Which Gitzo tripod

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eos, Oct 11, 2006.

  1. Eos

    Eos Guest

    I am currently considering changing my Uniloc (Benbo) type tripod for a

    carbon fibre model such as one of the Gitzo range.
    I will primarily be using the tripod for natural history (mainly bird)
    photography both on location and from a hide on occassions.
    The Tripod in question will have to support a heavy camera / lens
    combination ( Canon SLR + 500mm F4 ) and so I will obviously be looking

    for something quite sturdy while at the same time being able to carry
    it over my shoulder and walking some distance whilst out .
    I would therefore appreciate if anyone can advise as to a particular
    model in the Gitzo range which can be recommended or alternatively any
    other models which may be suitable.
    In addition to the above I might be interested in a Wimberley tripod
    head as these seem to get very good reviews esp for panning subjects
    with heavy lenses etc.
    I notice however that King cobra do what appears to be a very similar
    head ( but cheaper ) and I would also appreciate any feedback
    concerning any of these heads and their suitabilty and drawbacks etc
    for the type of photography I am interested in.

    Thanks - RWH
     
    Eos, Oct 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eos

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Eos wrote:
    >
    > I will primarily be using the tripod for natural history (mainly bird)
    > photography both on location and from a hide on occassions.
    > The Tripod in question will have to support a heavy camera / lens
    > combination ( Canon SLR + 500mm F4 ) and so I will obviously be looking
    > for something quite sturdy while at the same time being able to carry
    > it over my shoulder and walking some distance whilst out .
    > I would therefore appreciate if anyone can advise as to a particular
    > model in the Gitzo range which can be recommended


    1325 is the one you want ... my wife and I both use this with the 500
    f/4 L IS and it's the best trade-off between stability and weight ...
    getting the center post is a good idea if carrying this much over your
    shoulder since it keeps the legs from folding in on themselves.

    > In addition to the above I might be interested in a Wimberley tripod
    > head as these seem to get very good reviews esp for panning subjects
    > with heavy lenses etc.


    I recommend the Wimberley pivot head ... I would buy it direct from
    Wimberley as they are a small father and son company and give great
    service ... I've had my Wimberley for six years and recently it was
    'sticking' a bit because I had used it in a very dusty area ... I sent
    it back to them for cleaning and they didn't charge me anything for
    this service even though it was three years out of warranty. Great
    company to deal with.

    > I notice however that King cobra do what appears to be a very similar
    > head ( but cheaper ) and I would also appreciate any feedback
    > concerning any of these heads and their suitabilty and drawbacks etc
    > for the type of photography I am interested in.


    There's a King Cobra that's similar to the Wimberley Sidekick, which is
    basically half a pivot head, relying on a ballhead like the Arca-Swiss
    or similar for the base. I think this works best with lighter lenses
    like the 400 f/5.6 up to the 300 f/2.8 but isn't as good for the three
    giant lenses (400 f/2.8, 500 and 600 f/4's). I have the Sidekick and
    sometimes have to take it and the ball head instead of the larger pivot
    head and it works OK but it's definitely not as easy to use with the
    500 as the pivot head. I take this combo (ball head and Sidekick) when
    I'm using smaller lenses (so need the ball head) and don't have space
    or weight allowance to take both a ball head and the bulky 5 lb pivot
    head (like flying in a small plane to a camping area in Alaska).

    Bottom line, what works best with the 500 f/4 size lens is the Gitzo
    1325 and the Wimberley pivot head ...

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eos

    Hoover Guest

    cost?

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Eos wrote:
    >>
    >> I will primarily be using the tripod for natural history (mainly bird)
    >> photography both on location and from a hide on occassions.
    >> The Tripod in question will have to support a heavy camera / lens
    >> combination ( Canon SLR + 500mm F4 ) and so I will obviously be looking
    >> for something quite sturdy while at the same time being able to carry
    >> it over my shoulder and walking some distance whilst out .
    >> I would therefore appreciate if anyone can advise as to a particular
    >> model in the Gitzo range which can be recommended

    >
    > 1325 is the one you want ... my wife and I both use this with the 500
    > f/4 L IS and it's the best trade-off between stability and weight ...
    > getting the center post is a good idea if carrying this much over your
    > shoulder since it keeps the legs from folding in on themselves.
    >
    >> In addition to the above I might be interested in a Wimberley tripod
    >> head as these seem to get very good reviews esp for panning subjects
    >> with heavy lenses etc.

    >
    > I recommend the Wimberley pivot head ... I would buy it direct from
    > Wimberley as they are a small father and son company and give great
    > service ... I've had my Wimberley for six years and recently it was
    > 'sticking' a bit because I had used it in a very dusty area ... I sent
    > it back to them for cleaning and they didn't charge me anything for
    > this service even though it was three years out of warranty. Great
    > company to deal with.
    >
    >> I notice however that King cobra do what appears to be a very similar
    >> head ( but cheaper ) and I would also appreciate any feedback
    >> concerning any of these heads and their suitabilty and drawbacks etc
    >> for the type of photography I am interested in.

    >
    > There's a King Cobra that's similar to the Wimberley Sidekick, which is
    > basically half a pivot head, relying on a ballhead like the Arca-Swiss
    > or similar for the base. I think this works best with lighter lenses
    > like the 400 f/5.6 up to the 300 f/2.8 but isn't as good for the three
    > giant lenses (400 f/2.8, 500 and 600 f/4's). I have the Sidekick and
    > sometimes have to take it and the ball head instead of the larger pivot
    > head and it works OK but it's definitely not as easy to use with the
    > 500 as the pivot head. I take this combo (ball head and Sidekick) when
    > I'm using smaller lenses (so need the ball head) and don't have space
    > or weight allowance to take both a ball head and the bulky 5 lb pivot
    > head (like flying in a small plane to a camping area in Alaska).
    >
    > Bottom line, what works best with the 500 f/4 size lens is the Gitzo
    > 1325 and the Wimberley pivot head ...
    >
    > Bill
    >
     
    Hoover, Oct 11, 2006
    #3
  4. Eos

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Hoover wrote:
    >
    > cost?



    Steep ...

    http://www.tripodhead.com/ for the Wimberley pivot head, around $595

    Try B&H for the Gitzo 1325, about $558 w/o the center column

    If this sounds high (and it is) keep in mind he just bought a $5,000+
    lens so acquiring the right tripod and head makes sense if one wants to
    get everything possible out of the lens.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Eos

    Hoover Guest

    wow - any suggestions on a reasonably priced tripod that is good quality?

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Hoover wrote:
    >>
    >> cost?

    >
    >
    > Steep ...
    >
    > http://www.tripodhead.com/ for the Wimberley pivot head, around $595
    >
    > Try B&H for the Gitzo 1325, about $558 w/o the center column
    >
    > If this sounds high (and it is) keep in mind he just bought a $5,000+
    > lens so acquiring the right tripod and head makes sense if one wants to
    > get everything possible out of the lens.
    >
    > Bill
    >
     
    Hoover, Oct 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Eos

    Bill Hilton Guest


    > Hoover wrote:
    > wow - any suggestions on a reasonably priced tripod that is good quality?

    ..
    How heavy are your lenses? How heavy do you want the tripod to be (for
    carrying)? How high do you need the tripod to extend?

    Something like the Bogen 3021 or similar used to be a good all-around
    tripod for around $100 or so (plus head) for lenses up to say the 400
    f/5.6 and shorter ... dunno if they still sell it with the same model #
    or if there's a replacement, you can check at B&H ... I used one for
    years with 35 mm and medium format but when I got the heavy telephoto
    the 3021 was simply overmatched and not stable enough. There was a
    smaller, lighter Bogen we used to carry sometimes, I think 3001 but not
    sure ... it was too short for me at 6 ft 2 but fine for my wife.

    These Gitzo CF pods and expensive pivot heads are niche market
    products. There are plenty of moderate priced alternatives if your
    heaviest lens is 3 lbs or less, I feel.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 12, 2006
    #6
  7. "Hoover" <> wrote:
    >wow - any suggestions on a reasonably priced tripod that is good quality?


    There is an alternative to the Wimberley head, which Roger Clark
    and I *totally* disagree about! Check out a thread titled
    "Mirror Lens" rec.photo.digital.slr-systems from October 4
    though 7.

    You may agree with one of us or neither of us, but it does
    describe what is known about the Wimberley compared to a
    Manfrotto/Bogen 3421 Gimbal mount.

    Certainly we agree that none of the smaller gimbal mounts are
    usable for larger lenses.

    For tripods, if my memory is right you mentioned carrying it,
    and that pretty much limits the choice to carbon fiber models.
    If you are not going to pack it far, there are other options
    that provide stability and functionality at lower costs, but
    they are heavy.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 12, 2006
    #7
  8. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > Try B&H for the Gitzo 1325, about $558 w/o the center column
    >
    > If this sounds high (and it is) keep in mind he just bought a
    > $5,000+
    > lens so acquiring the right tripod and head makes sense if one wants
    > to get everything possible out of the lens.


    Indeed, it would be a shame to cripple the potential of such a lens.
    What's more, the tripod will proof valuable for shorter focal lengths
    as well. Camera shake is harder to avoid than most seem to think,
    especially with lenses without Image Stabilization capability.

    --
    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 12, 2006
    #8
  9. Eos

    GLL Guest

    Bill
    I had been looking at a 1348 because I'm 6' 2 also, shooting a 500 and a
    arca swiss ball head, and I thought the 1325 would be to short ?

    laters
    Gary

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >> Hoover wrote:
    >> wow - any suggestions on a reasonably priced tripod that is good quality?

    > .
    > How heavy are your lenses? How heavy do you want the tripod to be (for
    > carrying)? How high do you need the tripod to extend?
    >
    > Something like the Bogen 3021 or similar used to be a good all-around
    > tripod for around $100 or so (plus head) for lenses up to say the 400
    > f/5.6 and shorter ... dunno if they still sell it with the same model #
    > or if there's a replacement, you can check at B&H ... I used one for
    > years with 35 mm and medium format but when I got the heavy telephoto
    > the 3021 was simply overmatched and not stable enough. There was a
    > smaller, lighter Bogen we used to carry sometimes, I think 3001 but not
    > sure ... it was too short for me at 6 ft 2 but fine for my wife.
    >
    > These Gitzo CF pods and expensive pivot heads are niche market
    > products. There are plenty of moderate priced alternatives if your
    > heaviest lens is 3 lbs or less, I feel.
    >
    > Bill
    >
     
    GLL, Oct 12, 2006
    #9
  10. Eos

    JC Dill Guest

    On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:30:46 -0500, "GLL" <> wrote:

    >Bill
    >I had been looking at a 1348 because I'm 6' 2 also, shooting a 500 and a
    >arca swiss ball head, and I thought the 1325 would be to short ?


    Don't forget to factor in the height of the ball head (~4.5 inches),
    the height of your camera viewfinder (~4.5 inches) and the distance
    between your eyes and the top of your head (~4.5 inches). Added up
    this means the needed height for a tripod is ~13.5 inches less than
    your height.

    HTH

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
     
    JC Dill, Oct 12, 2006
    #10
  11. Eos

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >GLL wrote:
    >
    > Bill
    > I had been looking at a 1348 because I'm 6' 2 also, shooting a 500 and a
    > arca swiss ball head, and I thought the 1325 would be to short ?


    Hi Gary,

    I just checked this out to be sure ... with the 1325 and the center
    post and an Arca-Swiss ball head and a 1D type camera the eye-piece is
    eye-level on me, so I actually have to lower the front leg to point the
    camera down.

    If you have a non-1D type camera it will be about an inch lower and
    there are shorter ball heads than the A-S I use (and probably some
    taller ones too) so the exact height will vary a bit depending on what
    you have mounted.

    With the center post and the Wimberley it's actually too high for me so
    when I extend the legs I just don't extend the top-most leg by 2-3
    inches and that works fine.

    Without the center post it's about 2" shorter so the Wimberley lines up
    at eye-level at full extension but with the A-S you have to stoop over
    slightly.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 12, 2006
    #11
  12. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > "Hoover" <> wrote:
    >
    >>wow - any suggestions on a reasonably priced tripod that is good quality?

    >
    > There is an alternative to the Wimberley head, which Roger Clark
    > and I *totally* disagree about! Check out a thread titled
    > "Mirror Lens" rec.photo.digital.slr-systems from October 4
    > though 7.
    >
    > You may agree with one of us or neither of us, but it does
    > describe what is known about the Wimberley compared to a
    > Manfrotto/Bogen 3421 Gimbal mount.


    To be clear, in case readers here do not read
    rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, I have seen people with the
    Bogen 3421 in the field, have felt it in my hands,
    have talked with the owners, but I have not taken any
    photographs with one. In my conversations, owners expressed
    to me it was not up to holding big lenses like a 500,
    and that is what I concluded when I put my hands on it
    and twisted it around.

    In my view, critical to operating the 500 f/4 is:

    1) Simple and safe mounting and unmounting. That means
    setting it down on a "table." The full Wimberly
    has such a mount.

    2) Ability to completely balance the camera plus lens
    so it does not move when you let go of the camera and
    no clamps are tightened. The bogen does not have
    fine tuning vertically, unless you manufacture spacers.

    3) Good stability and low vibration when tracking and
    shooting moving subjects. The bogen seems a little
    flimsy to me. Even the Wimberly vibrates more than
    I like, but is adequate, especially with an IS lens.

    I use my Wimberly with a Gitzo 1328, which I think is
    a 1325 with a center column. (Anyone know where I can
    get a spare hook for the bottom of the center column?
    Mine unscrewed and fell off one day in the field).

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 13, 2006
    #12
  13. Eos

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    > I use my Wimberly with a Gitzo 1328, which I think is
    > a 1325 with a center column.


    Hi Roger,

    I think the 1329 is the 1325 with the center column ...

    > (Anyone know where I can
    > get a spare hook for the bottom of the center column?
    > Mine unscrewed and fell off one day in the field).


    Carol lost one as well and we got a replacement from the Bogen site.
    I think the hook/screw was $17 or so ... if you don't have the part # I
    can look it up as I have the parts sheet.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 13, 2006
    #13
  14. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> "Hoover" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>wow - any suggestions on a reasonably priced tripod that is good quality?

    >> There is an alternative to the Wimberley head, which Roger
    >> Clark
    >> and I *totally* disagree about! Check out a thread titled
    >> "Mirror Lens" rec.photo.digital.slr-systems from October 4
    >> though 7.
    >> You may agree with one of us or neither of us, but it does
    >> describe what is known about the Wimberley compared to a
    >> Manfrotto/Bogen 3421 Gimbal mount.

    >
    >To be clear, in case readers here do not read


    To be clear: you want to continue muddying the water...

    >rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, I have seen people with the
    >Bogen 3421 in the field, have felt it in my hands,
    >have talked with the owners, but I have not taken any
    >photographs with one. In my conversations, owners expressed
    >to me it was not up to holding big lenses like a 500,
    >and that is what I concluded when I put my hands on it
    >and twisted it around.


    Read the previous thread though, because I'm *not* going to
    repeat it. Roger is full of himself, and admits he has no
    experience with the equipment we are talking about.

    >In my view, critical to operating the 500 f/4 is:


    One thing that is *very* clear is that it is up to handling
    large lenses. I use one with a old Canon SSC 800 f/5.6, which
    is a rather large lense. Others use it with just about every
    really large lense there is. A 500mm f/4 is not hardly past
    its limit, or even close.

    >1) Simple and safe mounting and unmounting. That means
    > setting it down on a "table." The full Wimberly
    > has such a mount.


    Hmmm... something you never mentioned before. I have no idea
    what you are saying, or how that differs from what can be done
    with a Bogen 3421. Sounds like more of your almost true, but
    not quit evaluation of something you don't know about.

    To be honest my one negative for the Bogen is that I don't need
    another quick release mount. On the other hand, the one they
    use is *very* well designed, and is a lot safer and easier to
    use that the Arca style used on the Wimberley.

    >2) Ability to completely balance the camera plus lens
    > so it does not move when you let go of the camera and
    > no clamps are tightened. The bogen does not have
    > fine tuning vertically, unless you manufacture spacers.


    That is *bullshit*. The Bogen is *easy* to adjust so that it
    does not move when you let go. Roger knows that too, but
    insists on dishonest statements.

    >3) Good stability and low vibration when tracking and
    > shooting moving subjects. The bogen seems a little
    > flimsy to me. Even the Wimberly vibrates more than
    > I like, but is adequate, especially with an IS lens.


    Flimsy to a guy who has never used one. The Wimberley is
    larger, both in size and weight. It uses a single fork rather
    than two. It's one advantage is that is uses tubing rather than
    flat stock.

    >I use my Wimberly with a Gitzo 1328, which I think is
    >a 1325 with a center column. (Anyone know where I can
    >get a spare hook for the bottom of the center column?
    >Mine unscrewed and fell off one day in the field).
    >
    >Roger


    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 13, 2006
    #14
  15. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >>3) Good stability and low vibration when tracking and
    >> shooting moving subjects. The bogen seems a little
    >> flimsy to me. Even the Wimberly vibrates more than
    >> I like, but is adequate, especially with an IS lens.

    >
    > Flimsy to a guy who has never used one. The Wimberley is
    > larger, both in size and weight. It uses a single fork rather
    > than two. It's one advantage is that is uses tubing rather than
    > flat stock.


    One does not need to use some equipment to know it
    twists more than other equipment. All one has to to is
    grab a hold of it and feel the twist. It's the first rule
    in evaluating tripods and heads. Flat stock twists
    too easily.

    Regarding mounting a big lens, one needs a quick release plate
    where you set the lens down with one hand and close the clamp.
    If the clamp mounts sideways (as with the Wimberly sidekick),
    one needs to hold the lens safely with one hand and tighten
    the clamp. Art Morris, for example, does not recommend using
    big lenses on side mounting systems for safety reasons, and I agree
    with him. If you don't hold it straight, it may not be in the
    clamp properly and the lens may fall. With the Bogen gimbal mount,
    in one position, the clamp is on the bottom so would work
    in the horizontal position like the full Wimberly,
    and that's great if your lens balances in that position.
    But if the lens is top heavy, you need to flip
    the cradle around and mount the lens from the top. Holding
    the lens from the bottom and pushing up while tightening
    the clamp is dangerous, and if you fail to get the clamp
    correct, you have greater risk of the lens falling. This becomes
    more difficult when one works in rough terrain, by cliffs,
    rivers, etc. Floyd, perhaps you have such great strength that
    this is not an issue for you, but it certainly is for me
    (I'm 5' 10", 175 pounds and carry 60 pound photo pack for reference).

    Regarding the balance and the lens staying in one position,
    yes, you can keep the Bogen in a position by adding friction to
    each axis. The amount of friction needed depends on
    the vertical imbalance of the system. You can't adjust
    the lens position with respect to the horizontal axis
    (moving the lens up and down), except for 1 of 2
    possible positions. If you mount a flash and remove
    it later, balance changes and you can't compensate.
    If you have to add friction to keep the lens from moving,
    then you impede following action. With any friction
    applied to either axis of the head, you must increase pressure
    to move, ending up in jerky motion in my experience.
    Even the Wimberly, if friction is added, results in jerky
    motion when I follow action with the big lens. This becomes
    more of a problem when adding 1.4 and 2x TCs. I find that
    a properly balanced Wimberly system turns very smoothly
    when there is zero friction added to the Wimberly head.

    Like I said in the other thread. One can get good
    images with a big lens on a pano head, a ball head, the
    Bogen gimbal, of a full Wimberly. But I would rank
    quality and number of successful sharp images obtained
    with each head:

    Ball head lowest,
    Pano head low but slightly ahead of the ball head,
    Bogen gimbal above the pano, below the Wimberly,
    full Wimberly the best.

    If you think the Bogen is equal to or better than the
    full Wimberly, I would like to see evidence.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 13, 2006
    #15
  16. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >
    >Regarding mounting a big lens, one needs a quick release plate
    >where you set the lens down with one hand and close the clamp.
    >If the clamp mounts sideways (as with the Wimberly sidekick),
    >one needs to hold the lens safely with one hand and tighten
    >the clamp. Art Morris, for example, does not recommend using
    >big lenses on side mounting systems for safety reasons, and I agree
    >with him. If you don't hold it straight, it may not be in the
    >clamp properly and the lens may fall. With the Bogen gimbal mount,
    >in one position, the clamp is on the bottom so would work
    >in the horizontal position like the full Wimberly,
    >and that's great if your lens balances in that position.
    >But if the lens is top heavy, you need to flip
    >the cradle around and mount the lens from the top. Holding


    That is bogus Roger. There is *never* any need to mount the
    lense in anything other than "the horizontal position like the
    full Wimberly (sic)". If your lense does not balance in that
    position, *adjust* *the* *mount* so that it does. It will
    balance the same whether upside down or right side up. Flipping
    the cradle is not required.

    I've noticed that many of the pictures of the Bogen mount show
    it with the cradle on top, which I assume they do simply because
    it is novel.

    >the lens from the bottom and pushing up while tightening
    >the clamp is dangerous, and if you fail to get the clamp
    >correct, you have greater risk of the lens falling. This becomes


    You should hav actually *tried* it, before making that claim.
    It doesn't work the way the one on the Wimberley does, and what
    you are describing simply does not happen. You have another
    totally bogus point fabricated in your imagination.

    First you slide it the lense into place, and once it is past the
    latch it *cannot* fall out, regardless of whether it is tight or
    not. I typically do that with *both* hands on the lense, and do
    not hold it with one hand until it *cannot fall off*. It is then
    positioned to balance it and the lock is tightened down to hold
    it in place.

    To remove the lense, the lock is loosened until the lense can
    slide. It is then necessary to press the latch release to allow
    the lense plate to disengage from the mount. Obviously one
    should never press the release button without a good hold on the
    lense, but that is no different than one should not fiddle with
    the mount lock on the Wimberley without a good hold on the lense
    either.

    The Bogen QR is larger and much safer.

    >more difficult when one works in rough terrain, by cliffs,
    >rivers, etc. Floyd, perhaps you have such great strength that
    >this is not an issue for you, but it certainly is for me
    >(I'm 5' 10", 175 pounds and carry 60 pound photo pack for reference).


    It isn't your lack of great _physical_ size.

    >Regarding the balance and the lens staying in one position,
    >yes, you can keep the Bogen in a position by adding friction to
    >each axis. The amount of friction needed depends on
    >the vertical imbalance of the system. You can't adjust
    >the lens position with respect to the horizontal axis
    >(moving the lens up and down), except for 1 of 2
    >possible positions.


    Three positions, and as I explained earlier you must have
    friction *anyway*, even if the lense is perfectly balanced. The
    difference between balance easily obtainable and "perfect" is
    *insignificant*, regardless of your babbling about it and your
    lack of comprehension.

    That is just another of your totally bogus evaluations of
    something you simply do not have knowledge of.

    >If you mount a flash and remove
    >it later, balance changes and you can't compensate.


    That is untrue. Balance changes, and you _can_ compensate.

    The Wimberley has a more elegant design, and the balance
    adjustment is certain a lot easier for that type of major
    change. Claiming the Bogen cannot be balanced is absurd.

    >If you have to add friction to keep the lens from moving,
    >then you impede following action. With any friction
    >applied to either axis of the head, you must increase pressure
    >to move, ending up in jerky motion in my experience.


    Regardless of the balance you *must* have at least some
    friction. The amount require for reasons other than imbalance
    is greater than that required to overcome what little imbalance
    there is. The only time you want it to have absolutely no
    friction is when you absolutely are not going to let go of it
    anyway. (Otherwise wind, a minor touch for adjustments, and
    even so much as the camera strap being repositioned would cause
    the lense to move in one direction or another.)

    Again, you have a totally bogus argument generated because you
    imagine what it would be like to use it. Actually using it
    would quickly demonstrate just how bogus it is.

    >Even the Wimberly, if friction is added, results in jerky
    >motion when I follow action with the big lens. This becomes


    Then either you added too much friction or you need to clean
    your Wimberley or send it in for a factory refurbishing.

    >more of a problem when adding 1.4 and 2x TCs. I find that
    >a properly balanced Wimberly system turns very smoothly
    >when there is zero friction added to the Wimberly head.


    Apparently "zero" is not as little with your Wimberley as zero
    is with a Bogen head!

    Regardless, once again you are trying to blow blue smoke with
    techie words to impress the unaware. That is *not* any more
    significant, or any less, with teleconverters. It sounds
    impressive to say that though, eh? It hints at "the voice of
    experience". Of course it also lacks integrity... it is not
    true and is just an attempt to compensate for a *lack* of
    experience. Shame on you.

    >Like I said in the other thread. One can get good
    >images with a big lens on a pano head, a ball head, the
    >Bogen gimbal, of a full Wimberly. But I would rank
    >quality and number of successful sharp images obtained
    >with each head:
    >
    >Ball head lowest,
    >Pano head low but slightly ahead of the ball head,
    >Bogen gimbal above the pano, below the Wimberly,
    >full Wimberly the best.


    I might well have exactly the same priorities; but I don't go
    about making up bogus reasons to justify my priorities.

    >If you think the Bogen is equal to or better than the
    >full Wimberly, I would like to see evidence.


    As I have noted, I do think the Wimberley is "superior". But
    you claimed that the Bogen head cannot hold larger lenses, and
    virtually all of your reasons for why the Wimberley is better
    are imaginary. The difference between them is small, and in
    some ways each is better than the other. The Wimberley is a
    little easier to use, and has a more common quick release mount
    (which is not as safe as the Bogen release). The Bogen is
    slightly smaller and weights slightly less (the older Wimberley
    is significantly larger and heavier than the newer model). And
    of course the Bogen costs significantly less.

    As to which is more or less prone to vibration, we just do *not*
    know. The Bogen uses a more stable double fork, but is lighter
    and uses flat stock for the fork. The Wimberley uses an
    inherently less stable single fork, but uses tube stock and is
    heavier. Until someone actually does tests to determine how
    vibration affects the two, it is a toss up as to which is better
    in that respect.

    Bogen also simply does not provide the customer service that
    Wimberley does! It is not is a nice company to deal with, it
    is a *great* company.

    Now go honk your horn about something else...

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 13, 2006
    #16
  17. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Regarding mounting a big lens, one needs a quick release plate
    >>where you set the lens down with one hand and close the clamp.
    >>If the clamp mounts sideways (as with the Wimberly sidekick),
    >>one needs to hold the lens safely with one hand and tighten
    >>the clamp. Art Morris, for example, does not recommend using
    >>big lenses on side mounting systems for safety reasons, and I agree
    >>with him. If you don't hold it straight, it may not be in the
    >>clamp properly and the lens may fall. With the Bogen gimbal mount,
    >>in one position, the clamp is on the bottom so would work
    >>in the horizontal position like the full Wimberly,
    >>and that's great if your lens balances in that position.
    >>But if the lens is top heavy, you need to flip
    >>the cradle around and mount the lens from the top. Holding

    >
    >
    > That is bogus Roger. There is *never* any need to mount the
    > lense in anything other than "the horizontal position like the
    > full Wimberly (sic)". If your lense does not balance in that
    > position, *adjust* *the* *mount* so that it does. It will
    > balance the same whether upside down or right side up. Flipping
    > the cradle is not required.


    Take a look at the top image on this page:
    http://www.mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/170-EQUIPMENT/8-equipment-sigma300-800-htm.htm
    The lens is clearly well above center, so is top heavy and will fall
    over unless clamped.
    >
    > I've noticed that many of the pictures of the Bogen mount show
    > it with the cradle on top, which I assume they do simply because
    > it is novel.


    See above web page. If the lens were mounted with the cradle on top,
    the balance is bottom heavy and the lens would settle to a
    horizontal position. That is the reason why people mount
    lenses with the cradle upside down.

    >>the lens from the bottom and pushing up while tightening
    >>the clamp is dangerous, and if you fail to get the clamp
    >>correct, you have greater risk of the lens falling. This becomes

    >
    > You should hav actually *tried* it, before making that claim.
    > It doesn't work the way the one on the Wimberley does, and what
    > you are describing simply does not happen. You have another
    > totally bogus point fabricated in your imagination.


    I have tried it. Before getting a Wimberly, I used Bogen
    clamps that slide in and have a locking pin to prevent
    falling out. It is a good system, but no system is perfectly
    safe. When mounting a big lens, you still have to
    get it into the slot. I sometimes felt it was going in
    but found one side was too high. I've never dropped my
    lens with either the Bogen or Wimberly clamps, but I
    understand the danger and agree with others like Art Morris
    on added safety of a "floor" mounting system compared to
    side or top mounting for big heavy lenses.

    >>Regarding the balance and the lens staying in one position,
    >>yes, you can keep the Bogen in a position by adding friction to
    >>each axis. The amount of friction needed depends on
    >>the vertical imbalance of the system. You can't adjust
    >>the lens position with respect to the horizontal axis
    >>(moving the lens up and down), except for 1 of 2
    >>possible positions.

    >
    > Three positions, and as I explained earlier you must have
    > friction *anyway*, even if the lense is perfectly balanced. The
    > difference between balance easily obtainable and "perfect" is
    > *insignificant*, regardless of your babbling about it and your
    > lack of comprehension.
    >
    > That is just another of your totally bogus evaluations of
    > something you simply do not have knowledge of.
    >
    >>If you mount a flash and remove
    >>it later, balance changes and you can't compensate.

    >
    > That is untrue. Balance changes, and you _can_ compensate.


    Tell me then, in the above www.mdougherty.com web page, how
    does the photographer balance the system so the lens does
    not fall over? Many reviews on the web state you can't
    balance vertically.

    > The Wimberley has a more elegant design, and the balance
    > adjustment is certain a lot easier for that type of major
    > change. Claiming the Bogen cannot be balanced is absurd.


    Again, see above web page. How is balance achieved?
    I suppose one could manufacture counterweights to put on
    the bottom of the cradle. You cannot balance the system
    for any lens as the manufacturer delivers it.

    >>If you have to add friction to keep the lens from moving,
    >>then you impede following action. With any friction
    >>applied to either axis of the head, you must increase pressure
    >>to move, ending up in jerky motion in my experience.

    >
    > Regardless of the balance you *must* have at least some
    > friction. The amount require for reasons other than imbalance
    > is greater than that required to overcome what little imbalance
    > there is. The only time you want it to have absolutely no
    > friction is when you absolutely are not going to let go of it
    > anyway. (Otherwise wind, a minor touch for adjustments, and
    > even so much as the camera strap being repositioned would cause
    > the lense to move in one direction or another.)


    This is not correct in my experience. I track moving subjects
    with my Wimberly and 500 f/4 (plus TCs) with zero friction
    added to either axis. It is the critical balance and very low
    friction of the Wimberly bearings (when no friction is added by
    the knobs) that allow precise tracking of fast moving objects.

    For example, consider an animal running, or a bird in flight.
    Assume 10 miles/hour which is 4.5 meters/second (this is quite slow
    for birds in flight, but makes for easy scaling to higher rates).
    For frame filling subjects, one is moving the field of view
    several frames widths per second. My personal experience is
    that any friction results in jerky movement, reducing tracking ability.
    Example:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/gallerie...ll.cranes.c12.01.2004.JZ3F7332.arl.d-700.html

    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3F0862.b-700.html

    When tracking a fast subject, it is more than just framing. It includes
    changing focus point and maintaining the focus point on the animal's
    eyes. The greater the friction, the greater the jerkiness and
    I find the greater the chance of losing focus, and cutting off parts of
    the animal in the frame. I find I can do the best tracking
    with a perfectly balanced system with minimal friction, and certainly
    no added friction.

    > Again, you have a totally bogus argument generated because you
    > imagine what it would be like to use it. Actually using it
    > would quickly demonstrate just how bogus it is.
    >
    >>Even the Wimberly, if friction is added, results in jerky
    >>motion when I follow action with the big lens. This becomes

    >
    > Then either you added too much friction or you need to clean
    > your Wimberley or send it in for a factory refurbishing.


    I think not.

    >>more of a problem when adding 1.4 and 2x TCs. I find that
    >>a properly balanced Wimberly system turns very smoothly
    >>when there is zero friction added to the Wimberly head.

    >
    > Apparently "zero" is not as little with your Wimberley as zero
    > is with a Bogen head!


    I think not.

    > Regardless, once again you are trying to blow blue smoke with
    > techie words to impress the unaware. That is *not* any more
    > significant, or any less, with teleconverters. It sounds
    > impressive to say that though, eh? It hints at "the voice of
    > experience". Of course it also lacks integrity... it is not
    > true and is just an attempt to compensate for a *lack* of
    > experience. Shame on you.


    So you can point your lens with the same accuracy with a
    1.4x TC, or a 2x TC, or even stacked 1.4+2x TCs? Pretty amazing!
    The TCs magnify. That means they magnify vibration, pointing
    error, and tracking stability. That means your abilities
    must increase when you add a TC. How is that possible?

    >>Like I said in the other thread. One can get good
    >>images with a big lens on a pano head, a ball head, the
    >>Bogen gimbal, of a full Wimberly. But I would rank
    >>quality and number of successful sharp images obtained
    >>with each head:
    >>
    >>Ball head lowest,
    >>Pano head low but slightly ahead of the ball head,
    >>Bogen gimbal above the pano, below the Wimberly,
    >>full Wimberly the best.

    >
    > I might well have exactly the same priorities; but I don't go
    > about making up bogus reasons to justify my priorities.


    Prove to me you can actually balance a big lens on the
    Bogen gimbal mount as the mount comes from the manufacturer.
    Even you in the other r.p.d.slr thread talked about making spacers
    to achieve balance. Fiddling with spacers in the field
    is not very effective. So who is making bogus claims?

    >>If you think the Bogen is equal to or better than the
    >>full Wimberly, I would like to see evidence.

    >
    > As I have noted, I do think the Wimberley is "superior". But
    > you claimed that the Bogen head cannot hold larger lenses


    I did NOT say the Bogen cannot hold larger lenses. I said
    it can't hold them and provide the performance of the Wimberly,
    including vibration and balance. To the contrary, I said
    you can get good pictures with the gimbal, as you can with
    a pano or ball head too. But when it comes to performance
    and getting that critical action shot, one needs top quality
    performing equipment.

    You may disagree on balance, but in my experience with the
    Wimberly, if I do not have the balance very close, my tracking
    precision drops. I have experience with many other mounts,
    including much more precise mounts for telescopes. In every
    case, balance is critical. In long exposure astrophotography
    tracking astronomical objects smoothly, balance is critical.

    > virtually all of your reasons for why the Wimberley is better
    > are imaginary.


    I disagree.

    > The difference between them is small, and in
    > some ways each is better than the other. The Wimberley is a
    > little easier to use, and has a more common quick release mount
    > (which is not as safe as the Bogen release). The Bogen is
    > slightly smaller and weights slightly less (the older Wimberley
    > is significantly larger and heavier than the newer model). And
    > of course the Bogen costs significantly less.
    >
    > As to which is more or less prone to vibration, we just do *not*
    > know. The Bogen uses a more stable double fork, but is lighter
    > and uses flat stock for the fork. The Wimberley uses an
    > inherently less stable single fork, but uses tube stock and is
    > heavier. Until someone actually does tests to determine how
    > vibration affects the two, it is a toss up as to which is better
    > in that respect.


    Regarding vibration, I have felt and seen
    the Bogen gimbal beside my Wimberly, and the Bogen vibrates
    more.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 14, 2006
    #17
  18. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >> That is bogus Roger. There is *never* any need to mount the
    >> lense in anything other than "the horizontal position like the
    >> full Wimberly (sic)". If your lense does not balance in that
    >> position, *adjust* *the* *mount* so that it does. It will
    >> balance the same whether upside down or right side up. Flipping
    >> the cradle is not required.

    >
    >Take a look at the top image on this page:
    >http://www.mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/170-EQUIPMENT/8-equipment-sigma300-800-htm.htm
    >
    >The lens is clearly well above center, so is top heavy and will fall
    >over unless clamped.


    As a photographer you should know better than to claim it is
    "clearly well above the center".

    What can honestly be said is that it appears to *not* be falling
    over, even though it is not being held. We don't know where the
    center of gravity is any more than we know how tight the screws
    are! That photograph just does not tell us that...

    Obviously the person who posted that did not feel the Bogen
    Gimbal was inadequate or that it require the cradle to be
    inverted. We should note that your complaint about the cradle
    was bogus anyway, as the QR lock does *not* work the way you
    claimed.

    Plus, if you had actually read the comments, the only one about
    the mount said,

    "this setup glides extremely smoothly allowing for very sharp
    images of surfers even at slow speeds."

    Nice cite, though, as it demonstrates just how large a lense
    that mount is capable of handling, despite all the half truths
    distortions and outright lies you want to post about it.

    >> I've noticed that many of the pictures of the Bogen mount show
    >> it with the cradle on top, which I assume they do simply because
    >> it is novel.

    >
    >See above web page. If the lens were mounted with the cradle on top,
    >the balance is bottom heavy and the lens would settle to a
    >horizontal position. That is the reason why people mount
    >lenses with the cradle upside down.


    So show me an example of such a setup. Most, or maybe all, of
    the pictures with the cradle inverted that I can remember were
    with smaller lenses, and in fact some of them appeared to result
    in exactly the condition you claim it is used to correct. I am
    positive that I've never seen a comment suggesting that was a
    reason for the inverted configuration. They do sometimes
    comment on the novelty of it though...

    >>>the lens from the bottom and pushing up while tightening
    >>>the clamp is dangerous, and if you fail to get the clamp
    >>>correct, you have greater risk of the lens falling. This becomes

    >>
    >> You should hav actually *tried* it, before making that claim.
    >> It doesn't work the way the one on the Wimberley does, and what
    >> you are describing simply does not happen. You have another
    >> totally bogus point fabricated in your imagination.

    >
    >I have tried it.


    Then why didn't you describe it *accurately* in your last
    article, when you compared it to the less sturdy and less safe
    QR design used by the Wimberley?

    ....
    >but found one side was too high. I've never dropped my
    >lens with either the Bogen or Wimberly clamps, but I
    >understand the danger and agree with others like Art Morris
    >on added safety of a "floor" mounting system compared to
    >side or top mounting for big heavy lenses.


    Then you should *know* that the Bogen mount is safer than the
    one used by the Wimberley. If this bogus claim that you have to
    invert the cradle is the only way you can impinge the Bogen
    Gimbal, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    >Tell me then, in the above www.mdougherty.com web page, how
    >does the photographer balance the system so the lens does
    >not fall over? Many reviews on the web state you can't
    >balance vertically.


    I'm not going to repeat my comments on your inability to
    understand how it works just to provide you with a
    merry-go-round.

    The www.mdougherty.com web page clearly indicates that it works
    just fine, your wonderful imagination aside.

    >This is not correct in my experience. I track moving subjects
    >with my Wimberly and 500 f/4 (plus TCs) with zero friction


    And I use an even larger Canon 800mm f/5.6 (plus TCs) on the
    Bogen gimbal mount. You are *clearly* fabricating...

    You continue to make references to only a 500mm f/4, and I'm
    beginning to wonder if you actually have ever used it with
    a *large* lense?

    >added to either axis. It is the critical balance and very low
    >friction of the Wimberly bearings (when no friction is added by
    >the knobs) that allow precise tracking of fast moving objects.


    So you claim to live in a frictionless world, eh? Astounding.

    If that is true, let me assure you that you *cannot* release
    your grip on the camera/lens without causing just enough force
    to be applied in *some* direction, which will cause the camera
    to swing all the way in that direction. The fact is, you do not
    live with zero friction and you *must* necessarily have at least
    a minimum amount to allow the mount to work without holding the
    camera all the time.

    Obviously there is friction. It sounds as if there is so much
    that you have to set it at minimum. (As I said, maybe your
    Wimberley needs to be cleaned or refurbished?)

    >So you can point your lens with the same accuracy with a
    >1.4x TC, or a 2x TC, or even stacked 1.4+2x TCs? Pretty amazing!
    >The TCs magnify. That means they magnify vibration, pointing
    >error, and tracking stability. That means your abilities
    >must increase when you add a TC. How is that possible?


    That is no different than using a longer focal length lens.
    Stop blowing blue smoke and making all this therapeutic noise
    you enjoy so much...

    Your 500mm lense with two TC's isn't as heavy as the lenses that
    I and others (as we've seen even in the URLs that you post,
    never mind the ones that I posted) use with regularity.

    If you put the 1.4x TC on your 500mm, you almost get an idea
    what an 800mm is like, except yours is not nearly as heavy.
    Imagine what an 800mm is like with both a 1.6.x and a 2.0x TC!
    That's on a Nikon camera, with a 1.5 cropping factor, so it's
    like a 35mm camera with a 3840mm lense. Then consider that the
    average wind here is nearly 12 mph, and you get an idea what I
    have to deal with as far as stability goes.

    >Prove to me you can actually balance a big lens on the
    >Bogen gimbal mount as the mount comes from the manufacturer.
    >Even you in the other r.p.d.slr thread talked about making spacers
    >to achieve balance. Fiddling with spacers in the field
    >is not very effective. So who is making bogus claims?


    I said that *if* you actually did have to do it, it *was*
    possible on a per lense basis. I have also been quite
    adamant that that is not necessary.

    You are being dishonest, again.

    >> you claimed that the Bogen head cannot hold larger lenses

    >
    >I did NOT say the Bogen cannot hold larger lenses. I said
    >it can't hold them and provide the performance of the Wimberly,
    >including vibration and balance.


    Wrong. You did *not* specify that it was merely not as good as
    the Wimberley, you flat said it was not good enough to use with
    anything as large as a 500mm f/4. That is clearly a bogus claim
    on your part.

    "it is not quite up to the heavier 500 f/4 and larger
    lenses"

    Of course you "politely" blamed that opinion on other, unnamed
    persons...

    Tell me though, which is larger, your 500mm or that lense in the
    URL you cited?

    BTW, my old 800mm lense bounces the scales at 9.5 pounds and is
    567mm long. That is approaching twice the size of a Nikon 500mm
    P ED IF AIS lense (6.6 pounds and 338mm long).

    >> virtually all of your reasons for why the Wimberley is better
    >> are imaginary.

    >
    >I disagree.


    You do seem to imagine that, don't you!

    >Regarding vibration, I have felt and seen
    >the Bogen gimbal beside my Wimberly, and the Bogen vibrates
    >more.


    Is that real, or just your imagination?

    You see the problem with making up so many bogus fabrications?
    When I can easily demonstrate that 90% of what you say on this
    subject is not true, what *must* we conclude about the other
    10%? If you had not said all of that other stuff, I would have
    been suckered into thinking that the Bogen vibrates more than
    the Wimberley. As it is, I have no way of knowing because the
    *only* person I've seen claim to know cannot be trusted.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >>>That is bogus Roger. There is *never* any need to mount the
    >>>lense in anything other than "the horizontal position like the
    >>>full Wimberly (sic)". If your lense does not balance in that
    >>>position, *adjust* *the* *mount* so that it does. It will
    >>>balance the same whether upside down or right side up. Flipping
    >>>the cradle is not required.

    >>
    >>Take a look at the top image on this page:
    >>http://www.mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/170-EQUIPMENT/8-equipment-sigma300-800-htm.htm
    >>
    >>The lens is clearly well above center, so is top heavy and will fall
    >>over unless clamped.

    >
    >
    > As a photographer you should know better than to claim it is
    > "clearly well above the center".
    >
    > What can honestly be said is that it appears to *not* be falling
    > over, even though it is not being held. We don't know where the
    > center of gravity is any more than we know how tight the screws
    > are! That photograph just does not tell us that...
    >
    > Obviously the person who posted that did not feel the Bogen
    > Gimbal was inadequate or that it require the cradle to be
    > inverted. We should note that your complaint about the cradle
    > was bogus anyway, as the QR lock does *not* work the way you
    > claimed.
    >
    > Plus, if you had actually read the comments, the only one about
    > the mount said,
    >
    > "this setup glides extremely smoothly allowing for very sharp
    > images of surfers even at slow speeds."
    >
    > Nice cite, though, as it demonstrates just how large a lense
    > that mount is capable of handling, despite all the half truths
    > distortions and outright lies you want to post about it.


    Pretty amazing, that if you really have the 3421 you will
    not admit there is a balance problem here even though you've
    admitted needing shims to achieve complete balance.

    Here is a discussion where people are talking about not
    getting balance, and having to constantly shift the lens
    forward or backward when pointing up or down to achieve
    a local balance for a certain position:
    http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php/t-31488

    The Wimberly easily achieves complete balance about
    both axes.

    >>>I've noticed that many of the pictures of the Bogen mount show
    >>>it with the cradle on top, which I assume they do simply because
    >>>it is novel.

    >>
    >>See above web page. If the lens were mounted with the cradle on top,
    >>the balance is bottom heavy and the lens would settle to a
    >>horizontal position. That is the reason why people mount
    >>lenses with the cradle upside down.

    >
    >
    > So show me an example of such a setup. Most, or maybe all, of
    > the pictures with the cradle inverted that I can remember were
    > with smaller lenses, and in fact some of them appeared to result
    > in exactly the condition you claim it is used to correct. I am
    > positive that I've never seen a comment suggesting that was a
    > reason for the inverted configuration. They do sometimes
    > comment on the novelty of it though...


    http://www.digiscopingukbirds.homestead.com/manfrotto701RC2.html

    The larger the lens, the more the center of gravity is away
    from the mounting plate.

    >>>>the lens from the bottom and pushing up while tightening
    >>>>the clamp is dangerous, and if you fail to get the clamp
    >>>>correct, you have greater risk of the lens falling. This becomes
    >>>
    >>>You should hav actually *tried* it, before making that claim.
    >>>It doesn't work the way the one on the Wimberley does, and what
    >>>you are describing simply does not happen. You have another
    >>>totally bogus point fabricated in your imagination.

    >>
    >>I have tried it.

    >
    > Then why didn't you describe it *accurately* in your last
    > article, when you compared it to the less sturdy and less safe
    > QR design used by the Wimberley?


    Because it is my opinion it is less safe. On the Wimberly,
    I can set the lens down on the clamp, open the clamp until
    is fits in the slot, then tighten the clamp.

    >>but found one side was too high. I've never dropped my
    >>lens with either the Bogen or Wimberly clamps, but I
    >>understand the danger and agree with others like Art Morris
    >>on added safety of a "floor" mounting system compared to
    >>side or top mounting for big heavy lenses.

    >
    > Then you should *know* that the Bogen mount is safer than the
    > one used by the Wimberley. If this bogus claim that you have to
    > invert the cradle is the only way you can impinge the Bogen
    > Gimbal, you should be ashamed of yourself.


    Ah, so now my opinion is not valid either. I stand
    by my experience. I own and still use both
    types of plate systems (the Bogen and the Wimberly-Arca swiss).
    The Bogen is simpler to use with smaller weights, but the
    Wimberly is safer for large weights (lenses) in my
    experience and opinion.

    >>Tell me then, in the above www.mdougherty.com web page, how
    >>does the photographer balance the system so the lens does
    >>not fall over? Many reviews on the web state you can't
    >>balance vertically.

    >
    > I'm not going to repeat my comments on your inability to
    > understand how it works just to provide you with a
    > merry-go-round.
    >
    > The www.mdougherty.com web page clearly indicates that it works
    > just fine, your wonderful imagination aside.


    Again, not willing to admit balance issues.

    >>This is not correct in my experience. I track moving subjects
    >>with my Wimberly and 500 f/4 (plus TCs) with zero friction

    >
    > And I use an even larger Canon 800mm f/5.6 (plus TCs) on the
    > Bogen gimbal mount. You are *clearly* fabricating...
    >
    > You continue to make references to only a 500mm f/4, and I'm
    > beginning to wonder if you actually have ever used it with
    > a *large* lense?


    The issue with tracking is field of view, and magnification.
    A 500 mm +1.4 + 2x has only 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel
    on a Canon 1D mark II and a field of view less than a
    degree. Tracking a subject at such magnifications
    requires a well balanced system with smooth bearings in
    my opinion.

    >>added to either axis. It is the critical balance and very low
    >>friction of the Wimberly bearings (when no friction is added by
    >>the knobs) that allow precise tracking of fast moving objects.

    >
    > So you claim to live in a frictionless world, eh? Astounding.


    You didn't read what I wrote. I said NO ADDED FRICTION.
    Of course the bearings have friction, but it is small
    compared to what one would have to add tightening
    with the knobs on an unbalanced system.

    > If that is true, let me assure you that you *cannot* release
    > your grip on the camera/lens without causing just enough force
    > to be applied in *some* direction, which will cause the camera
    > to swing all the way in that direction. The fact is, you do not
    > live with zero friction and you *must* necessarily have at least
    > a minimum amount to allow the mount to work without holding the
    > camera all the time.


    The Wimberly has the minimal friction needed so that the lens
    stays were you leave it when you let go and it is
    properly balanced. And this works for anywhere you
    point.

    > Obviously there is friction. It sounds as if there is so much
    > that you have to set it at minimum. (As I said, maybe your
    > Wimberley needs to be cleaned or refurbished?)


    Again, actually read what I wrote and don't misquote me.

    >>So you can point your lens with the same accuracy with a
    >>1.4x TC, or a 2x TC, or even stacked 1.4+2x TCs? Pretty amazing!
    >>The TCs magnify. That means they magnify vibration, pointing
    >>error, and tracking stability. That means your abilities
    >>must increase when you add a TC. How is that possible?

    >
    > That is no different than using a longer focal length lens.
    > Stop blowing blue smoke and making all this therapeutic noise
    > you enjoy so much...


    Yes, don't like the message, so attack the messenger.

    > Your 500mm lense with two TC's isn't as heavy as the lenses that
    > I and others (as we've seen even in the URLs that you post,
    > never mind the ones that I posted) use with regularity.


    You are missing the point. I never said you can't put and
    use large lenses on the Bogen gimbal, or a ball head, etc.,
    just that in my evaluation the Wimberly would do better.
    You seem to keep missing that point, even though you
    say the Wimberly is superior, you attack ANY criticism
    of the Bogen.

    > If you put the 1.4x TC on your 500mm, you almost get an idea
    > what an 800mm is like, except yours is not nearly as heavy.
    > Imagine what an 800mm is like with both a 1.6.x and a 2.0x TC!
    > That's on a Nikon camera, with a 1.5 cropping factor, so it's
    > like a 35mm camera with a 3840mm lense. Then consider that the
    > average wind here is nearly 12 mph, and you get an idea what I
    > have to deal with as far as stability goes.


    Again, you miss the point.

    >>Prove to me you can actually balance a big lens on the
    >>Bogen gimbal mount as the mount comes from the manufacturer.
    >>Even you in the other r.p.d.slr thread talked about making spacers
    >>to achieve balance. Fiddling with spacers in the field
    >>is not very effective. So who is making bogus claims?

    >
    > I said that *if* you actually did have to do it, it *was*
    > possible on a per lense basis. I have also been quite
    > adamant that that is not necessary..


    Great! You believe that balance is not necessary. I respect
    that opinion. I, however, have different personal experience
    and opinion.
    You have attacked me for wanting perfect balance. I have stated
    that my tracking performance drops when my system is
    not balanced or has increased friction due to a knob tightened.
    Can you respect that? Perhaps I'm not as good as you are tracking
    with an imbalanced system. Other photographers will have to decide
    what their abilities are and if balance is enough of an issue
    for them to spend more money for a Wimberly class system.

    > You are being dishonest, again.


    No I am not.

    >>>you claimed that the Bogen head cannot hold larger lenses

    >>
    >>I did NOT say the Bogen cannot hold larger lenses. I said
    >>it can't hold them and provide the performance of the Wimberly,
    >>including vibration and balance.

    >
    > Wrong. You did *not* specify that it was merely not as good as
    > the Wimberley, you flat said it was not good enough to use with
    > anything as large as a 500mm f/4. That is clearly a bogus claim
    > on your part.
    >
    > "it is not quite up to the heavier 500 f/4 and larger
    > lenses"
    >
    > Of course you "politely" blamed that opinion on other, unnamed
    > persons...


    Again you quote out of context. I also stated:

    "Like I said in the other thread. One can get good
    images with a big lens on a pano head, a ball head, the
    Bogen gimbal, of a full Wimberly. But I would rank
    quality and number of successful sharp images obtained
    with each head:

    Ball head lowest,
    Pano head low but slightly ahead of the ball head,
    Bogen gimbal above the pano, below the Wimberly,
    full Wimberly the best."

    It is my opinion that ball heads or pano heads are
    not up to tracking moving subjects with a large
    telephoto lens like a 500 f/4. It is also my opinion
    that the Bogen 3421 gimbal isn't up to the task either,
    although much better than a ball or pano head. Neither
    is a Wimberly sidekick up the the task, but I have used
    it with my 500. I have also used pano and ball heads.

    For maximum performance and maximum number
    of sharp images, the full Wimberly is up to the task in my
    opinion. However, it is also my experience that the Wimberly
    also displays more vibration than my pano head and the Wimberly
    could be improved with some vibration reducing materials.
    No system is perfect; it is only a matter of what
    compromises one makes.

    > Tell me though, which is larger, your 500mm or that lense in the
    > URL you cited?


    Irrelevant.

    > BTW, my old 800mm lense bounces the scales at 9.5 pounds and is
    > 567mm long. That is approaching twice the size of a Nikon 500mm
    > P ED IF AIS lense (6.6 pounds and 338mm long).


    Irrelevant.

    >>>virtually all of your reasons for why the Wimberley is better
    >>>are imaginary.

    >>
    >>I disagree.

    >
    > You do seem to imagine that, don't you!


    I think it is well established that the Bogen can't be completely
    balanced without luck or special shims, and changing shims
    when adding/removing things like a flash.

    >>Regarding vibration, I have felt and seen
    >>the Bogen gimbal beside my Wimberly, and the Bogen vibrates
    >>more.

    >
    > Is that real, or just your imagination?


    Real.

    > You see the problem with making up so many bogus fabrications?
    > When I can easily demonstrate that 90% of what you say on this
    > subject is not true, what *must* we conclude about the other
    > 10%? If you had not said all of that other stuff, I would have
    > been suckered into thinking that the Bogen vibrates more than
    > the Wimberley. As it is, I have no way of knowing because the
    > *only* person I've seen claim to know cannot be trusted.


    Don't like the message, attack the messenger, regardless
    of facts.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 15, 2006
    #19
  20. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >> Nice cite, though, as it demonstrates just how large a lense
    >> that mount is capable of handling, despite all the half truths
    >> distortions and outright lies you want to post about it.

    >
    >Pretty amazing, that if you really have the 3421 you will
    >not admit there is a balance problem here even though you've
    >admitted needing shims to achieve complete balance.


    Why is it necessary for you to post dishonest summaries of other
    people's statements. That is *nothing* like what I've said, and
    yet you have repeatedly claimed it is even though I point you at
    the quotes of exactly what I did say? You dishonestly make
    claims about what I have said and you cite URLs, but rather than
    provide quotes you post distortions that you fabricate which do
    not reflect accurately what I or others have said.

    Roger, you seem to totally lack integrity. This particular
    article was just dripping with dishonesty.

    >Here is a discussion where people are talking about not
    >getting balance, and having to constantly shift the lens
    >forward or backward when pointing up or down to achieve
    >a local balance for a certain position:
    >http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php/t-31488


    You apparently didn't read it did you? They support virtually
    *everything* that I've been saying! Again, a cite that
    demonstrates my point rather than yours!

    "... and I've already described/explained the requirements for
    this to happen. As you've used a Wimberley head you should
    realise that if the lens can be moved with so little pressure
    then, while balanced, it is critically unstable. Setting the
    head up with the right amount of friction and balance is
    critical. Increasing friction will increase the pressure
    required to adjust the angle of the lens but will also make it
    less likely to be moved by 'accidental' pressure. With lower
    friction there is also a greater risk of the photographer
    moving the lens while taking the shot. Using the 393 with the
    locking nuts set quite tight it still requires only minimal
    effort to move the lens. I can honestly say that I will never
    go back to using a pan and tilt head for photography."

    Now go read what I've said about the "zero friction" you claim,
    and see whose side your cite supports!

    >The Wimberly easily achieves complete balance about
    >both axes.


    Water runs down hill too, but that too is never denied nor is it
    important to the discussion.

    The Bogen Gimbal mount, while it may not always have *perfect
    balance*, certainly always achieves *sufficient balance*. The
    point is that whether you have a Wimberley or a Bogen gimbal
    mount it *is necessary* to use a combination of friction and
    balance.

    The one expert writing in your cite above, Martin Kitching, said
    "As you've used a Wimberley head you should realise that if the
    lens can be moved with so little pressure then, while balanced,
    it is critically unstable." That is the exact same thing that
    I've explained to you, about "zero friction" environments. The
    fact is that there is a minimum friction required, and it is
    greater than the friction required to overcome the lack of
    absolute precision in the vertical balance adjustments of the
    Bogen head.

    Aside from that, given that we have exchanged a couple dozen
    articles on this topic, don't you think it is time you
    discovered there is no such thing as a "Wimberly"? It is a
    "Wimberley".

    >>>See above web page. If the lens were mounted with the cradle on top,
    >>>the balance is bottom heavy and the lens would settle to a
    >>>horizontal position. That is the reason why people mount
    >>>lenses with the cradle upside down.

    >>
    >> So show me an example of such a setup. Most, or maybe all, of
    >> the pictures with the cradle inverted that I can remember were
    >> with smaller lenses, and in fact some of them appeared to result
    >> in exactly the condition you claim it is used to correct. I am
    >> positive that I've never seen a comment suggesting that was a
    >> reason for the inverted configuration. They do sometimes
    >> comment on the novelty of it though...

    >
    >http://www.digiscopingukbirds.homestead.com/manfrotto701RC2.html
    >
    >The larger the lens, the more the center of gravity is away
    >from the mounting plate.


    There is no such claim in the URL cited, and it does not
    discuss any reason to invert the cradle. You URL supports
    what I've said, not what you claim!

    You have now posted several URLs claiming they support your
    misconceptions when in fact they do not. Are you actually
    trying to fool people with this dishonesty, or are you just
    unable to realize the significance of what you are quoting?

    You mis-characterize what I've said, and when you post these
    URLs you do not quote anything from them. I assume you think
    folks will not actually look them up and wade through what they
    do say, and hence will assume you were correct and have seen
    evidence that proved it.

    >>>I have tried it.

    >> Then why didn't you describe it *accurately* in your last
    >> article, when you compared it to the less sturdy and less safe
    >> QR design used by the Wimberley?

    >
    >Because it is my opinion it is less safe. On the Wimberly,
    >I can set the lens down on the clamp, open the clamp until
    >is fits in the slot, then tighten the clamp.


    And if it is ever loose, your lense will fall off.

    >> Then you should *know* that the Bogen mount is safer than the
    >> one used by the Wimberley. If this bogus claim that you have to
    >> invert the cradle is the only way you can impinge the Bogen
    >> Gimbal, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    >
    >Ah, so now my opinion is not valid either. I stand


    You have demonstrated dishonesty time and again, and have simply
    *no* concept of integrity. You make up "experience", you
    distort what others say, you cite long/complex URLs that do not
    support what you say they do. Your list of dishonest tricks is
    long.

    It is a fact: your opinion is not valid. You can't be trusted.

    >by my experience. I own and still use both
    >types of plate systems (the Bogen and the Wimberly-Arca swiss).
    >The Bogen is simpler to use with smaller weights, but the
    >Wimberly is safer for large weights (lenses) in my
    >experience and opinion.


    An absurd statement. You will obviously say *anything* when you
    feel technically cornered.

    You have it exactly *backwards*. Th Arca style is simpler and
    easier to use, the Bogen is more complex but safer (especially
    with larger lenses). That isn't really an opinion, it is simply
    a matter of how they are engineered.

    >> The www.mdougherty.com web page clearly indicates that it works
    >> just fine, your wonderful imagination aside.

    >
    >Again, not willing to admit balance issues.


    Again, your manufactured problems are *your* problems...

    >The issue with tracking is field of view, and magnification.
    >A 500 mm +1.4 + 2x has only 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel
    >on a Canon 1D mark II and a field of view less than a
    >degree. Tracking a subject at such magnifications
    >requires a well balanced system with smooth bearings in
    >my opinion.


    Water runs down hill, remember? You should discuss that in
    a thread where it makes some difference.

    >You didn't read what I wrote. I said NO ADDED FRICTION.


    Get your Wimberley serviced.

    >The Wimberly has the minimal friction needed so that the lens
    >stays were you leave it when you let go and it is
    >properly balanced. And this works for anywhere you
    >point.


    Roger, you are just full of BS. The "minimal friction needed"
    changes from one lense to another depending on the weight of the
    lense. What is suitable for my lense is not enough for your
    smaller lense. It is *not* a one size fits all.

    The Bogen can easily be set to where 1) the balance is good, and
    2) friction is too little for stability. Clearly the Wimberley
    should also be capable of that, and if yours cannot you really
    should get it serviced.

    >> Obviously there is friction. It sounds as if there is so much
    >> that you have to set it at minimum. (As I said, maybe your
    >> Wimberley needs to be cleaned or refurbished?)

    >
    >Again, actually read what I wrote and don't misquote me.


    Well, I read what you actually wrote, and have not misquoted nor
    have I misunderstood what you were saying. I think you do
    understand, and once again you are being dishonest.

    >>>So you can point your lens with the same accuracy with a
    >>>1.4x TC, or a 2x TC, or even stacked 1.4+2x TCs? Pretty amazing!
    >>>The TCs magnify. That means they magnify vibration, pointing
    >>>error, and tracking stability. That means your abilities
    >>>must increase when you add a TC. How is that possible?

    >> That is no different than using a longer focal length lens.
    >> Stop blowing blue smoke and making all this therapeutic noise
    >> you enjoy so much...

    >
    >Yes, don't like the message, so attack the messenger.


    Why can't you be at least minimally honest?

    >> Your 500mm lense with two TC's isn't as heavy as the lenses that
    >> I and others (as we've seen even in the URLs that you post,
    >> never mind the ones that I posted) use with regularity.

    >
    >You are missing the point. I never said you can't put and
    >use large lenses on the Bogen gimbal, or a ball head, etc.,
    >just that in my evaluation the Wimberly would do better.


    I didn't miss the point and that is not all that you said.

    "it is not quite up to the heavier 500 f/4 and larger
    lenses"

    >You seem to keep missing that point, even though you
    >say the Wimberly is superior, you attack ANY criticism
    >of the Bogen.


    Not true. I have written about *both* it's pluses and minuses.
    What I cannot understand is why you need to fabricated so many
    dishonest comments to justify the choices you've made.

    >> If you put the 1.4x TC on your 500mm, you almost get an idea
    >> what an 800mm is like, except yours is not nearly as heavy.
    >> Imagine what an 800mm is like with both a 1.6.x and a 2.0x TC!
    >> That's on a Nikon camera, with a 1.5 cropping factor, so it's
    >> like a 35mm camera with a 3840mm lense. Then consider that the
    >> average wind here is nearly 12 mph, and you get an idea what I
    >> have to deal with as far as stability goes.

    >
    >Again, you miss the point.


    Apparently not, given that you have cited a URL that also makes
    exactly the same point about friction and stability. It seems
    that you have not only not used a Bogen gimbal mount enough to
    be specific about it, you don't seem to have used a Wimberley
    enough either, and don't actually understand the use of a gimbal
    mount for a camera! That is astonishing, given all the horn
    blowing you do.

    >>>Prove to me you can actually balance a big lens on the
    >>>Bogen gimbal mount as the mount comes from the manufacturer.
    >>>Even you in the other r.p.d.slr thread talked about making spacers
    >>>to achieve balance. Fiddling with spacers in the field
    >>>is not very effective. So who is making bogus claims?

    >>
    >> I said that *if* you actually did have to do it, it *was*
    >> possible on a per lense basis. I have also been quite
    >> adamant that that is not necessary..

    >
    >Great! You believe that balance is not necessary. I respect


    I have *never* said that balance is not necessary.

    >that opinion. I, however, have different personal experience
    >and opinion.


    One which you cannot support with valid facts and evidence, but
    instead feel a necessity to post fabrication after fabrication
    to support. That tells me your opinion isn't worth considering.

    >You have attacked me for wanting perfect balance.


    I have *not* attacked you for wanting perfect balance. I *have*
    attacked you for dishonesty. Your opinions on balance are
    simply worthless, mostly because of your dishonesty and apparent
    lack of experience in field use of the equipment in question.

    >I have stated
    >that my tracking performance drops when my system is
    >not balanced or has increased friction due to a knob tightened.
    >Can you respect that?


    If you have not lied through your teeth I would have! And I
    would have been mislead too...

    Which is why I continue to suggest your Wimberley needs
    servicing, because it *shouldn't* do what you claim it does.

    (Of course, since you lie about other things, it is perhaps much
    more likely that the Wimberley is fine and your stated "opinion"
    is nothing more than another fabrication. But I can't prove
    that, so we'll stick with your opinion is valid, and your
    equipment needs adjustment.)

    >>>>you claimed that the Bogen head cannot hold larger lenses
    >>>
    >>>I did NOT say the Bogen cannot hold larger lenses. I said
    >>>it can't hold them and provide the performance of the Wimberly,
    >>>including vibration and balance.

    >> Wrong. You did *not* specify that it was merely not as good as
    >> the Wimberley, you flat said it was not good enough to use with
    >> anything as large as a 500mm f/4. That is clearly a bogus claim
    >> on your part.
    >> "it is not quite up to the heavier 500 f/4 and larger
    >> lenses"
    >> Of course you "politely" blamed that opinion on other, unnamed
    >> persons...

    >
    >Again you quote out of context.


    Here is the *entire* text that you wrote in that article,

    Yes, but the few people I have encountered with it in the
    field say it is not quite up to the heavier 500 f/4 and
    larger lenses. Perhaps a 300 f/2.8. The other thing is you
    can't change the vertical distance, so you can't properly
    balance the system. Thus you are reduced to holding up the
    lens.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=detai...

    > I also stated:


    Yes, *after* I called you on the false nature of the above
    statement, you began weaseling room to fabricate other lies.

    Regardless, this is *not* the context in which the text I quoted
    existed. Again, you are out and out manufacturing "facts" to
    get around the consequences of your worthless opinions.

    > "Like I said in the other thread. One can get good
    > images with a big lens on a pano head, a ball head, the
    > Bogen gimbal, of a full Wimberly. But I would rank
    > quality and number of successful sharp images obtained
    > with each head:
    >
    > Ball head lowest,
    > Pano head low but slightly ahead of the ball head,
    > Bogen gimbal above the pano, below the Wimberly,
    > full Wimberly the best."
    >
    >It is my opinion that ball heads or pano heads are
    >not up to tracking moving subjects with a large
    >telephoto lens like a 500 f/4.


    Your "opinion", eh? More like a widely known fact that is never
    in dispute.

    >It is also my opinion
    >that the Bogen 3421 gimbal isn't up to the task either,
    >although much better than a ball or pano head. Neither
    >is a Wimberly sidekick up the the task, but I have used
    >it with my 500. I have also used pano and ball heads.


    That of course *is* just your opinion. But since you clearly
    claim "opinions" that seem more like marketing attempts at
    justifying your purchasing decisions rather than an balanced
    consideration of the pro and con characteristics, who cares what
    your useless opinion is!

    >For maximum performance and maximum number
    >of sharp images, the full Wimberly is up to the task in my
    >opinion.


    Actually, it is a Wimberley, not a "Wimberly". It is in fact up
    to the task. So is the Bogen 3421.

    >However, it is also my experience that the Wimberly
    >also displays more vibration than my pano head and the Wimberly
    >could be improved with some vibration reducing materials.
    >No system is perfect; it is only a matter of what
    >compromises one makes.


    You might want to try a Bogen mount Roger! ;-)

    >> Tell me though, which is larger, your 500mm or that lense in the
    >> URL you cited?

    >
    >Irrelevant.


    So you admit your claims about the Bogen not being able to
    support a 500 f/4 lense are bogus.

    >> BTW, my old 800mm lense bounces the scales at 9.5 pounds and is
    >> 567mm long. That is approaching twice the size of a Nikon 500mm
    >> P ED IF AIS lense (6.6 pounds and 338mm long).

    >
    >Irrelevant.


    Then you admit that *all* of your claims were bogus from the git
    go!

    >>>Regarding vibration, I have felt and seen
    >>>the Bogen gimbal beside my Wimberly, and the Bogen vibrates
    >>>more.

    >>
    >> Is that real, or just your imagination?

    >
    >Real.
    >
    >> You see the problem with making up so many bogus fabrications?
    >> When I can easily demonstrate that 90% of what you say on this
    >> subject is not true, what *must* we conclude about the other
    >> 10%? If you had not said all of that other stuff, I would have
    >> been suckered into thinking that the Bogen vibrates more than
    >> the Wimberley. As it is, I have no way of knowing because the
    >> *only* person I've seen claim to know cannot be trusted.

    >
    >Don't like the message, attack the messenger, regardless
    >of facts.


    The *facts* are that you are dishonest, and nothing you say
    should be trusted unless it can independently be verified.

    And not I am *not* attacking the messenger. I have attacked
    what you have posted in this thread, and *only* what you have
    posted.

    If I where "attacking the messenger" I would have been ignoring
    what you posted. Instead I've use what you posted to draw
    conclusions about your opinions.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 15, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Which Gitzo tripod/head for trekking?

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Sep 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,500
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    Oct 4, 2003
  2. paul

    Old 1950's Gitzo Reporter tripod

    paul, Feb 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    801
  3. Chris Loffredo

    gitzo tripod head 3/8" or 1/4"?

    Chris Loffredo, Sep 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,776
    Bob Hickey
    Sep 29, 2006
  4. nobody
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    942
    nobody
    Feb 15, 2008
  5. Cynicor

    Gitzo anniversary tripod

    Cynicor, Dec 13, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    381
    Ray Fischer
    Dec 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page