Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 29 posts | 
by E.J. Peiker on Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:31 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I'd second that this lens works well if you just mount the camera on a good ball head due to it's small weight and size so you may not need a lens foot or gimbal for it at all.
 

by Cynthia Crawford on Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:22 pm
User avatar
Cynthia Crawford
Moderator
Posts: 20371
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Member #:00733
Hey Mark- I totally missed your lat sentence in previous post-i was looking at the RRS B-55 that you mentioned earlier.  My apologies.
I think for now, in any case, I'm not going to invest in a tripod setup, but will keep your suggestions in mind, thank you.
Cynthia (Cindy) Crawford-Moderator, Photo & Digital Art
web site: http://www.creaturekinships.net
"If I Keep a Green Bough in My Heart, the Singing Bird Will Come"  Chinese Proverb
 

by GlatzNaturePhoto on Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:16 pm
GlatzNaturePhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Jan 2017
Anthony Medici wrote:I think "OzarkInspirations'" review on the B&H page is right on the money. The 300 PF doesn't perform well at all on a Gimbal mount.

With the 300 PF, TC and D500, with a small QR plate on the D500 (a small 1.5" square generic), the back of the collar foot is "balanced" using only the front 1/2 of the clamp on my UniBall head. That means the balance point if  directly under the very back of the lens collar. Removing the TC, it only moves the balance point forward less than 1/2".

If you add the weight of a battery grip or a standard L-Bracket, it would shift the balance point another 1/2" or so towards the camera. To me, that puts the body way to close to the upright of the Wimberley and will impact whether you can rotate it without hitting the body on the foot of the mount.

For my work, action shots with this combination are hand held. Static shots are sometimes mounted on a ball head from the body's arcs swiss mount directly or with a smaller version of what Mark Picard showed from RRS.

The collar I have is the Nikon Collar with the replacement RRS foot which works fine on the 70-200 F4 I bought it for. Though it fits on the 300 PF as they are the same, I think a plate that extends the foot about 1"-1.5" towards the body using the standard Nikon foot would be best if you were really trying to use the collar with a gimbal head. That would allow the mount to clamp onto more of the foot than either the RRS replacement or the Kirk combination replacement.
+1 on Anthony's observations. I have the Kirk collar but don't use it because it doesn't really balance well on this lens/cam combo.  Been doing fast-moving action hand held and that works fine with this combo.  Can't believe how light this lens is, even with 1.4TC.
 

by Cynthia Crawford on Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:22 am
User avatar
Cynthia Crawford
Moderator
Posts: 20371
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Member #:00733
I guess I should explain something- Yes! This camera an lens are fantastic for hand-holding and I love it for that reason, and for it's excellence in all ways. The only reason I was looking to tripod mount is because, like many of us, aging arthritic hands/shoulders/arms, hips, etc., sometimes need a break, even from "small and light". Plus...who knows- the macro bug, all unsuspecting, could suddenly bite! ;). . Simple as that! I am glad I have all this information now, should I decide to mount the camera in some fashion. And meanwhile, I CAN hand hold it most of the time. (Have not been out on a long photo shoot with it yet.) Also, I am using my Black Rapid, attached to the camera since there is no way to attach it to the lens without a collar. Seems to work fine. Not going to buy a collar just for that.
Cynthia (Cindy) Crawford-Moderator, Photo & Digital Art
web site: http://www.creaturekinships.net
"If I Keep a Green Bough in My Heart, the Singing Bird Will Come"  Chinese Proverb
 

by Anthony Medici on Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:55 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
In my opinion, the BH-55 is way overkill for the combination. It weighs at least 1.9 lbs, possibly more depending on the clamp you choose. That's more than the lens and about the same as the body. It sure would be stable but you lose most of the purpose of getting the combination, to be light.
Tony
 

by Cynthia Crawford on Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:03 pm
User avatar
Cynthia Crawford
Moderator
Posts: 20371
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Member #:00733
Anthony Medici wrote:In my opinion, the BH-55 is way overkill for the combination. It weighs at least 1.9 lbs, possibly more depending on the clamp you choose. That's more than the lens and about the same as the body. It sure would be stable but you lose most of the purpose of getting the combination, to be light.
Hi Anthony

Mark was suggesting I get the BH-40,- just to clarify.  But I'm not getting anything at this point. :)
Cynthia (Cindy) Crawford-Moderator, Photo & Digital Art
web site: http://www.creaturekinships.net
"If I Keep a Green Bough in My Heart, the Singing Bird Will Come"  Chinese Proverb
 

by DChan on Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:32 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
May be you can consider a monopod if you primarily want to have a break from hand-holding the camera. It's lighter and more portable than a tripod. You don't really need something like a gitzo unless you must have the "best" or nothing.
 

by Cynthia Crawford on Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:24 pm
User avatar
Cynthia Crawford
Moderator
Posts: 20371
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Member #:00733
DChan wrote:May be you can consider a monopod if you primarily want to have a break from hand-holding the camera. It's lighter and more portable than a tripod. You don't really need something like a gitzo unless you must have the "best" or nothing.
Yes that can be helpful. Have one- might try it..but have found carrying it around too cumbersome (and it still adds weight). My use for a tripod would have been just setting it up near the car or at home- not carrying it any distance. And i like that a tripod can stand on it's own. Still, a monopod might serve a similar purpose. Good thought.
Cynthia (Cindy) Crawford-Moderator, Photo & Digital Art
web site: http://www.creaturekinships.net
"If I Keep a Green Bough in My Heart, the Singing Bird Will Come"  Chinese Proverb
 

by DChan on Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:24 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
Cynthia Crawford wrote:
DChan wrote:May be you can consider a monopod if you primarily want to have a break from hand-holding the camera. It's lighter and more portable than a tripod. You don't really need something like a gitzo unless you must have the "best" or nothing.
[snip] (and it still adds weight).
But not your pain. The monopod is just a long walking stick with a camera sitting on the top of it. It bears the weight of the camera and and the lens. You? not so much.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
29 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group