Lensmaster gimbal head
- Thread starter smr
- Start date
So the lensmaster doesn't work with all lenses unless you are lucky. If not you need to put some friction on the head.
The wimberley will work without having any friction applied at all.
The lensmaster is a compromise. If a compromise is worth x number of pounds to people then buy it. Personally I wouldnt give it house room because of the very fact that it is compromised.
The wimberley will work without having any friction applied at all.
The lensmaster is a compromise. If a compromise is worth x number of pounds to people then buy it. Personally I wouldnt give it house room because of the very fact that it is compromised.
Do you guys use your gimbals for air shows?
I went to RIAT last year and used my 150-600 handheld.. .and also at Cosford, but noticed there was a guy with a large lens (probably a 500 or 600 Canon) on a gimbal - I understand why he would need to do that but is there any sense in doing it for a 150-600? Is tracking the aircraft easier etc?
I went to RIAT last year and used my 150-600 handheld.. .and also at Cosford, but noticed there was a guy with a large lens (probably a 500 or 600 Canon) on a gimbal - I understand why he would need to do that but is there any sense in doing it for a 150-600? Is tracking the aircraft easier etc?
I did pick up a Wimberley MkI at a good price and having had a Manfrotto 393 and a Lensmaster I can assure you that the Wimberley is in a class way above for smoothness and build quality ... people pay over £600 for a tripod to ensure a stable platform, it makes sense to get the best that you can afford.
There are a lot of situational variables... I use a 400/2.8 (+TCs) and I almost never use a tripod. I do if set in one place for extended times and it's conducive, but that is rare (using a tripod in a situation where you can't move much is very limiting). As I noted early on, I've switched back to using pan-tilt heads (UniqBall).
Obviously, if not using a tripod (or other stable support) then the SS will generally need to be higher (unless panning). But don't think an unlocked gimbal head significantly reduces that requirement... it's really only supporting the weight, it's doing next to nothing for preventing camera shake other than alleviating muscle fatigue.
Obviously, if not using a tripod (or other stable support) then the SS will generally need to be higher (unless panning). But don't think an unlocked gimbal head significantly reduces that requirement... it's really only supporting the weight, it's doing next to nothing for preventing camera shake other than alleviating muscle fatigue.
- Messages
- 11,466
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I use my gimbal on my monopod as I don't see the point in spending more money for another head when I already own the gimbal. 
The reason I use my monopod is due to me being a bit of a weakling, and the camera moving about. I find the monopod provides enough stability, and as a result, I take more sharp/in focus images.
If I'm spending a lot of time in the one place, then the gimbal goes onto my tripod.
The reason I use my monopod is due to me being a bit of a weakling, and the camera moving about. I find the monopod provides enough stability, and as a result, I take more sharp/in focus images.
If I'm spending a lot of time in the one place, then the gimbal goes onto my tripod.
For me it depends on the gear really. With a Sigma 150-600 on my 1DX shooting say a static bird at 600mm I have to keep the shutter speed at 1000th to make sure there is no degradation due to my shaking. I did try and add a 1.4x TC to the mix and definitely needed support regardless of shutter speed.
With my m4/3 gear both body and lens have IS capability combined so even shooting handheld at 840mm FF equivalent I'm confident.
With my m4/3 gear both body and lens have IS capability combined so even shooting handheld at 840mm FF equivalent I'm confident.
Has anyone changed from a Manfrotto 393 to a lensmaster?
Seriously considering switching mine for an LM but need to try one first, I think
Seriously considering switching mine for an LM but need to try one first, I think
But my situation is a bit different to yours: my company has both in stock so I'll just grab whichever is available when I need something.
If I owned my own 393, would I sell it and but an RH-2? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Yet.
Getting sharp shots hand held with lenses like a 500 F4 or bigger is actually quite easy as the sheer weight of the lens damps down the small vibrations that can ruin photographs. I use my 800mm F5.6 hand held about a third of the time. There is a catch however (there always is!) hand holding a long heavy lens gets very tiring very quickly which is why I use a Gimbal and tripod whenever practical.
Currently I use two Gimbal heads, the Lensmaster RH 1 and Wimberley 2.
With lighter lenses the RH 1 is a great option and functions well especially with standard camera bodies. It is cheap, robustly made and roughly half the weight of a "Full" Gimbal. I think you would be quite happy with one of these for your 150-600. The "Full" Gimbal heads really come into their own if one is using larger and heavier lenses and, despite some comments, the vertical adjustment can be critical to getting a good balance with some larger lenses - well every one that I own or have owned!
Currently I use two Gimbal heads, the Lensmaster RH 1 and Wimberley 2.
With lighter lenses the RH 1 is a great option and functions well especially with standard camera bodies. It is cheap, robustly made and roughly half the weight of a "Full" Gimbal. I think you would be quite happy with one of these for your 150-600. The "Full" Gimbal heads really come into their own if one is using larger and heavier lenses and, despite some comments, the vertical adjustment can be critical to getting a good balance with some larger lenses - well every one that I own or have owned!
....I have the small Jobu Jr-3 Deluxe which I use mounted on a Platypod Max < A very useful setup in hides for example. Jobu gimbals are excellent in all respects.
Otherwise I have one of the first Gitzo Fluid Gimbal Heads in the UK and have used it regularly for 6 weeks mounted on a Gitzo Systematic tripod and supporting a Canon 500mm F/4L II. While out in the field I have let friends have a half-hour play/shoot with it while I have transferred my camera to their gimbal. Result is that 2 are now selling their Wimberley 2 and 3 others have now ordered the Gitzo. I found the Wimberley 2 to feel too loose by comparison as the Gitzo's fluid damping does so much to help nail the shots. The Wimberley 2 is very good indeed but if you try out the Gitzo Fluid Gimbal you'll understand that the difference is like chalk and cheese.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/so-who-is-getting-the-new-gitzo-gimbal-fluid-head.671248/
Otherwise I have one of the first Gitzo Fluid Gimbal Heads in the UK and have used it regularly for 6 weeks mounted on a Gitzo Systematic tripod and supporting a Canon 500mm F/4L II. While out in the field I have let friends have a half-hour play/shoot with it while I have transferred my camera to their gimbal. Result is that 2 are now selling their Wimberley 2 and 3 others have now ordered the Gitzo. I found the Wimberley 2 to feel too loose by comparison as the Gitzo's fluid damping does so much to help nail the shots. The Wimberley 2 is very good indeed but if you try out the Gitzo Fluid Gimbal you'll understand that the difference is like chalk and cheese.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/so-who-is-getting-the-new-gitzo-gimbal-fluid-head.671248/
Last edited:
Long lens users have been saying similar things about the beneficial effects of a bit of fluid damping for a long time, often in relation to the very cheap (like £50-ish) gimbals widely available under different names on Amazon/ebay. They're very simple devices with plain bearings, no fancy roller or ball-bearings, but when properly adjusted and lubricated with good grease (which usually means a bit of DIY, lots of YouTube vids on that) then they appear to work well. I don't speak from personal experience but this guy swapped his Wimberley and Jobo gimbals for a cheapy Beike 45
This is not rocket science. The benefits of fluid damping have been known to movie makers like forever and now that a big name like Gitzo has waded in, no doubt Wimberley etc will produce fluid-damped versions soon. Just the excuse they need to push the price up to £1000
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmvcui3m_a4
This is not rocket science. The benefits of fluid damping have been known to movie makers like forever and now that a big name like Gitzo has waded in, no doubt Wimberley etc will produce fluid-damped versions soon. Just the excuse they need to push the price up to £1000
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,764
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
I just sold one of the cheapo Chinese ones that I had stripped down and rebuilt ,unfortunately they are definetly not as good as a proper one even cleaned ,greased and ptfe washers added ( I do have a engineering background so I know what I'm doing ) and I suppose a lot depends on what body and lens combo you use to
I have a redundant lensmaster one I do not use, I replaced it with a RRS one which I like as being a component item you can fold it up and also use it as a pano head, the best thing I did to the Lensmaster item was to fit a RRS arca plate to the base allowing me to clamp and remove it from my tripod quickly.
ok my opinion for what it is worth , I have the Wimberley 2, lens master rh2 , and a heavy ball head, all handle my lenses for wildlife on mainly my carbon fibre monopod, I should say that my lenses are all heavy primes 300mm 2.8 , 400mm 4.5 , 500mm 4.5 , pick of the bunch is the ball head for no other reason than its more compact, the Wimberley is awesome but heavy, and the lens master is really good I have had the shortest time but was surprised by its size weight and build quality, I had some how thought it would be lighter and made from thinner alloy, I don't like the cheap lens plates supplied with it but that's just because they tend to let heavy lenses twist on the plates