Manfrotto 393 (or any other gimbal system)

PMSL.

I tell you what guys - I take it all back! Provided you slide the lens so it balances level, then with the knobs slacked right off the lens just swings around the balance point with no danger of tipping at all, whatever the angle you leave it at and eventually just rights itself and hangs level. With a bit of torque on the knobs I can't see it's any less functional than mounted the other way round.

Please accept my heartfelt apologies Frac for taking the pith. :D
 
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...

Perhaps the answer is a lower profile tripod foot? I have replaced the high profile Nikon one on mine with a Kirk replacement. (Wimberley do one too). It makes the centre of the lens in line with the pivot point on the 393.

HTH :)
 
For the record.....:D

I got this pic,OK it is not brilliant, when the bird was damned near directly overhead.I don`t think it would have been possible if the lens was mounted upon the head rather than hung underneath it.

Sparrowhawk3resized.jpg



PS..........I`ll forgive you this once Cedric.........;)
 
some good info in here

is there a video anywhere on the net demonstrating how it works/moves etc
 
Im looking at the 393 to go on the redsnapper 283c Carbon fibre. do any of you kind people know what lens plate(s) i would need for the canon 400mm f/2.8?

Thanks

Andy
 
Rovers_Andy said:
Im looking at the 393 to go on the redsnapper 283c Carbon fibre. do any of you kind people know what lens plate(s) i would need for the canon 400mm f/2.8?

Thanks

Andy
Click to expand...

The 393 comes complete with a long lens plate which should be OK with your 400mm 2.8. Just be aware that you wont be able to get a longer plate for the 393 as the type of plate is unique to the 393 - not a generic arca type plate, and the one provided is the longest one. Having said that, I've used the plate with my 500mm f4L and converters and never been short of adjustment length so I don't think you'll have a problem.
 
The 393 comes complete with a long lens plate which should be OK with your 400mm 2.8. Just be aware that you wont be able to get a longer plate for the 393 as the type of plate is unique to the 393 - not a generic arca type plate, and the one provided is the longest one. Having said that, I've used the plate with my 500mm f4L and converters and never been short of adjustment length so I don't think you'll have a problem.
Click to expand...

Hi CT thanks for the reply(y)

Will let you know how i get on
 
Ok well i tried the 393 today for the first time (having forgotten about this thread) i automatically set it up with the top U bracket below the tripod collar, wasn't a problem panning but trying to tilt it i found i had to apply a lot of torque, maybe 2-3 full turns on the knobs. A few hours later and getting p**sed off i came home. :dummy:

Psifox pointed me to this thread (after i had forgotten i had posted in here :LOL: )and i have just tried it with the lens underslung as Fracster described and it works a heck of a lot better.

Just need to get my head round all this exposing to the right stuff now :thinking:
 
I assume you're using the long Manfrotto plate which comes with the head?

Regardless of whether you mount the lens 'on' the head or undersling it with the inner 'U' bracket uppermost, you need to balance the lens/camera combination around it's center of gravity.

First of all apply maximum toque to left and right knobs before you mount the camera. This is important, but particularly so if you undersling the lens as the 'U' bracket will keep swinging away from you as you try to mount the lens plate in the shoe.

Mount the camera in the shoe and tighten the plate in the shoe, making sure it's properly in place and being gripped by the jaws on both sides.

NOW ... making sure you support the camera, (keep a firm hold of it) completely undo the torque on both side knobs. It will tend to be either nose heavy or camera end heavy. Keeping a firm hold of the camera, now undo the jaws of the shoe just sufficiently to slide it either backwards or forwards until the camera and lens hangs horizontally. You just need the lightest hold on the camera at this stage to be safe and check that the mass is balanced.

Now tighten the plate up in the shoe, and apply just the slightest torque to the left and right knobs

The right knob easily locks the head completely, so you want very little torque on that knob.

The left knob is the one which gives most torque control and provided everything is balanced properly, only the slightest torque is required on the left knob to be able to tilt the camera to any position and be able to leave it there. It should be pretty well effortless if set up properly.

Having any converter on the lens or flash mounted on the camera can make a big diffrerence to the point of balance and you may find you run out of sliding adjustment. You'll see that the mounting shoe is off center and you can make a huge difference to the point of balance by simply turning the whole head around and inserting the plate into the shoe from the opposite side.

Hope that helps?
 
Thanks for the advise CT, i've mounted the lens how you described but i'm still struggling with the lens mounted "on top" method.

I can get the lens balanced but as soon as i tilt it up or down it becomes unbalanced and over rotates. It may well be that i'm not making small enough adjustments.

This is with the 400 f/2.8 1.4 TC and 2xTC and MKIII

When i mount the lens "underneath" the bracket and get it balanced i can tilt it with minimal friction and the lens will return to its centre of gravity.

I think im going to stick with the underslung method for the moment even though the my head is saying mounting it on top of the bracket should be more secure


Thanks Andy
 
M keboad fuked............:bonk:

*** t eghto Ad,` t to hep ou.

bugger........:thumbsdown:
 
Apologies,I have purchased a new keyboard this morning.........:)
 
no worries fracster :)

As i mentioned last night i tried using the 393 both ways. I as able to get i balanced when mounted on top of the u bracket but found it was unstable equilibrium as any tilting movement causes the kit to over rotate and hit the tripod legs. :bang:

Set it up how you described with the kit underslung and it works far better, i can tilt the kit, let go and it returns to a level position. Add a little torque and i can tilt it and stays exactly where i want it :D. Far happier now its working how i expected

Just annoying that it doesn't stay in stable equilibrium when mounted on top. Looking at it i think the height of the tripod collar could be the issue:thinking:

Andy
 
Rovers_Andy said:
no worries fracster :)

As i mentioned last night i tried using the 393 both ways. I as able to get i balanced when mounted on top of the u bracket but found it was unstable equilibrium as any tilting movement causes the kit to over rotate and hit the tripod legs. :bang:

Set it up how you described with the kit underslung and it works far better, i can tilt the kit, let go and it returns to a level position. Add a little torque and i can tilt it and stays exactly where i want it :D. Far happier now its working how i expected

Just annoying that it doesn't stay in stable equilibrium when mounted on top. Looking at it i think the height of the tripod collar could be the issue:thinking:

Andy
Click to expand...
Hi Andy,

you must either be doing something wrong with it or the plate just can't/won't find the centre of gravity of your combo, my 393 with 1D Mark II and Sigma 500mm F4.5 was well balanced and never fell against the legs in fact even if I threw the combo over my shoulder to carry it, it still stayed balanced and the body/lens stayed level. I use the sit on top of the 393 method 100% of the time.

You are leaving everything slack until you get the balance and tightening everything up after that?

Mike.

PS: you have noticed that the 393 female section ( where the plate slides into ) protrudes more on one end than the other and this can give you more to play with for centre of gravity, no?


.
 
[/QUOTEYou are leaving everything slack until you get the balance and tightening everything up after that?

Mike.

PS: you have noticed that the 393 female section ( where the plate slides into ) protrudes more on one end than the other and this can give you more to play with for centre of gravity, no?

Yeah i am leaving the torque knobs slack:naughty: until balanced

Yeah im aware of the female bracket being off centre and that it makes a difference when balancing, i tried balancing the lens with flush end towads and away from me.

Having done a few quick experiments and measurements this morning the problem is this:

the pivot point of the 393 is lower than the centre line of the kit when mounted on top (unstable equilibrium) :thumbsdown:

the pivot point of the 393 is higher than the centreline of the kit when underslung (stable equilibrium)(y)

So if i want to mount it on top of the bracket i will have to get a lower profile tripod mounting bracket :shrug:


oops sorry that post sounds a little rude, hope it didnt come across that way
Click to expand...
 
Many thanks for that Mark, i'd had a quick look on the wimberley site but hadn't spotted that.

The help is much appreciated

Cheers

Andy
 
Rovers_Andy said:
oops sorry that post sounds a little rude, hope it didnt come across that way
Click to expand...
Hi Andy,

not at all, just wanted to make sure you hadn't done the same as myself and not realised the mount was different whatever way round the pivot was, it was ages before I spotted it :LOL: :amstupid:

Hope you manage to work it out with a different plate as it really is a cracking piece of kit for the money (y)

Mike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top