Choosing a Gimbal head

I'm looking for a gimbal head to initially take a 100-400, but then to take a 300 or 400 f2.8 (when the bonus arrives ). The use is primarily wildlife in lowish light conditions. The only model I've been told about (by a wildlife pro) is the Wimberley. I now see that there is the Mk 1 and Mk11 versions, with the Mk1 significantly lower in price. Another brand that has now come tio my attention is the Kirk king Cobra. Any recommendations against the Mk1 (it's miore in my price range at the moment). Should I save for the MkII? Does the Kirk have any advantages or disadvantages over the Wimberley?

All help most gratefully received

I have the Wimberley MK1. It's great. You can save some money by going with the Sidekick.

Here are some, ranging in price from just under $200 to about $600.

http://www.tripodhead.​com/
http://www.jobu-design.com/gimbals.htm​l
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EG&addedTroughT​ype=search
http://www.kirkphoto.c​om/cobra.html

Nice thanks PacAce....

I wonder how the king cobra and the sidekick compair to each other. The Sidekick doesnt have the fluid movement like the king cobra it seems. I am looking into a system like this for motorsports.....

Steve,

Give some consideration to the Manfrotto 501 head:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EG&addedTroughT​ype=search

I use them for motorsports, and they work really well. Once you balance the lens on the sliding QR plate, it is a smooth solution, with contollable drag. The gimbals have a slight advantage in the tipping over department, but only a slight one. Plus, the 501 is signficantly cheaper than a Wimberley.

Have Fun,

Thanks for the info. i do not think i could get past that arm sticking out trying to look through the view finder etc..

Steve Beck wrote in post #2492560
Nice thanks PacAce....

I wonder how the king cobra and the sidekick compair to each other. The Sidekick doesnt have the fluid movement like the king cobra it seems. I am looking into a system like this for motorsports.....

I personally have no experience with the sidekick or any of its derivatives. But I have used the Monfrotto 3421 and the Wimberly HD II gimbal. They, however, were used strictly for shooting birds and they work very well for that purpose. I have yet to use them for motorsports and I don't think I ever will.

The gimbal heads work very well when they are mounted on a tripod. But I don't think there are too many tracks that will allow you to set up a tripod where it won't get in people's way.

Gimbal heads also supposedly work very well mounted on a monopod when shooting birds or other wildlife where your subject will be above or below your eye level most of time. But for motorsports, I think the gimbal heads will just get in the way or become too cumbersome on a monopod. I personally just mount my heavier lenses directly on a monopod without a head.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't like any of the "side mount" options for full sized lenses (like the afore mentioned 400mm f/2.8 )
Side mounts include the Sidekick, Kirk, and many others. (smaller Jobu Black widow included)

Bottom mount is the way, and to the best of my knowledge there are only 3 brands offering a full bottom mount design.

Wimberly (MkI and MkII)
Black Widow
And Manfrotto 3421

I'd take the low cost $160.00 Manfrotto 3421 over any side mount option for large lenses (in fact I did exactly that having tried the side mounts)
But the "Full Wimberly" and that "Heavy Duty Black Widow" are tops,. and the Black Widow full version still offers the option of converting to a side mount, which is more than enough for a lens like the 100-400mm or anything 300mm f/2.8 or smaller.

The Wimberly MkI was THE standard for years, only recently replaced. If cost of the MkII is prohibitive, you might want to seriously consider the MkI

Well I've just had the oportunity to handle the Wimberley Mk1 and Kirk King Cobra. I chose the Wimberley partly because it was bottom mounted but also because it has an adjustable height bracket so you could alter the centre of balance of the lens/camera. For me it also felt better, not necessarily any smoother, but just... better. I do admit that I felt that the side arm projected a bit far and the asthetics were a little unbalanced.

So thanks to mho01 for showing them to me and selling me one

Why do you dislike sidemounts? I am curious as this is a big decision for me.

Steve Beck wrote in post #2494334
Why do you dislike sidemounts? I am curious as this is a big decision for me.

Well, first off I have to say that I don't believe some of the comments that your lens/camera is at risk of falling off/over. The King Cobra is very solid and unless your lens mount ring, or bolt, fails there is no chance of your expensive glass falling off.

However, for me, having the lens sitting in a 'swing' just felt more comfortable. The main side arm didn't project so far out. The centre of balance was more adjustable with the Wimberley.

I had the option of buying either the Wimberley or the Kirk for the same price (used) so price wasn't a material consideration.

I just liked the Wimberley better. You really need to see and handle several models to see which you prefer.

Phideaux wrote in post #2494435
Well, first off I have to say that I don't believe some of the comments that your lens/camera is at risk of falling off/over. The King Cobra is very solid and unless your lens mount ring, or bolt, fails there is no chance of your expensive glass falling off.

However, for me, having the lens sitting in a 'swing' just felt more comfortable. The main side arm didn't project so far out. The centre of balance was more adjustable with the Wimberley.

I had the option of buying either the Wimberley or the Kirk for the same price (used) so price wasn't a material consideration.

I just liked the Wimberley better. You really need to see and handle several models to see which you prefer.

Impossible to see and handle them as no shop around e carry anything of this caliber. I have to go off instinct and recommendation.

I don't like sidemounts for a variety of reasons,.

They just don't balance as well, both in use side to side, and as far as getting that actual center of gravity fixed fro for and aft return to zero adjustment that the bottom mounts have.

But, more to the point, lenses have the "foot" on the bottom, and it seems that in some cases forcing them to be locked into hanging from the foot at the side can in some cases have detrimental effects. In my case, using a big prime this way once resulted in the prime coming "unscrewed" right in the center of the lens,. much to my horror! Fortunately no permanent damage was done, but it put the fear of sidemounts in me.

Thanks for the info. I will either just go with the really right stuff gb55 maybe if they every get them in stock and a Gitzo 1327 legs for now and decide later on a gimbal type head.

I had a 3021bpro and 488rc2 manfrotto setup but the weight of the 1dmk2n and 3002.8 IS lens seems ot be a tad much for it. Even putting the body with my 24-70l on to do studio work it always creeps down a few degrees after trying to lock the camera in the spot i need. I know this is due tot he weight of the equipment and the 488rc2. The ballhead/legs worked fine when I had my 20d.

I have to agree. There seems something inherently wrong about using a lens mounting ring (designed to support the vertical weight of the lens) to hang the weight from one side for any length of time. Perhaps there is a plausable danger of metal failure of the ring, or bolt, over time