NatureScapes.net Nature Photography Resource - Photo Galleries, Discussion Forums, Nature and Wildlife Photography Articles and Tips
https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/
+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.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.
. . 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.Hi AnthonyAnthony 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.
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.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.
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.Cynthia Crawford wrote:[snip] (and it still adds weight).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.