Gimbal recommendation

Depends on your budget. Wimberley gimbals, are excellent, but expensive. On the more budget end, look at the Manfrotto 393 gimbal head.
 
As above. Wimberley for quality if money isn't an issue. Lensmaster are great (A mate uses his D4, 400 F2.8 + 2Xtc on one) Manfrotto 393 if your budget is less.
There are also a few Chinese gimbals that are rated fairly good.
 
I have all three, Wimble, LM, and 393

The 393 is great value for money at £120 and will support a big lens ...... but you will never be satisfied until you have bought a Wimberley WH 200 which is a quality piece of kit and so it should be at the price.

Do not for get the tripod foot - the lens feet that come with Nikons are not Arca Swiss compatible, you have to fit an extra plate, which I don't really like plus they can be just too high, I have just fitted a Kirk shorter foot, (£70 from Wex), to my 600mm .. Kirk are Arca Swiss compatible ...... the lens on the Gimbal seems far more solid.

Not sure if Canon are the same

The 393 has a Manfrotto fitting but the plate comes with the gimbal.

The Lensmaster just does not do it for me ...... never really had any complaints but I just feel the build quality could be better, especially as it is more expensive than the 393.

unlimited budget - Wimberley plus change the lens foot is needed

limited budget - 393 and a couple of plates

with the Gitzo tripod, Wimberley Gimbal, 600mm lens and D700 with extra battery and grip, I now have to take my wife with my to carry all my stuff!!!....... so weight it all up in more ways than one
 
I have had zero issues with my Benro. have a GH1 (sidemount) at the moment and am thinking of upgrading to a GH2 (under mount).
 
I have a benro and a wimberley, the benro is not far off the wimberley quality and much cheaper, (runs for cover)!
 
Whatever you get, make sure you can adjust the height of the lens. Otherwise it's impossible to get everything balanced. The 393, as far as I can recall, does not allow fine adjustment of the height. That means you're likely to have the pivot axis of the lens well below the centre of gravity, like this image here. As soon as this lens is tilted there will be a torque that will act to rotate the lens back to the horizontal. You'll need to add friction to hold the lens in place.

With a proper gimbal, properly adjusted, the pivot axis will pass through the centre of gravity. You can tilt the lens to any position and it will stay there with no added friction. You can move the lens in any direction - up, down, left, right - with just the lightest touch. Here's a well-centred gimbal LINK
 
hollis_f said:
Whatever you get, make sure you can adjust the height of the lens. Otherwise it's impossible to get everything balanced. The 393, as far as I can recall, does not allow fine adjustment of the height. That means you're likely to have the pivot axis of the lens well below the centre of gravity, like this image here. As soon as this lens is tilted there will be a torque that will act to rotate the lens back to the horizontal. You'll need to add friction to hold the lens in place.

With a proper gimbal, properly adjusted, the pivot axis will pass through the centre of gravity. You can tilt the lens to any position and it will stay there with no added friction. You can move the lens in any direction - up, down, left, right - with just the lightest touch. Here's a well-centred gimbal LINK
Click to expand...

that's interesting Frank ....... so it should stay in position no matter what angle it is at - even when the locking screw is loose ............ am i correct in my understanding as I cannot see how that can happen ...... must have a go tomorrow
 
BillN_33 said:
that's interesting Frank ....... so it should stay in position no matter what angle it is at - even when the locking screw is loose ............ am i correct in my understanding as I cannot see how that can happen ...... must have a go tomorrow
Click to expand...

Yup.

 
Many thanks Frank ......... never knew that .......probably just never read the instructions properly
 
Could not get on with the 393. How do you carry the thing with large lens and camera mounted? Could not lock it in the vertical direction. Even spoke to Manfrotto guy at Birdfair and he agreed it could do with a screw to lock the movement for transport.

Now use a Benro and am absolutely delighted with weight, price and build quality. Such a pleasure to be able to do as hollis-f explains. Set it up correctly and it just stays where you put it without tightening.
 
The 393 comes with the long 357PLV sliding plate.
It locks into the `gimbal` by tightening a levered screw on the side & extra security is by means of a spring loaded pin to stop your lens sliding out, but because you can slide it forward or backward before locking it off, you can balance it for centre of gravity.
 
OldCarlos said:
The 393 comes with the long 357PLV sliding plate.
It locks into the `gimbal` by tightening a levered screw on the side & extra security is by means of a spring loaded pin to stop your lens sliding out, but because you can slide it forward or backward before locking it off, you can balance it for centre of gravity.
Click to expand...

You can balance it in one direction. Without an up/down adjustment you can't balance it properly.
 
You can balance it in one direction. Without an up/down adjustment you can't balance it properly.
Click to expand...

Why is up/down needed? (genuine question)

14y98id.jpg
 
Last edited:
To get dead centre of gravity you need to balance the lens back and forth then depending on the gimbal raise or lower the inner arm so the centre of the lens is in line with the pivot point .
This will then let you fully slacken off the adjusting / friction screws and if you move the lens it will stay in position.
To leave it like that it would swing round in a slight breeze so you then have to add friction to make it more stable so it would most likely stay in position even if it wasn't at the centre of gravity.
Some gimbals don't need to be raised to get the same type of effect simply by adding a little friction in the first place, they will still move freely and stay in position too.
Rob.
 
If you get a Wimberly, I also suggest a Reallt Right stuff foot clamp rather than the screw one, it's expensive but I hate the screw, I feel the clamp is a much more secure fitting, here is the link.
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/it.A/id.7528/.f

I've gone over to this for all my monopod/tripod mounts.

George.
 
Frank, I understand the centre of gravity & the axis of rotation, but as Rob said `Some gimbals don't need to be raised to get the same type of effect simply by adding a little friction in the first place, they will still move freely and stay in position too.`
eg the pic above of the 393, I find it balances no probs.
 
I recently picked up a Wimberley Mk1 with the foot grip conversion and I immediately noticed a difference in stability over other gimbals I have used - I don't think that I would ever have paid the asking price for a new Mk2 but this was a good buy.
 
OldCarlos said:
Frank, I understand the centre of gravity & the axis of rotation, but as Rob said `Some gimbals don't need to be raised to get the same type of effect simply by adding a little friction in the first place, they will still move freely and stay in position too.`
eg the pic above of the 393, I find it balances no probs.
Click to expand...

It all depends. In many cases the lens diameter, the height of the foot and the height of the gimbal will all combine so that the CoG and AoR align by chance. But, if you want to be certain that they will align, so that no friction is required, then you need to be able to adjust the height.

The picture you link to shows the case where the user was lucky. This image -link - shows the case where the 393 is totally the wrong height.
 
Last edited:
Frank
Its not you in that video is it ?
Rob.
 
Although they show a lens plate I don't think they come with one.

Rob.
 
A side-mount Gimbal w/ long plate guarantees the ability to center the weight. BUT with a tall foot it can put the weight dangerously off to the side.
IMO, a vertically adjustable bottom mount Gimbal is best... I've had a Benro GH2 for about 5 yrs without significant complaint.

A Gimbal *should* always have "some" friction applied...the resistance helps smooth out panning movements. And that's my one issue w/ the Benro... the panning tension is very hard to set ideally. It's engages pretty quickly.

FWIW, I've been using a UniqBall for a while now and it works almost as well as a Gimbal (it works as well as, or better than an uncentered Gimbal). It's price is up there w/ Wimberley, but it's more versatile than a Gimbal.
 
Last edited:
yep, works, just set my 600mm Nikon up "properly" on the WH-200 ll

presumably it may be different for every lens …. i.e. my 300mm f2.8VR will be in a different position

Thanks again Frank
 
think I got a benro off here from susssexblue, abit of extra lubricant impoved the feel of it :)

as for plates, then there's a cheapish brand called kiwi or something that are nice, 10-15 quid. Have a top lip to stop it rotating, and bottom isn't milled out so its better for hand holding too
 
Thanks again for all the hep and advice I have decided to go for the Benro GH3 :ty:
 
Benro GH2 for me and my 200-400mm F4L :) does the job quite nicely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top