RRS gimbal head question.

[Mr Bean]

I'm looking at getting a 600mm f4 lens later this year. In preparation, I'm looking at buying a Gitzo tripod (I'll stick with Gitzo, simply because I have a Gitzo tripod and monopod already).

Regarding the tripod head, after looking through previous posts, I've settled on the RRS PG-02 FG full gimbal head.

Perhaps a lame question, a number of people who have a gimbal head seem to recommend a levelling base to go with it. Is this simply because it adds flexibility to the gimbal head, since there's no ball head involved (between the gimbal and tripod)? Is the levelling base a "nice to have" but I can get by without one?

The main use of the lens/tripod would be for birding/wildlife.

Note: I have RRS ball / mono heads / plus quick release plates, etc, hence why I'm staying with RRS.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Goldingd]

While I can not answer for birding use, I think I can state that for Panoramic work that the balancing head is a must. In Pano work you absolutely Ned to have the base of the head on a leval plane. Accomplishing that by just adjusting the legs is a pain.

In the case of a PG-02 for Pano work, you would mount the PG-02 to the balancing head, with no ball head or other head in between.

 

[Kestrel]

I have the 600 II and use it with a Mongoose M3.6 gimbal head and RRS TVC-34L legs. I will put in a plug for the Mongoose... it's very light weight and has a locking feature for the pan/tilt that does not rely on cranking down the tension knobs like every other gimbal head in the marketplace. It is a brilliant design for when you need to carry the rig or mount/dismount the lens. I don't think that a leveling base is necessary for use with a gimbal, in fact I think they are a liability as they add weight to your rig, and for wildlife/birds mobility is important. I actually have the RRS leveling base and I never use it for that reason. It's not hard to set the legs so that the head is reasonably level, it doesn't have to be perfectly level for efficient gimbal head use with a supertele.

 

[multnomah]

I have a cheap gimbal head (but I'd like to have the RRS one), and if you're not doing panoramas, you do NOT need to use a leveling base. Just make sure that your horizon is "visually level" in your viewfinder, which is easy to do if your telephoto lens has a mounting ring -- just loosen the ring a bit, and you can rotate the camera/lens as needed.

Gimbals are great for wildlife, but they're not always as useful for birds in flight...which sometimes move faster than you can swing the gimbal head. So be prepared to handhold if necessary with BIF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

First question: have you considered the PG-02 LLR side gimbal instead of the full gimbal? I had initially thought to get the full gimbal, RRS actually recommended the side mount and it works great with my 600/4L IS II. It's lighter, breaks down to two pieces instead of three, and makes it easy to reach your left hand under the lens to use the MF and focus preset rings.

Regarding the leveling base, I think it's a very nice to have. While it's not too hard to get the platform roughly level by adjusting the legs with nothing mounted, doing so with a 600mm lens on the head is more of a challenge, whereas with the leveling base it's a breeze. It's also nice to just not have to worry about the legs positions as you shift around to get a better angle on your subject.

As stated, for pano work you'd need to level the platform properly, a leveling base is almost essential. Both the side and full RRS gimbals can be converted to multirow pano rigs - you need a nodal slide for the side mount, a sliding clamp for the full gimbal, and an L-bracket on the camera. That's another plus for the side mount - with the nodal slide, your ballhead becomes a single row pano rig (leveling base needed there, too).

I presume you're looking at getting a sturdier set of legs than your current Gitzo set? If you get the leveling base, consider the clamping version. I have it, and the RRS dovetail plates on my PG-02 and BH-55, so it's easy to swap between ballhead and gimbal.

Finally, a suggestion for transporting the RRS gimbal. LensCoat makes a dedicated neoprene PG Pouch for it. I have one, and rolled up with the head pieces inside its the size of a 300/2.8, which is ungainly. I subsequently figured out (after trying it on a lark) that the head fits quite will in a Lowepro Lens Exchange 200 AW, which is sized for a 70-200/2.8 and has the SlipLock attachment to hang it in a bag (like the Lowepro Lens Trekker 600 AW II that I use). I posted more info on that in this TDP thread.

Hope that helps!

 

[Mr Bean]

Thanks everyone for the replies. They have all been very helpful in clarifying what I require.

While the pano aspect was something that I thought would be a "nice to have", I might drop that idea, as I don't see myself doing much of it in the near future (I'd like to, one day). Which then simplifies the outcome as I can make do without the leveling base (well, I can work around it).

First question: have you considered the PG-02 LLR side gimbal instead of the full gimbal? I had initially thought to get the full gimbal, RRS actually recommended the side mount and it works great with my 600/4L IS II. It's lighter, breaks down to two pieces instead of three, and makes it easy to reach your left hand under the lens to use the MF and focus preset rings.

Thanks Neuro. I had considered it, but I assumed that the full gimbal was the way to go. Plus it has the pano component to it. However, based on comments made by others, plus this, I'll look at the PC-02 LLR.

Thanks again everyone. It's sometimes difficult to picture the practicalities of these things. And shipping to Australia isn't cheap, so its nice to get first hand experience before I hit the "submit" button on the order

 

[candc]

I don't know which gitzo tripod you have but you might want to give it a try before you go and burn up your checkbook. I use a gitzo gt2540llvl and a lensmaster rh-1 gimbal.

It works great and has 26lb capacity and the whole setup is a bit over 5lbs and about $1050.00

The lensmaster gimbal is handmade in the uk costs $200.00 shipped to the us and comes with 2 lens plates. I don't know how rob can do it for that but its a real bargain.

http://www.gitzo.us/series-2-carbon-6x-leveling-tripod-long-4-section-w-g-lock

http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/rh1.htm

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks Neuro. I had considered it, but I assumed that the full gimbal was the way to go. Plus it has the pano component to it. However, based on comments made by others, plus this, I'll look at the PC-02 LLR.

I thought so, too. I got the impression form them that they made the full gimbal mainly because it looks like the Wimberley II.

 

[tolusina]

... I use a gitzo gt2540llvl ........

I have a GT2531LVL, the three section leg version of the four section GT2540LLVL.
I found some very sloppy manufacturing in this unit, specifically, the ends of the center post were not square to the post.
B&H sent me an exchange unit, I found the same condition.

You might want to check your unit for the same condition.
In the photo below, the bubble discrepancies as shown should not be possible if the post's ends are square.
If the post was square and only the bubble off, results would be very different.

If you find the same, don't bother asking Gitzo/Manfrotto for help or correction, been there, tried that.
After a month and a half of calls and e-mails, the final reply from Manfrotto in Italy was as follows...
"We have made all the necessary measures and the tolerance to the accuracy of the installation of the spirit level and column is 0,6°.

If the customer requires a higher accuracy, we suggest to use the tripod in combination with Manfrotto accessory 338 or 438."

The post end pieces are aluminum, a local machinist squared them in a lathe, issue resolved.

The post angle lock shifts the post's angle slightly while locking, simply holding the post while locking overcomes that, a matter of learning technique to use the tool well.

The level is poorly designed for the application as it is not reversible and therefore useless when the post is inverted.
A simple, small flat plate with a hardware store bubble level attached is easily fabricated.
Not really complaining about the level's shortcomings as they were apparent in photos, I expected and accepted this prior to purchase and was prepared to address it.
---
Grumble rant, grumble rant...
I've been biting my tongue on this rant for a while as I've no way of knowing if this non-square post issue is common, offering it as a heads up to others to at least check, see if other units are built to at least carpenter level precision and able to perform as described on the tin.
/rant over.......





.

 

[Mr Bean]

I don't know which gitzo tripod you have but you might want to give it a try before you go and burn up your checkbook. I use a gitzo gt2540llvl and a lensmaster rh-1 gimbal.

Thanks candc. I think my current Gitzo is similar (can't remember the model number). It's got 3 sections, carbon fibre and a central column, which is reversible. I like the ability to reverse the column, as its great for macro photography (getting low to the ground, for orchids and the like).

In March last year, I did a wildlife photography course at Vancouver Island (run by Glenn Bartley) and everyone else had 500-600mm lenses (I had a 300mm). One thing I noticed about the tripods that people used was the ability to spread the tripod legs and get the camera hugging the ground. That feature is probably something else I'd like to consider (its not possible to do it with my current tripod).

Thanks for you feedback.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

If you want a tripod that allows you to get really low and will support any lens then have a look at a new/or used Gitzo 3320BS. It is a miniature 3 sries systematic that only goes to about 13 inches max height but is far more rigid (due to it's height) than any other Gitzo that I own or have tried. With the legs fully splayed the top disk is very close to the ground and the much smaller footprint is better in more cluttered (rocks etc) environments.
For transport it is very small but not particularly light.
As to what it will support - I am not really sure. I made a large padded top plate for mine to use it as a stool - works fine for my 100 Kilos.