Induro Gimbal Hold A 500mm?

[DMITPHOTO]

I saw this that it would mount in a bh55 rrs but says up to 300mm. I was just wondering if it would hold the 500mm for a gimbal effect instead if buying a whole gimbal head. Or does anyone know of something similar that can hold the 500?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655338-REG/Induro_485_000_GHBA_Gimbal_Head.html

 

[neuroanatomist]

Seems to be a 20% cheaper version of the Wimberley Sidekick. I'd check out Wimberley's page on full gimbal vs. side mount to help your decision.

Personally, I think the full gimbal is the better choice (and I like the RRS version for the added flexibility of conversion to nodal pano head, although an additional $140 clamp is needed).

 

[DMITPHOTO]

Seems to be a 20% cheaper version of the Wimberley Sidekick. I'd check out Wimberley's page on full gimbal vs. side mount to help your decision.

Personally, I think the full gimbal is the better choice (and I like the RRS version for the added flexibility of conversion to nodal pano head, although an additional $140 clamp is needed).

The sidekick seems like a better model. I like the rrs gimbal but isn't it like $800? Lol I'm looking for something that can maybe clamp on or something so I don't have to change heads if the tripod which isn't a big deal but of course a full gimbal would be much more sturdy

 

[photophreek]

I have the Induro/Sidekick knock off and it's fine for the 70-200 II and possibly the 300 2.8, but I wouldn't use it for the 500mm. I also have the 500mm ver 1 and when I got it, I also bought the Wimberley Sidekick. The Sidekick seems beefier than the Induro product. I also like the Sidekick's part that slides into the ballhead's AS clamp better than the Induro.

The Sidekick is fine for the weight of the 500mm. The most important part of this setup is a robust ballhead. From my experience, the ballhead's weight capacity should be at least 39 lbs and more. If you have the budget, the Wimberley II head is the best solution. The Wimberley II's weight capacity is 150lbs. The problem with the full gimbal is taking it off and putting it back on the tripod when you need just a ballhead. The on and off places a strain on the tripod mount screw.

 

[canon816]

I used a sidekick for a couple of years with a 300 f2.8 and then a 600f4. It does the job... ok. My father in Law has a 500f4 which I have also used on a sidekick and it is still just OK.

About 2 months ago I upgraded to a WH200 Wimberley and I will never look back. It makes my 600mm f4+1DIV feel feather light. The panning is so smooth and effortless.

It is a couple hundred cheaper then the RRS and every bit as good. Also if you want to switch setups and clamp in your L-Bracket on your camera body there is a simple $80 Wimberley adapter to do so. Easy to use and even allows you to back it up to some degree to eliminate parallax when shooting panos.

To really make this the ultimate setup I installed a RRS leveling base. It is so easy to level my setup now. No more extending legs back and forth. I can take a few steps with my 600 mounted and have a level setup in under 2 seconds.

You will spend a little more to do all of this, but if you are hoping to support a 500 f4 adequately then you should seriously consider the upgrade. You will not be disappointed, and will end up selling your BH55.

Seems to be a 20% cheaper version of the Wimberley Sidekick. I'd check out Wimberley's page on full gimbal vs. side mount to help your decision.

Personally, I think the full gimbal is the better choice (and I like the RRS version for the added flexibility of conversion to nodal pano head, although an additional $140 clamp is needed).

The sidekick seems like a better model. I like the rrs gimbal but isn't it like $800? Lol I'm looking for something that can maybe clamp on or something so I don't have to change heads if the tripod which isn't a big deal but of course a full gimbal would be much more sturdy

 

[neuroanatomist]

I like the rrs gimbal but isn't it like $800? Lol I'm looking for something that can maybe clamp on or something so I don't have to change heads if the tripod which isn't a big deal but of course a full gimbal would be much more sturdy

It's not cheap, true. But if you have a need to do nodal panos, it's cheaper than a full gimbal and a nodal setup. Else, save $200 and get the Wimberley II. For a 500mm lens, I'd go with a full gimbal over a side mount.

The Sidekick is fine for the weight of the 500mm. The most important part of this setup is a robust ballhead. From my experience, the ballhead's weight capacity should be at least 39 lbs and more. If you have the budget, the Wimberley II head is the best solution. The Wimberley II's weight capacity is 150lbs.

It's not just about load capacity. You also have to mount the lens into the clamp and balance it - with a full gimbal the cradle supports the lens while you do that, but with a side mount, you have support the lens with one hand while you mount it, and that can be hard with a longer lens.

The problem with the full gimbal is taking it off and putting it back on the tripod when you need just a ballhead. The on and off places a strain on the tripod mount screw.

It's an added cost (of course), but RRS offers a leveling base with an integrated clamp, and dovetail plates for heads (the 40mm one fits the Wimberley II) - that allows fast switching between ballhead and gimbal. Or, with the RRS full gimbal, you can slide the FAS clamp onto the vertical rail (same way you'd set up a pano) and mount the camera's L-bracket to the gimbal.

 

[DMITPHOTO]

Hmm well I have 2 tripods that can hold the biggests lens etc, and have the ball head and then an off center balk head. Of courselves off center would never work with a super tele and the bh55 holds it but I'd like the gimbal aspect. So, even though the bh55 is awesome maybe selling that and just getting the full 200 would be better. Either way for the rrs or wim full it's like $600-800 which is more than I want to spend but would prolly be better in the long run. I just dont want to carry basically 2 set ups as far as 2 tripods and 2 heads plus gear bag haha.

 

[DMITPHOTO]

"but RRS offers a leveling base with an integrated clamp, and dovetail plates for heads (the 40mm one fits the Wimberley II) - that allows fast switching between ballhead and gimbal."

What is it??

 

[canon816]

"but RRS offers a leveling base with an integrated clamp, and dovetail plates for heads (the 40mm one fits the Wimberley II) - that allows fast switching between ballhead and gimbal."

What is it??

This is what I use:
TA-3-LB: Versa 3 LB with Platform

I have a Gitzo series 3 tripod. They have other bases depending on what you have. With this base, and a full gimball, you don't need two tripods. This one setup will do it all! (Provided you buy the $80 adapter to clamp into an L Plate)

 

[canon816]

Here is a link:
http://reallyrightstuff.com/Items.aspx?key=cat&code=TripodsLB

 

[DMITPHOTO]

Haha that things cool! So you attached one head to that and then if you switch just pops off and change?

 

[canon816]

Yes. but personally I don't really like the dovetail, it has a tiny bit of play.

I opted for this one: http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=TA-3-LB&type=4&eq=TA3LB-001&desc=TA-3-LB%3a-Versa-3-LB-with-Platform&key=ait

I permanently attached my Wimberley WH200 to it and when I want to mount my camera body to it I use this accessory: http://www.tripodhead.com/products/WH-Accessories.cfm Scroll down to see the "module 8"

I prefer the full gimball over the ballhead for shooting landscapes and such. Much better for shooting panos especially when you are shooting multiple levels.

I will never use a ballhead again for anything....

 

[DMITPHOTO]

I thought about that as far as just using the wimberly as the primary head but didn't know how well it'd work for landscape etc but that doesn't seem like to bad of a set up!

 

[canon816]

I thought the same thing at first. I held onto my BH55 for a couple weeks. Now I prefer the wimberley (as long as you use a leveling base). But thats just me, and I'm sure that there are some who would disagree.

I use my wimberley for real estate photography in addition to wildlife. I've shot a dozen houses with it and love it.

I thought about that as far as just using the wimberly as the primary head but didn't know how well it'd work for landscape etc but that doesn't seem like to bad of a set up!

 

[DMITPHOTO]

I'm sure people give some weird looks haha but sense it has the camera plates and stuff and adjust a tripod to level is no big deal so the full gimbal might just be the way to go

 

[photophreek]

Neuro:

I balance the Sidekick along with my 500mm and 1D IV combo very easily. I also have a 580 ex II attached to the lens plate on the 500mm using Wimberley's flash bracket. The trick is to balance this combo once and then mark the lens foot as demonstrated by Clay Wimberley in one of his videos so that balance is only done once. The RRS leveling base with dovetail clamp is a great system.

I completely agree that the best way to go is the Wimberley II with the perpendicular plate. I offered an alternative from my personal experience that the Sidekick is a safe, secure and more economical alternative.

 

[neuroanatomist]

@ photophreek: Thanks, that's great feedback! Has me considering the side mount RRS vs. the full version. In fact, RRS themselves recommend the side mount for lenses up to and including the 800/5.6L.

 

[canon816]

@ photophreek: Thanks, that's great feedback! Has me considering the side mount RRS vs. the full version. In fact, RRS themselves recommend the side mount for lenses up to and including the 800/5.6L.

There are a couple of things to think about before making this choice:

1) While photophreek mentions that it works well for him, i am guessing that he hasn't used a full gimball to compare to it. (I might be wrong and I hate to assume, so please correct me if I am) While the sidekick does handle this load, it does so with mediocrity. Even with a BH55 the panning is not silky smooth like the full gimball. It is safe and secure, but the performance is not even close when trying to track a fast moving object such as a vehicle or bird in flight. Also the vertical range is limited because of the big base of the ballhead. With a full Gimball you can point the lens much higher in the sky.

2) Side mount systems like the sidekick, RRS sidemount, Wimberley Side mount actually introduce vibration into the system. There is a lot of cantilever leverage by mounting on the side that does not dampen vibration the same way a full gimball like the WH200 does. A good friend of mine has done extensive testing with FoCal on this and found that supporting from underneath the camera like the WH200 or RRS will produce a higher IQ value. I did similar testing myself when I purchased my WH200. I compared IQ between the sidekick +RRS BH55 and the WH200 and found that IQ actually improved by 10% with the full gimball that supports from below. I was able to repeat this result with both a 600mm f4 and a 300mm f2.8 lens.

While we do use our hand/arm to support and dampen vibration by placing it above and below the lens barrel while shooting, I believe that it it is much better to start out with a lower vibration, higher IQ setup if possible.

If you are on a budget then the sidekick will do what you need.... if you can afford the full WH200 or the more expensive RRS full gimball then it is worth the added cost many times over. The way I look at it is this: I have an $800 tripod, $5,000 camera, $8,000 lens, what is a couple hundred dollars to make it all come together and operate to its fullest potential?

 

[canon816]

Also, I will add to this that when setting a heavy lens and camera body combo into the clamp... it is much more secure when you set it down onto a horizontal mount then when you have to hold it to a vertical mount with one hand and tighten the knob with the other. Peace of mind that you are not balancing some expensive gear while clamping it in...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Also, I will add to this that when setting a heavy lens and camera body combo into the clamp... it is much more secure when you set it down onto a horizontal mount then when you have to hold it to a vertical mount with one hand and tighten the knob with the other. Peace of mind that you are not balancing some expensive gear while clamping it in...

That's actually my main concern. Just to be clear, I'm not at all considering the Wimberley Sidekick. The only side mount I'm considering is the RRS PG-02 LLR, which is the same base and vertical arm as their PG-02 Full Gimbal, but the clamp is attached to the top of the vertical arm, whereas with the full gimbal, there's an additional vertical rail attached at the top of the vertical arm, and the cradle clamp (bottom mount) attached to that.

2) Side mount systems like the sidekick, RRS sidemount, Wimberley Side mount actually introduce vibration into the system. There is a lot of cantilever leverage by mounting on the side that does not dampen vibration the same way a full gimball like the WH200 does. ... I compared IQ between the sidekick +RRS BH55 and the WH200 and found that IQ actually improved by 10% with the full gimball that supports from below. I was able to repeat this result with both a 600mm f4 and a 300mm f2.8 lens.

I wonder how much of that is due to the side mounting, vs. how much is due to the Sidekick mounted to a ballhead? What I'd be most interested in is a comparison between the RRS side mount and the RRS full gimbal.

Can you provide more details on the cantilever vibration, and whether it would be similar with the RRS side mount? It seems to me that the increased torque of having the force transfered via the vertical rail from below the pivot point, rather than having the weight attached directly to the pivot point, would lead to more vibration, not less.

If you are on a budget then the sidekick will do what you need.... if you can afford the full WH200 or the more expensive RRS full gimball then it is worth the added cost many times over.

It's not about the cost. In fact, since one reason I prefer the RRS gimbal over the Wimberley II is the flexibility to use it as a pano head as well, there's not a huge difference in cost. The full gimbal is more expensive, but conversion to a nodal multirow pano setup requires only a clamp, which is cheaper than the nodal slide needed for the side mount gimbal conversion - I think there might be all of $50 difference between the two complete rigs.

Rather, I'm trying to balance (pun intended) the facts that the side mount is:

• simpler (one less clamp)
• easier to break down for travel
• lighter and more compact to carry (two less parts)
• has extra space under the lens when mounted
• able to directly accept a camera mounted via L-bracket for shots with non-collared lenses (full gimbal needs the cradle clamp swapped out for a regular clamp or needs to be swapped for a ballhead), which is useful because the places I find birds/wildlife are also usually nice for scenic shots

vs. the fact that the full gimbal is:

• safer to use while mounting the lens into the clamp

As I said, RRS themselves recommend the side mount over the full gimbal (despite the fact that the former makes them less money). I've discussed with a photographer who's work I admire, who just went with the RRS side mount for his 500 II, and he's quite happy with it. It's worth noting that with the lever release on the side mount, setting the lens in the clamp and half-closing the lever will hold it in place, and it can then be balanced before full locking.

Any additional thoughts appreciated - thanks!