Wimberly or Mongoose Action Head?

Has anyone had any experience with the Mongoose Action Head
{ http://www.4gdphoto.com/ } and compared it to the
Wimberly (not the sidekick)? I would be using it with
a 500 mm F/4 IS and with 1.4 and 2x TCs. I've heard people
with the Wimberly wedge their hand in the between the
L-bracket and the vertical arm to increase stability.
The Mongoose does not appear to have this issue by the way
one mounts the lens to the head.

Roger

Take a look at kirkphoto also. I haven't used either so I can't provide
first hand knowledge. -jeff

"Roger N. Clark" wrote in message
...
Has anyone had any experience with the Mongoose Action Head
{ http://www.4gdphoto.com/ } and compared it to the
Wimberly (not the sidekick)? I would be using it with
a 500 mm F/4 IS and with 1.4 and 2x TCs. I've heard people
with the Wimberly wedge their hand in the between the
L-bracket and the vertical arm to increase stability.
The Mongoose does not appear to have this issue by the way
one mounts the lens to the head.

Roger

From: "Roger N. Clark"

Has anyone had any experience with the Mongoose Action Head
{ http://www.4gdphoto.com/ } and compared it to the
Wimberly (not the sidekick)?

Hi Roger,

I haven't used or seen anyone else using the Mongoose but from the photo it
looks similar to the Sidekick except there's no separate ballhead base.

I have both the big Wimberley and the Sidekick. When I know all we'll shoot is
collared lenses I always prefer the big Wim, it feels more stable and having
the weight of the lens rest on something horizontal is comforting.

I got the Sidekick mainly for Alaska, where the weight and bulk of the big Wim
is a hassle when traveling, especially by small plane, and where we also needed
a ballhead anyway for landscapes. You can quickly pull the Sidekick out of the
clamp and then use your ballhead, and this is what you need when shooting
non-collared lenses.

The two biggest issues with something like the Mongoose (and the Sidekick and
the Kirk copy/rip-off) are 1) loading the lens is an act of faith since you're
putting it in a clamp to the side (instead of underneath like the big Wim) and
if you don't get it tight the lens can pop off. Never had this happen but I
always think about it when attaching the lens (g).
Also, 2) to rotate the lens for framing you would use the tripod collar ring,
loosening it as required. Often you don't have time to tighten it fully so it
stays slightly loose if tracking fast moving objects. On the big Wim the
weight rests on the bottom plate so it feels more stable with the collar loose
than it does on the Sidekick, where the lens weight is on the side plate and
when the collar isn't tight the lens tends to lean to the opposite side of the
collar a bit. Doesn't feel as stable as the big Wim under these conditions..

But I have to admit that with IS you still get very sharp images with the
Sidekick (and presumably the Mongoose as well). If you already have a good
ball head like the Kirk or A-S B1 I'd suggest getting the Sidekick. If you
don't have a $300-400 ballhead then the Mongoose might be the ticket, dunno.
Will look for one in Bosque next week and if I see one will ask the owner if I
can 'play' with it for a minute. People seem to have all types of long lens
gear there.

I've heard people
with the Wimberly wedge their hand in the between the
L-bracket and the vertical arm to increase stability.

The big Wim is very stable as is, certainly more so than the Sidekick (and
probably the Mongoose). I've been taught (by Art Morris) to put my hand out on
the lens barrel with my elbow under the big Wim's knob and press slightly to
stablize it further when stacking the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, but otherwise
there's no need to do anything fancy with either the 1.4x or 2x t/c's,
especially with the IS lenses. Maybe with your digital work and the extra 1.6
focal length multiplier you'll need to do something with the 2x though?

Bill

"Roger N. Clark" wrote in message
...
Has anyone had any experience with the Mongoose Action Head
{ http://www.4gdphoto.com/ } and compared it to the
Wimberly (not the sidekick)? I would be using it with
a 500 mm F/4 IS and with 1.4 and 2x TCs. ....cut....

Roger, Bill Hilton has covered quite a bit; however, I would add that your
lens only weighs in @ 8.5 lbs (amazing for what it is!) and I would not rule
out the simple Sidekick. I have a 13 lb lens and have used it with the
teleconverters stacked on it successfully with only the Sidekick - caveat
being it is mounted on the Arca Swiss B1 ball head. All warnings Bill
mentioned concerning mounting the lens are worth noting - reasonable care
with anything as expensively fragile as these long boys are goes without
saying (just said it though didn't I)

Also, my lens is not IS; however, I think when you use one of those on a
tripod that it is recommended you turn that feature off?? The newer
generation IS systems may be different, but I still recall thinking my Sony
video camera was broken when the centerfield wall started dancing around at
one baseball game - simply had not turned the steady-shot feature off prior
to setting up on the tripod.

As you are probably aware, getting sharp pics at extreme telephoto FL calls
up a little more technique. Hopefully what you are shooting with "stacked"
TC's will be static and non-moving.......whereby you can employ mirror
lockup and some timer function or hands-off remote shutter release - allows
most all that vibration to settle down prior to the actual pic taking. If,
on-the-other-hand, you are attempting to track something moving with a
1400mm FL, I hope you have fast film or fast digital ISO selected and a lot
of patience

Shoot'em up, steady, unsteady, falling down, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the
rest will love you for it!!

Jim