PDA

View Full Version : I've got a new sidekick ...

Bill Boehme
14th of November 2007 (Wed), 14:23
A Wimberly Sidekick, that is.

I've been wanting a Wimberly mount for a long time for my bird photography with a telephoto lens after I learned that it promised to be the most likely solution to fix the problem of drifting due to unbalanced loads on a tripod, but the price tag for the Wimberly has always been too steep for me. One of my biggest complaints about tripod heads, in general, has always been shifting of my aim point on long range shots as I lock the head down after framing a shot. I recently found out that Wimberly also makes a much less expensive mount that is used in conjunction with an existing ball head mount, which in my case is a Manfrotto 468MG -- this particular mount required removing the existing RC2 quick release mount and replacing it with an Arca-Swiss style mount which has sturdier and more positive holding. The azimuth (panning) motion on the Manfrotto head is somewhat stiffer than I would like, but on the upside, it has essentially no stiction (stiction is breakout friction that is the source of jerkiness at the beginning of motion) nor free play. I really like the elevation motion on the Sidekick which I found to be very smooth and easy to set anywhere from very light friction to rock solid locking.

Now, if the word will just get out to all of my feathered friends -- I am now accepting "appointments" for portrait sittings from them.

http://www.pbase.com/image/88950049.jpg

By the way, if anyone knows of a way to adjust the azimuth friction on the Manfrotto ball head, I would greatly appreciate it. I have no fear of digging into the mechanical innards to make a modification.

My results, so far, with the new head is that it fully meets my expectations for smoothness, sturdiness, and mechanical stiffness.
JWright
14th of November 2007 (Wed), 23:53
I don't know about the 486MG, but on the 486RC2 and 488RC2 ball heads you can pull out the panning lock lever and change it's angle to be able to increase the tension on the panning base.
Bill Boehme
15th of November 2007 (Thu), 16:34
I don't know about the 486MG, but on the 486RC2 and 488RC2 ball heads you can pull out the panning lock lever and change it's angle to be able to increase the tension on the panning base.

Thanks for the reply. The way that it works on mine is that pulling out on the knob just sets the knob to a more convenient locking position, sort of like a ratchet head.

Mine did have the RC2 quick release base on it and I possibly could have attached a plate for the RC2 to the foot of the sidekick, but I think that it would have been risky business. If you are not careful, you could leave the little brass safety catch sticking out. Besides, I do not think that the RC2 mount is quite secure enough under heavy load not to mention that it does have a tiny bit of flex.
JWright
15th of November 2007 (Thu), 20:35
I have pretty much the same setup except my head is a 488 with the RC2 clamp replaced with a Kirk clamp. I find I can adjust the panning tension just by tightening the panning lever. That's why I commented on the position of the lever. You can adjust it to make it easier to tighten.

http://www.johnwright.smugmug.com/photos/134381766-M.jpg
Bill Boehme
15th of November 2007 (Thu), 22:20
It appears that we have the same lens. I like the flash bracket that you have -- is it the Wimberly unit? Also, what are the baffles on the flash (if that is what they are) used for?

I feel like the panning tension is a bit too much even when I completely loosen the locking lever. It may be possible that I created some binding as a result of high torque that I applied when tightening the grub screws that secure the ball head in place. They probably aren't even essential nor do they have to be tightened very much, but I really did honk down on them when I installed the ball head on the tripod. It's the old, "if a little torque is good, then a lot must be better" mindset that I sometimes have.
JWright
15th of November 2007 (Thu), 22:26
I don't think it's the same lens... Mine is the 100-400 IS. The "baffle" (as you put it) on my flash is a Better Beamer flash extender. This is a Fresnel-lens equipped device that extends the range of the flash. This way you can use the flash for fill at long distances. The flash bracket is indeed the Wimberley... (You'll have to excuse the quality of the photograph. It was taken with (gasp!) a point and shoot...)

You might try loosening the screws and see what happens. My experience has been that they need to be reasonably snug, but not "gorilla-grip" tight. If you're worried about them coming loose, then apply a little LocTite.
Bill Boehme
15th of November 2007 (Thu), 23:02
I don't think it's the same lens... Mine is the 100-400 IS. The "baffle" (as you put it) on my flash is a Better Beamer flash extender. This is a Fresnel-lens equipped device that extends the range of the flash. This way you can use the flash for fill at long distances. The flash bracket is indeed the Wimberley... (You'll have to excuse the quality of the photograph. It was taken with (gasp!) a point and shoot...)

You might try loosening the screws and see what happens. My experience has been that they need to be reasonably snug, but not "gorilla-grip" tight. If you're worried about them coming loose, then apply a little LocTite.

Thanks for clearing that up -- I saw something in the picture between what I called baffles but did not recognize that it might be a Fresnel lens -- now things make much more sense. I tried a home made rig to hold a Fresnel lens eons ago with my Vivitar 285. It was too flimsy and unwieldy to be practical. I may need to check into the Better Beamer.

Same here on using a P&S to photograph my rig.

I think that I went to the Gorilla grip level of tightness and it certainly would not hurt anything to back off just a bit.

Thanks for all of the help that you have given me.
JWright
15th of November 2007 (Thu), 23:23
You can get the Better Beamer at a number of different places: Amazon, B&H, Naturescapes and Birds as Art (Arthur Morris' website).
shannyD
15th of November 2007 (Thu), 23:27
that is some set up.

shannon
JWright
16th of November 2007 (Fri), 13:11
that is some set up.

shannon

His or mine? It's funny, but now that I'm shooting a lot more air shows, I don't use the tripod and Sidekick as much as I used to. I usually hand hold or use my BushHawk...
col4bin
16th of November 2007 (Fri), 13:33
I am very happy with my sidekick.
Bill Boehme
18th of November 2007 (Sun), 00:37
His or mine? It's funny, but now that I'm shooting a lot more air shows, I don't use the tripod and Sidekick as much as I used to. I usually hand hold or use my BushHawk...

Probably yours. I sort of reached the saturation point on air show pictures about 15 years ago -- I think that there is an upper limit to how many air show shots you can take before there is nothing new to shoot.
calicokat
27th of November 2007 (Tue), 03:28
The sidekick has appeal to me, its easier to take along. Congrats on yours and enjoy ;)
cdifoto
27th of November 2007 (Tue), 03:53
A Wimberly for the 70-200? Isn't that kinda like buying a Lamborghini for grocery shopping? IE overkill? ;) :D
col4bin
27th of November 2007 (Tue), 08:01
A Wimberly for the 70-200? Isn't that kinda like buying a Lamborghini for grocery shopping? IE overkill? ;) :D

Who are you referring to with that comment? If you are referring to me, the sidekick is for my 300/2.8 IS.
JWright
27th of November 2007 (Tue), 20:46
Probably yours. I sort of reached the saturation point on air show pictures about 15 years ago -- I think that there is an upper limit to how many air show shots you can take before there is nothing new to shoot.

I get aid for airshows...

A Wimberly for the 70-200? Isn't that kinda like buying a Lamborghini for grocery shopping? IE overkill? ;) :D

The Sidekick is different than the full Wimberley gimbal head. It can be useful for the smaller lenses. I use mine with a 100-400.