[Fl_Gulfer]

I noticed there are a few different makes of the Gimbal heads and was wondering If anyone has tried the Flashpoint Gimbal?
FPGH Flashpoint Gimbal Head 1 with Quick Release, Supports 15.4 lbs.

[Eds]

I have the Flashpoint Gimbal. I have used it with a very heavy Vivitar 12-600mm lens and it work just fine. I cna't compare it to a Wimberly as I've never used one, but I can say the Flasjpoint does a good job for me. Eds

[CertEdFriday]

Looks like a bad copy of a Wimberley Head. Look at the second magnified image in the add and you will see what looks like the real thing. It certainly is expensive, at twice the price, but you can't beat the Wimberley head

[mickeyobe]

I always though a Gimbal allowed fore and aft as well as side to side rocking movements such as with a ship's compass. Thus the camera or compass is always level.
The FPGH seems to only allow fore and aft. There does not seem to be any provision for tilting from side to side. So, to level the horizon. I suppose one would have to adjust the tripod's legs.

How is the camera balanced if it can not be slid back and forth to adjust for the weights of different lenses? With a heavy lens or, indeed, any lens it will flop forward. It looks as if it can be balanced properly with only the camera and no lens.

The two pictures show two different items.

I don't think this should be called a gimbal. Rather than gim-bal perhaps gimm-ick would be more appropriate.

What can it do that a ball and socket or a pan/tilt head, both of which are smaller, less complex and more versatile, cannot do better?

Mickey

---

Last edited by mickeyobe; 11-27-2009 at 05:38 PM.

[dadipentak]

I use a Manfrotto 393 with my 1000mm f/8 and A*400 f/2.8. I wouldn't describe it as an elegant piece of engineering (the horizontal & vertical movement controls don't really allow fine adjustment) but it does the job. For some reason, btw, B&H shows it used with the inner U up and the lens hung under the mount--which is a very bad idea, imho. I use it with the U down and the lens sitting on the mount--see pic.

[Fl_Gulfer]

I just looked at all the data I could find in the past hour and they both tilt and pan and the Flashpoint is only 2.2 lbs about a pound and a half lighter than the wimberley.

[Eaglerapids]

Well, I ran across an old fishing buddy I hadn't seen in 10 years a couple of days ago down at the lake shooting the newly arriving eagles. He's sold all his fishing equipment and fly tying stuff (he is (was) a great flytyer) and at first went to Nikon, sold that and is now a Canon shooter, a very serious Canon shooter. He loves birding and nature photography, has all the gear and knows how to use it.
He uses a Wimberly and I have handled it now and it is a very impressive piece of kit and the results he's getting with his 500/4 are impressive also.
You guys should see me now. There was a guy with a 600/4 (I think), then another 600/4, then a 500/4, another 500/4, then me with my 300/4, they all had Wimberly heads and then me with my ballhead. They all had Canon's, me with my Penty. And we're shooting the heck out of the eagles:-). Talk about a looming inferiority complex. They all have big ones and I just have a little one. And I don't have enough money to get me a big one:-(!
After handling the Wimberly, though, if I had a big one I'd have a Wimberly.

Oh yeah, he uses a leveling thingy on his Gitzo to keep the whole thing leveled, quick and easy.

---

Last edited by Eaglerapids; 11-28-2009 at 04:14 AM.

[Ben_Edict]

I always though a Gimbal allowed fore and aft as well as side to side rocking movements such as with a ship's compass. Thus the camera or compass is always level.
The FPGH seems to only allow fore and aft. There does not seem to be any provision for tilting from side to side. So, to level the horizon. I suppose one would have to adjust the tripod's legs.

How is the camera balanced if it can not be slid back and forth to adjust for the weights of different lenses? With a heavy lens or, indeed, any lens it will flop forward. It looks as if it can be balanced properly with only the camera and no lens.

Ofcourse your theory is correct. Nevertheless the denomination of a "gimbal head" for photographic use is now common... It only has two axis' of movement, vertically and horizontally and if you need to level, you can always use a levelling base.

I don't think this should be called a gimbal. Rather than gim-bal perhaps gimm-ick would be more appropriate.

What can it do that a ball and socket or a pan/tilt head, both of which are smaller, less complex and more versatile, cannot do better?

Mickey

The gimbal head (sic!) has several advantages over any other head, especially for nature or sports photographers: it allows smooth tracking of moving objects, which a pan/tilt head does not, if the objects moves at an angle and not exactly parallel to one of the movement axis'. With heavy lenses a ball head to follow moving objects is a bad choice, as the lens can simply tilt over. If you adjust tension to prevent this, the follow action won't be smooth.

To allow this, the lens/camera-combo must be balanced on the gimbal and then stays put at any angle, without the need to clamp the mount down. These heads are great tools for certain applications.

Ben

[Ben_Edict]

I use a Manfrotto 393 with my 1000mm f/8 and A*400 f/2.8. I wouldn't describe it as an elegant piece of engineering (the horizontal & vertical movement controls don't really allow fine adjustment) but it does the job. For some reason, btw, B&H shows it used with the inner U up and the lens hung under the mount--which is a very bad idea, imho. I use it with the U down and the lens sitting on the mount--see pic.

I use the same mount. If you turn the moving U up, this is ideal for very large lenses, because it keeps the center of gravity below the pivoting point. Also, depending on the angles you are shooting (up or down), one or the other position of the "U" will give you more freedom of movement or better balancing.

Ben

[dadipentak]

I use the same mount. If you turn the moving U up, this is ideal for very large lenses, because it keeps the center of gravity below the pivoting point. Also, depending on the angles you are shooting (up or down), one or the other position of the "U" will give you more freedom of movement or better balancing.

Ben

Thanks for the comment, Ben--some questions:
1. Are you able to adjust the dampening of pan/tilt movement with any sort of precision? In my experience, it's pretty much "free movement" or "lock down" (and "lock-down" is kinda iffy.)

2) I imagine mounting the lens with the U inverted as an awkward and dicey proposition (I'm preternaturally clumsy, btw): you don't find it so?

3) Could you spell out the up/down thing for me for me? If I'm shooting up, mount the lens with the U inverted?

[Wheatfield]

I always though a Gimbal allowed fore and aft as well as side to side rocking movements such as with a ship's compass. Thus the camera or compass is always level.
The FPGH seems to only allow fore and aft. There does not seem to be any provision for tilting from side to side. So, to level the horizon. I suppose one would have to adjust the tripod's legs.

How is the camera balanced if it can not be slid back and forth to adjust for the weights of different lenses? With a heavy lens or, indeed, any lens it will flop forward. It looks as if it can be balanced properly with only the camera and no lens.

The two pictures show two different items.

I don't think this should be called a gimbal. Rather than gim-bal perhaps gimm-ick would be more appropriate.

What can it do that a ball and socket or a pan/tilt head, both of which are smaller, less complex and more versatile, cannot do better?

Mickey

Try using one before you dis them.
Pretty much everything in your post is incorrect.

[gokenin]

You may want to talk to Marc Langille I saw this post of his https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/field-accessories/80342-gitzo-gt3541xls-f...er-tripod.html

where he has a gimbal head on the tripod he might be able to give you some personal opinions of them

[Wheatfield]

You may want to talk to Marc Langille I saw this post of his https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/field-accessories/80342-gitzo-gt3541xls-f...er-tripod.html

where he has a gimbal head on the tripod he might be able to give you some personal opinions of them

Heck, he might even want to talk to me. I use a Wimberley under my A*600/5.6. I can't imagine using a lens like this on a pan or ball head.

[Ben_Edict]

Thanks for the comment, Ben--some questions:
1. Are you able to adjust the dampening of pan/tilt movement with any sort of precision? In my experience, it's pretty much "free movement" or "lock down" (and "lock-down" is kinda iffy.)

2) I imagine mounting the lens with the U inverted as an awkward and dicey proposition (I'm preternaturally clumsy, btw): you don't find it so?

3) Could you spell out the up/down thing for me for me? If I'm shooting up, mount the lens with the U inverted?

I try to make a useful answer:
1. dampening the horizontal axis can be done through tensioning both locking screws slightly up to the point, where you find it comfortable. For me and my lenses this works (500/4.5, sometimes with 1.4x tc and 300/2.8 sometimes with 2x tc) These locking screws stay put at any given tension and Manfrotto intended this use. But I imagine that a Wimberley or other high end gimbal will provide smoother action...
The vertical axis is more tedious to adjust... I don't know why, but Manfrotto hid the tensioning screw (a small Allen screw) below the rubber cap over the lock screw. You need an Allen tool to adjust horizontal tension. I am too lazy to adjust that for any different load and settled with the tension Manfrotto has pre adjusted. It is slightly too loose for my taste, but quite universal....

2. Inverted U mounting is indeed not easy. Fortunately Manfrotto's QR slide helps, as it is very massive and the plate slides nicely back and fro in it. You need to lock the U upwards, when trying to insert the lens. It is not easy and I use it only when really needed, which leads me to

3. Inverted U position is sensible for shooting really steeply skywards. So might be helpful for birding or airplanes. It can also be useful if you want to make distant macro shots with a long lens and extension tubes or a macro lens in place, when you have to aim steeply down (you remember the old Pentax 135-600, which came with a dedicated achromatic lens, for example). In both cases the inverted U gives you more clearance, before the lens colides with the base of the gimbal or the tripod shoulder.

For pure balancing I never found the inverted U necessary, as you have also the freedom to mount the moving U in different heights on the vertical axis. But this ofcourse lens dependent.

Ben

[mickeyobe]

Try using one before you dis them.
Pretty much everything in your post is incorrect.

What's a "dis"?

Mickey