Gimbal Head vs. Ball Head

Hi guys -

I just thought I would throw this out there for anyone that would like to comment or give me any insight. I guess I never really looked at gimbal heads before but now that I see a used one for sale (Manfrotto 393 Heavy Duty), it has sparked my curiousity. I don't know why I never considered one before and went with the Induro BHD2 ball head. Maybe because that way I could use it for all lenses and also I think I was under the newbie assumption that the gimbal heads were for the bigger rigs but I see this one states on B&H that it is for all telephoto lenses.

So, my questions being ...is a gimbal head really that much better for birding and wildlife than a ball head? Do the true advantages only really pay off if you have a tele over 500mm? What are the advantages/disadvantages? All ball heads are spec'ed by weight of your gear but I don't see any limitations for this gimbal so I assume that is a big advantage. Also, is it that much easier to track a BIF with a gimbal head? I have never used one so I am clueless!

I'd appreciate any input!

Denise

The 393 is great for the price. Only a few issues with quality components. I don't think it's the right tool for you though. Big and heavy. Most folks use it for their 500mm stuff where better balance might be needed.

Forgot to answer the rest. You can adjust the tension knobs so that when you let go of the gear, it stays in that position, and can be moved to any spot with just a fingertip (assuming you found the balance point). You would never have to worry about pinched fingers as you might using your 100-400mm on a ballhead. I wouldn't leave your lens on it though and have it flung over your shoulder. There is a part that doesn't always "stay together".

Thanks for your reply! Looks like the gimbal head wouldn't be something for me.

A good deal is a good deal if you found one. Don't let me talk you out of it.