![]() I have to say that this gimbal was a bit of a disappointment for me. ![]() It’s important to not just read “fluid” as “better”. What I learnt here is that it’s entirely possible for a cheap fluid cartridge system to feel worse than a really good set of bearings. In this regard, the Gitzo gimbal failed due to the oddly rough friction in the pan direction. A good gimbal should have the same feel and resistance in both the pan and tilt axis, otherwise, it’s much harder to create a smooth motion. In fact, the panning motion of the Fotopro Eagle E-6H – which is not a fluid cartridge – is much smoother.Įven more problematic for me was the difference between the feeling in the two-axis. Where the tilt motion undoubtedly had a lovely fluid feel to it, the panning motion felt no better than a somewhat average set of bearings in any other high-end gimbal. In my testing, I found the tilt mechanism to be incredibly smooth, but disappointingly the pan mechanism felt very different. Usually, fluid cartridges are used in video heads, with the vast majority of gimbal manufacturers sticking to bearings for their motion. Pan/Tilt Fluid MotionĪlmost uniquely in the gimbal head market is the use of actual fluid cartridges in the pan and tilt mechanisms. Why is there not one here on the Gitzo gimbal?Ī large Arca-Swiss dovetail plate is included with the gimbal. Here you see the Fotopro E-6H and the PMG Katana Jr with their bubble levels. Below I have included two images of competitor gimbals that do things right and include a bubble in the perfect position. In this situation, you are in trouble with the Gitzo gimbal, as I was when I tested it with my RRS tripod. In many cases, a tripod does not have a bubble level because most ball heads or gimbals have a level. This either requires the use of a leveling head on the tripod, or you must adjust the tripod legs to ensure a level pan axis. To use a gimbal properly you must have it perfectly level. This is despite having the absolutely perfect place to put one on the black plastic cap that covers the panning mechanism. In the photo above you will also notice the lack of a bubble level anywhere on the lower part of this gimbal. it doesn’t feel like a high-end component on a Gitzo product. Although it is captive and can’t actually fall off, the knob develops a wobble as soon as it is loosened even a small amount. As you loosen the knob it unscrews from the body of the gimbal. On the other hand, the pan lock knob falls short of my expectations. The large tilt locking knob is smooth and delivers a nicely variable amount of resistance. ![]() The axis locking knobs of the Gitzo gimbal offer different experiences. The large knobs are glove-friendly, but the pan lock knob wobbles around. Why would they go to the effort of making a slightly wider dovetail for this part of the head? It’s beyond me. While the screw-knob clamp on the gimbal cradle does use the Arca standard, for some reason the vertical arm of the cradle uses a much wider dovetail. The Arca-Swiss dovetail standard is the de facto standard in the photo world when it comes to clamping lenses and cameras onto heads. Not only is this a short-sighted omission, but Gitzo has inexplicably crippled the head’s ability to be adapted with 3rd party accessories by using a non-standard dovetail width on their supplied cradle. Essentially every other reasonable competitor to this gimbal has this option – Wimberley, RRS, ProMediaGear, Fotopro etc. It’s disappointing to see that Gitzo neither make a side mount version of the gimbal nor give the user any way to adapt the gimbal to a side mount. Personally, I prefer a side mount gimbal because they are much lighter and less bulky. Most other manufacturers offer both mount types on their gimbals. In most cases with those other manufacturers, you can adapt your gimbal to change from one mount to the other as needed. Many manufacturers make both cradle mount and side mount versions of their gimbals, allowing the user to choose their preference. This gimbal is a cradle mount gimbal, with the lens being supported from the underside. Although you would be hard pushed to create a camera and lens combination that actually reaches a 17.6lb weight, you should always leave yourself some leeway and this head will allow the least leeway of any of what I would consider being the high-end gimbals. Given the competitive market, I find this low capacity to be a surprise. The Wimberley claims a 100lb capacity, while even the little Eagle E-6H has a 22lb capacity. RRS gimbals have a 50lb capacity, as does the PMG Katana Jr. Stated maximum capacity of 17.6lbs is on the low end of the spectrum. ![]() Capacity specifications are always hard to judge because there is no standard. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |