand...

I tell you what, I'm gonna try it now. :LOL:
 
CT said:
A tip I picked up from Romy Ocon's site about the 393, was that if you remove the rubber boot from the pan locking knob, ( just pull it off) you'll see a hole in the side of the knob which houses a small Allen screw. Using an Allen key you can tighten or slacken the screw to get your preferred amount of panning resistance just right.
Click to expand...

Seriously mate, I cannot fathom how/why one would use it any other way, the way Joe has it in the pic, it is so restricting. The way I use mine has damn near,+-10 degrees, 0 degrees to 180 vertical movement and 360........:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top