Comments on: Manfrotto 393 gimbal head

By: Guy

Guy — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:31:53 +0000

Hello mate ,How did you modified your 393

By: Bob S.

Bob S. — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:40:59 +0000

I was wondering if you found any particular bracket for mounting a flash on this head?

By: INDURO GHB1 Gimbal Head - Wild About Britain

INDURO GHB1 Gimbal Head - Wild About Britain — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:05:37 +0000

[...] for a few years now and I reckon it does the job just as good as the more expensive gimbal heads. Manfrotto 393 gimbal head | Richard Peters Photography blog __________________ [...]

By: Geoff

Geoff — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:00:07 +0000

This looks to be a good solution, at a reasonable cost to a support system for long lenses.

By: Lenses have a soul... - Leica User Forum

Lenses have a soul... - Leica User Forum — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:06:04 +0000

[...] Telyt. in conjunction with a Manfrotto 359 telescopic camera support which attaches to the tripod Manfrotto 393 gimbal head | Richard Peters Photography blog Premier Ink : Buy Manfrotto 359 Long Lens Camera Support – dunk __________________ Faith is [...]

By: Canonistas.com

Canonistas.com — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:38:00 +0000

[...] Yo utilizo la Manfrotto 393, te enlazo un informe que hace este reputado fotografo de naturaleza Manfrotto 393 gimbal head | Richard Peters Photography blog los resultados de esta rotula son mas que aceptables y a 1/3 del precio de las reputadas [...]

By: Troy

Troy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:46:40 +0000

Richard, I just got this bracket for the same lens. I am wonder if there is any type of bracket out there that would fit on this for use with flash/better beamer. If you can help, I really appreciate it.

By: Tim Bates

Tim Bates — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:35:45 +0000

Richard
Me again…
Just thanking you for the good, interesting and most helpful writeup on the Manfrotto 393 Gimbal Head. The Manfrotto 393 shall also be on my purchase list from Morris Photographic when I call them tomorrow.
The 393 shall be housing the Sigma 300-800 as mentioned in the other subject re the lens case.
Once again Many Thanks

Tim

By: Richard Peters

Richard Peters — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:19:15 +0000

I guess what it really boils down to is what you shoot with/plan to shoot with in future, and what you deem to be too heavy. For me, the size and weight isn’t too much of an issue and I personally like to know I have the ultimate stability when out with the 600mm – which is why I switched from a 393 to a Wimberley. For lighter lenses though (or those shooters that never intend on upgrading to the largest telephotos) I think both the 393 and the ballhead/sidekick options are good ones depending on the amount of money potential owners want to spend. Some good points made all round I think

By: LOU

LOU — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:14:30 +0000

Hi, Richard:

Good points. I haven’t used the 393, but if you have invested $5-10K in your lens, then a few hundred on support seems trivial – though it’s not. If you’re using a Really Right Stuff BH-55 with the “Sidekick”, I believe you get a no-excuses gimbal. I found I didn’t need the full-blown Wimberly for my 200-400, but I can see panic setting in for the full-time 600mm user. The MkII Wimberly takes any guess work out of the equation, but it’s huge & a little fussy. I guess it’s all relative when you get to a 13lb. lens, right? Personally, I’ve replaced most of this girth with my Gitzo 5541 & RRS monopod head, and RRS B2-pro “L” clamp for a fraction of the cost, but no loss in component/photo quality. Granted, it’s not the same approach, but it works great, and very portable.

Sincerely,