# Manfrotto 393 Gimbal



## degies (Oct 4, 2011)

I am pondering ordering the Manfrotto 393 gimbal from B&H. I had a good long look at Gimbal options and like the Induro and Wimberley, but just cannot justify the cost. I have good Canon gear and the cost is not so much the issue as I am not out in nature every weekend to justify the mega bucks for these two.
What I want to know is if anyone is using the Manfrotto 393. Reading reviews seem to indicate it is a solid Gimbal , but the mount looks to be a bit dodgy and I worry the side arms will have vibrations. One thing about Manfrotto is that you easily find parts. 

Thanks for your comments


----------



## UncleFester (Oct 7, 2011)

I've never used it. But, one look at it, it looks like a $174 head. If it's only going to support inexpensive gear, then it's probably fine.

I got the Wimberley WH-200 with the replacement foot. It was expensive but I trust it 100% and I'll probably never need another head.

Wimberley has really good support, btw.


----------



## docsavage123 (Oct 7, 2011)

I have the Benro GHA bracket which fits the the ball head on my Red Snapper tripod, standard ball head with click release plate. The bracket itself contains a standard release plate for a long lens. Its good as you can remove it and revert to the normal ball head of your tripod. It cost me Â£160 UK but in USA I reckon it should be a lot cheaper.

look at them here. It should work ok with the your Manfrotto. If you require the full piece of kit then they do those as well.


http://www.benro.cn/ensite/EnProduct.aspx?id=147&SerName=GH+Series+Gimbal+head


----------



## Tonji (Oct 7, 2011)

I have used the Manfrotto 393 for two years and a bit. 

It is a great value. It works and it is very safe for your gear. 

It was my main gimbal with for a 500mm f4. I know people who use it with the 600mm f4 and the 400mm f2.8. It has also been used with the Sigma 300-800 with a lot of success. 

I travel often and have found it to be very sturdy item.

The major downside is the weight which is 3.5lbs. The Wimberley WH200 II is 3.15 lbs but costs a lot more.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 7, 2011)

Tonji said:


> I have used the Manfrotto 393 for two years and a bit.
> 
> It is a great value. It works and it is very safe for your gear.
> 
> ...



I'll concur with that opinion. The 393 is large, heavy but extremely sturdy. The mounting system is the same one that Manfrotto uses on their large video heads. This guy has used one for years: http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/root


----------



## strikerwy (Oct 7, 2011)

I've used one for 4 years now with a Sigma 300-800 and absolutely love it. I'll concur with much of this review, copied directly off the B&H site:

"This is often called the "Poor man's Wimberley". That's a good moniker, because it hints that the only reason to purchase this instead of the Wimberley is budget. I bought the Manfrotto about a year ago, and thus have a lot of experience with it, but I just upgraded to the Wimberley. Here are my reasons:

1) On the 393, the yoke wraps around the lens, which obscures all the controls on the lens. When you need to touch up focus or flip one of the switches on the side of your lens, you'll find that your hand encounters the yoke, instead of the lens. It is very awkward to manually focus with this mount (at least with the Canon 500mm f4 IS, which is the primary lens I used with it.)

2) The RC3 mounting plate is huge. Although it mounts just fine on the Canon 500 foot, if you try mounting one on your camera body to capture some scenics with a normal lens, it will be ridiculously in the way, and you'll take it off immediately after getting your shot. I don't like putting tripod plates on and off each time I change lenses. There is only one plate available for this support, unlike the Wimberley for which the entire line of Swiss-Arca line plates are available, some of which are appropriate to semi-permanent body mounting. Also, Really Right Stuff makes replacement lens feet with an Arca-Swiss mount built right into them, so there is no plate at all! I once got several hundred miles from home before realizing I had not packed the RC3 mounting plate for my Canon 500 lens, so I was dead in the water for shooting.

3) There is no lock for the pan direction on this head - it floats freely always. That's OK for moving subjects, not so OK for any other use. The Wimberley locks on both axes.

On the plus side, the RC3 plate and mount are very secure, and less worry to mount and unmount than the Wimberley, with which there is a real fear of dropping the camera. With the Manfrotto, you slide it in just a little, hear a satisfying "click", and know that whatever you do now, you can't lose the camera. A quarter turn of a nicely shaped lever locks it in place. When you go to remove the camera/lens, you release the lever, then push a little button that allows the whole thing to slide out. This became very natural and automatic after a few uses for me - rather like putting the car in "Park" and stepping on the emergency brake. The Wimberley with it's Arca-Swiss clamp takes longer to mount, and I'm concerned about dropping the camera while doing it. Maybe I'll get better at it (I've only had the Wimberley a few days), but it doesn't seem like it will ever match the Manfrotto in mount/dismount security and convenience.

If you can live with the limitations of the Manfrotto 393, and budget is an important consideration, you'll be happy with it. It has an immense advantage over a conventional ball head for shooting moving subjects.

By the way, the B&H photo shows the inner yoke above the camera and lens. It can be used this way, but I know few who do, as it makes it even more difficult to get at the controls. The normal orientation is to orient both the inner and outer yokes like the letter "U".


The big Sigma does not have the same issue with manual focusing as the focusing ring is not near as hindered by the "U" bracket as it sounds in the review. I find it to be a VERY solid and secure support that needs little fussing with once the camera is mounted. For $174.00 you cannot go wrong.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 7, 2011)

this seems to be the right group of people to ask the following question:

what's the real difference between shooting on a gimbal head versus a ball-head? can you use long lenses (I'm thinking of purchasing a 300 f/2.8 and using with the 2x extender on my 5D mark II) on a hydrostatic ball head? I am currently using the manfrotto 468 MG head with the RC5 quick release plate, and it takes my 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x III very well. how different will it be with a 300 f/2.8? I know the weight rating is sufficient (it's rated to 26.5 lbs) but I'm curious as to how I will need to handle it differently, if at all, with a longer lens.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2011)

kubelik said:


> what's the real difference between shooting on a gimbal head versus a ball-head? can you use long lenses (I'm thinking of purchasing a 300 f/2.8 and using with the 2x extender on my 5D mark II) on a hydrostatic ball head? I am currently using the manfrotto 468 MG head with the RC5 quick release plate, and it takes my 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x III very well. how different will it be with a 300 f/2.8? I know the weight rating is sufficient (it's rated to 26.5 lbs) but I'm curious as to how I will need to handle it differently, if at all, with a longer lens.



The difference is not the max load, but _how_ the load is supported. With a long lens on a ballhead, the the pivot point is below the center of mass of the lens/camera - if the lens is tilted off-level, one end or the other will tend to fall down (usually striking a tripod leg). With a gimbal head, the pivot point is above the center of mass of the lens/camera, so if the lens is tilted and released, it merely returns to the horizontal/level position. That is safer for a heavy lens, and also makes it easier to control the lens while tracking a moving subject (in effect, with a gimbal you're not fighting gravity to keep the lens pointed where you want it as you track the subject).


----------



## UncleFester (Oct 8, 2011)

One quick comment on the the "fear of dropping the camera" from the B&H review.

With the Wimberley mounted to a tripod and both pivots locked, I hold the lens both hands under, not the camera, and lower the replacement foot into the quick-release and tighten. Takes seconds to accomplish safely. Never had a problem. not even close. ( 400 2.8 )

With the Wimberley mounted on a monopod, I set the lens on it's hood and bring the quick-release plate _up to_ the replacement foot and tighten. Upright the rig and balance the lens with the monopod fully collapsed.

On a side note, I'm interested in hearing from users on how well, or not well, the 393 balances over the shoulder and navigates through crowds.


----------



## strikerwy (Oct 8, 2011)

As far as the 393 balancing on a shoulder, I would imagine it has as much to do with the lens mounted as anything else. I've only used it with the 300-800. That said, I have walked miles with it sitting on my shoulder when photographing wildlife (like elk) that have moved considerable distances while I kept pace. The balance is quite good. I do have to provide my shoulder a little padding, but that has everything to do with a 13# lens, camera and tripod head and very little to do with the balance.

I haven't used a Wimberly style Gimbal head before, so my ignorance may show here, but from watching other photographers in the field, there appears to be quite a bit of adjustment needed as the subject moves (wildlife, etc). I love the 393 in that once the lens is balanced over center mass, I can point uphill, downhill and nearly 360 degrees (just like a machine gun turret) and when I let go of the camera, it stays exactly where I left it. It is so easy to track an animal or moving subject, I often use my forehead to steer the lens as I'm looking through the viewfinder. When it's REALLY cold outside, that save an awful lot of cold fingers


----------



## UncleFester (Oct 8, 2011)

strikerwy said:


> As far as the 393 balancing on a shoulder, I would imagine it has as much to do with the lens mounted as anything else. I've only used it with the 300-800. That said, I have walked miles with it sitting on my shoulder when photographing wildlife (like elk) that have moved considerable distances while I kept pace. The balance is quite good. I do have to provide my shoulder a little padding, but that has everything to do with a 13# lens, camera and tripod head and very little to do with the balance.
> 
> I haven't used a Wimberly style Gimbal head before, so my ignorance may show here, but from watching other photographers in the field, *there appears to be quite a bit of adjustment needed as the subject moves* (wildlife, etc). I love the 393 in that once the lens is balanced over center mass, I can point uphill, downhill and nearly 360 degrees (just like a machine gun turret) and when I let go of the camera, it stays exactly where I left it. It is so easy to track an animal or moving subject, I often use my forehead to steer the lens as I'm looking through the viewfinder. When it's REALLY cold outside, that save an awful lot of cold fingers



I can't say what's up with additional adjustment needed for moving wildlife but the only thing I can think of is if the photographer has chosen to remove the factory lens foot for a lower center-of-gravity, he may need to slide the lens forward in the QR. This would prevent the replacement foot (rear) from hitting the panning base, freeing up vertical movement for when birds go tree top.

*That*,of course, would cause the set-up to go weight forward and no longer rest balanced. And to get back he would need to lock both horizontally and vertically, loosen the QR clamp with thumb and first finger, slide plate (replacement foot) with middle finger, check balance and re-tighten.

Like you said, that's a lot of extra adjustment especially when it's cold outside but most likely preventable by not swapping out the replacement foot. If that, in fact, is what is happening.

"The balance is quite good"

That's good to hear and a sometimes overlooked feature when people are shopping for heads.


----------



## degies (Oct 24, 2011)

So I ordered the unit from B&H and I am quite impressed with it. It is solid and handles my current gear quite well. It's not a wimberley but then I am not quite at that level yet either, but I will get it once I get one of those big 500's? Perhaps not even

In short: it Pan smoothly, although pan cannot lock
It balances easily and the slide has a lock stop to catch gear if it slips. 
You can easily change settings on a lens if it is mounted

Anyway thanks for all your feedback 
I placed a small demo on YouTube 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzy6Jddl90E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thx


----------

