Use of Wimberly Heads with lenses W/O Tripod COllar


Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vince123123

Guest
#1
We all know that gimbal heads such as the wimberly are used to balance really big mama lenses or long lenses so that the centre of gravity is balanced in the centre.

However, my question is, can I also use the wimberly with lenses without tripd collar? ie attach the camera to the wimberly. I noticed that if this is done, the centre of gravity MAY no longer be where its optimally supposed to be and the whole setup may tilt forward. but with shorter lenses, would it also mean that the tilt forward is negligble?

And i know we dont usually gimbal heads with nontripodcollar lenses, but im just wondering if it can be so used.

Any comments?

Thanks!
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
0
I'm a Llama!
#2
I think both the Wimberly Head and Sidekick would be an overkill for lenses without a collar mount. As you rightfully pointed out, non-collared lenses are not usually used. The big heavies like the superteles are usually the ones found on these gimbal heads and those must have a ring mount in order to be used.

The 2 heads only come with an optional Arca type quick release or threaded studs and 4-prong knobs which come supplied with the head.

If you want to attach the camera directly to the mounting plate, use an extra long plate like the Wimberly P-60 or P-50 which has enough length for you to slide your setup along the mounting plate to adjust the CoG according to the camera and lens setup.

I suppose you might want to use this to avoid switching between the gimbal head and a ball head if you're only bringing one setup out. But probably best to use the most effective tool for the job, which in this case is a ballhead.
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#3
Vince, I'll trade you information on the Wimberley for information about paternal rights in Sg!
 

junyang

New Member
Jan 24, 2003
398
0
0
Visit site
#4
Cockiness I have no problem with. It's those who knows alot but look down on people that i take issue with. :bsmilie:

Maybe they don't even know anything.
 

nickmak

Senior Member
Apr 16, 2004
2,358
0
0
31
London, UK
www.pbase.com
#5
Hey, I think we haven't really answered the original question here... :dunno:

So far Terence has made the best answer for this question...
 

MatthewSL

New Member
Nov 17, 2003
156
0
0
56
Melbourne
#6
vince123123 said:
We all know that gimbal heads such as the wimberly are used to balance really big mama lenses or long lenses so that the centre of gravity is balanced in the centre.

However, my question is, can I also use the wimberly with lenses without tripd collar? ie attach the camera to the wimberly. I noticed that if this is done, the centre of gravity MAY no longer be where its optimally supposed to be and the whole setup may tilt forward. but with shorter lenses, would it also mean that the tilt forward is negligble?

And i know we dont usually gimbal heads with nontripodcollar lenses, but im just wondering if it can be so used.

Any comments?

Thanks!
question is y u nd the gimbal at all?
 

Jun 27, 2002
3,802
0
0
here
www.9frames.com
#8
nickmak said:
Hey Jed,

Why don't we just give Vince here a CORRECT answer then than trying to send insults flying around this forum? Whether cocky or ignorant, there will always be people like this right? That's what makes the world so diverse! :)

Hope this is clarified and you see it from where I stand, thank you,
Nick
yup, just give your knowledge rather then trade insults.
 

denniskee

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2003
5,468
2
0
bukit batok
Visit site
#9
hi guy, everybody is learning mah, be a little more tolerant and a little less blunt, or else sooner or later, cser will not want to put up any more questions in this forum inview of the way fellow cser reply their qustions. let be nice shall we?
 

chngpe01

Moderator
Staff member
#10
Chill out guys/gals, Just to share some lighter moments, this was posted sometime back, see this http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=36695&page=1&pp=20&highlight=tripod


vince123123 said:
We all know that gimbal heads such as the wimberly are used to balance really big mama lenses or long lenses so that the centre of gravity is balanced in the centre.

However, my question is, can I also use the wimberly with lenses without tripd collar? ie attach the camera to the wimberly. I noticed that if this is done, the centre of gravity MAY no longer be where its optimally supposed to be and the whole setup may tilt forward. but with shorter lenses, would it also mean that the tilt forward is negligble?

And i know we dont usually gimbal heads with nontripodcollar lenses, but im just wondering if it can be so used.

Any comments?

Thanks!
Here's your answer Vince :bsmilie: just to lighten the atmoshpere here

 

Jun 27, 2002
3,802
0
0
here
www.9frames.com
#11
junyang said:
Similar to your signature, mine too, is an opinion.

The difference is, that, i'm not using my signature to judge other people. Its PURELY an opinion that i do not like Nikon's AF.

However, things change when you use your signature to judge Terence. You're trying to imply that he's pretending to know alot when he dosen't, and thus, is misleading. Who are you to judge that he is pretending? Maybe he isn't, and is just trying to share WHAT he knows, though wrong.

Seriously, if you're really helpful and stuff, you wouldn't even have posted


and would have just guide all us lost souls that have been misleaded back to the right path.

Would you like someone to tell you the same thing too, Jed.
honestly i have enough of your behaviour Jed, sometimes i wish you are not a moderater so i could put you on the ignore list.

most of the times you use your 'profound' knowledge on people and dig on other people's old threads and attacked on their character and judgement.

It's the mindset of the know it all and slamming other people that puts me OFF BIG TIME! You have demonstrated this trait time and time again. Alot of people either put up or have left off with this, i be the first to say so, regardless of others may have a lesser tone as they respect you as a moderater or your behaviour, you are very destructive to many others who want to voice a comment or thought.
 

denniskee

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2003
5,468
2
0
bukit batok
Visit site
#12
sorry, never use one before, cant help you here.

anyway, guys, may i suggest that enough had been said regarding the less then desirable comment given by the mod. let be more focus on the issue on hand.

really, there is sky beyond sky, mountain beyond mountain. i though a i crazy enough to mount a small little compact camera on my 268 manfrotto ball head :embrass: . compare to what chngpe01 had posted :bigeyes: :thumbsup: , i think i feel more normal now :bsmilie:
 

kex

Senior Member
Oct 16, 2002
2,078
0
36
beebox
www.beebox.com.sg
#13
y dun CS come up with a Board of approval where all answers by members will be reviewed and approved>?preferably chaired by someone with profound knowledge.
 

Jun 27, 2002
3,802
0
0
here
www.9frames.com
#14
kex said:
y dun CS come up with a Board of approval where all answers by members will be reviewed and approved>?preferably chaired by someone with profound knowledge.
i do not wish to dig into any more old threads but i have seem one too many of incidents involving members who feels that comments, better be tight liped or be flamed, like how kex feels. :confused:

i find your appoach to things rather for a better word, direct. You could have pointed out your usage rather than direct an insult to Terrence, regardless he is right or wrong. We can judge who makes sense at the end of the day if we want to review the subject ourselves.

I'm sorry when i say dig up the old threads cause this thread clearly it has not been demostated. My bad :embrass: but i have seen it before, but that is another story.

Just look at how many members feel your comments are insluting or cocky in this thread, if i could say, please change your approach to avoid all who disapprove of your behaviour.
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#15
No please, I am interested to find out.

As to feeling tight lipped or get flamed, please let me state that I do not and will not flame anybody for just speaking his mind, or being wrong about something. But if you say something please either [1] be sure about what you've said, if you're passing it off as fact, or [2] state that you are unsure about your reply but that to the best of your knowledge...

I can understand where you're coming from if I jump on every tom dick and harry who opens his mouth. I don't, to the best of my knowledge. I only do so when the poster is making claims they know nothing about, and that bears correction and is asking for a slap.

Like I said, I really am interested to find out about my digging up old threads as you allege. I will apologise if you find such an instance, and try my best to avoid doing so in future. If not, then I would appreciate you withdraw your statement.
 

r32

New Member
Dec 31, 2002
1,021
0
0
40
Singapore
#16
I do not think ANYONE would intentionally mislead or disinform, and that a simple correction of a misconception would have saved a lot of bandwidth and needless discussion.

Everyone would still learn, and there's no need to take anyone down.
 

nemotohp

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
177
0
0
52
sin
#17
Belle&Sebastain said:
honestly i have enough of your behaviour Jed, sometimes i wish you are not a moderater so i could put you on the ignore list.

most of the times you use your 'profound' knowledge on people and dig on other people's old threads and attacked on their character and judgement.

It's the mindset of the know it all and slamming other people that puts me OFF BIG TIME! You have demonstrated this trait time and time again. Alot of people either put up or have left off with this, i be the first to say so, regardless of others may have a lesser tone as they respect you as a moderater or your behaviour, you are very destructive to many others who want to voice a comment or thought.
i totally agreed with u
 

#18
To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen any instance in which Jed has unfairly made unjust remarks to any other forum member. By your comment, Belle & Sebastien, you imply that he has been throwing his weight around as a moderator, and therefore abusing his power and/or privelege. I think otherwise. Jed as been always pointing out misinformation, rather than being picky about some people. As always, remember that "Facts, they are the enemy of truth." It is easy to state "facts" that you read from another website, when the truth is completely different.

I believe there are some of us here who wish to stand for the truth rather than for "facts" which are in reality myths, simply because the majority of people believe and continue to propagate these pieces of myths as facts.

In all fairness, I think Jed just wishes to seek redress for your pointing out that he may be abusing his authority as a moderator, and I think that is justified. Just because you don't like someone's mannerisms does not mean you can speak in such a manner in a public forum

I am not related in any way to Jed but I just think I should point this out. I will post no further on this topic anyway, as I shall be buried in work half a world away.
 

Jun 27, 2002
3,802
0
0
here
www.9frames.com
#19
icebooke said:
To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen any instance in which Jed has unfairly made unjust remarks to any other forum member. By your comment, Belle & Sebastien, you imply that he has been throwing his weight around as a moderator, and therefore abusing his power and/or privelege. I think otherwise. Jed as been always pointing out misinformation, rather than being picky about some people. As always, remember that "Facts, they are the enemy of truth." It is easy to state "facts" that you read from another website, when the truth is completely different.

I believe there are some of us here who wish to stand for the truth rather than for "facts" which are in reality myths, simply because the majority of people believe and continue to propagate these pieces of myths as facts.

In all fairness, I think Jed just wishes to seek redress for your pointing out that he may be abusing his authority as a moderator, and I think that is justified. Just because you don't like someone's mannerisms does not mean you can speak in such a manner in a public forum

I am not related in any way to Jed but I just think I should point this out. I will post no further on this topic anyway, as I shall be buried in work half a world away.

i never imply that he uses his moderater status to push his weight around, what i meant is that as a moderater, i cannot put him on the ignore list which i will choose so because i do not like his approach to answer.

Yes, i know Jed wishes to address the facts, that is fine, but the approach leaves many unhappy.

a simple let me know your answer will save all this discussion rather then put anyone down.

I be the first to say sorry to Jed if my comments sound personal and harsh, that's the feeling i get when he puts someones else's words off with his signature.
 

Jun 27, 2002
3,802
0
0
here
www.9frames.com
#20
i'll also retact what i said about digging old threads against the person.

What i want to avoid another long and personal war of words.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom