Gear – A Thousand Acres of Silphiums

Gear Review – Gitzo GHFG1 Fluid Gimbal Head

Many years ago, I picked up my first gimbal head to use for wildlife photography. Most bird and wildlife photographers, who often use long and heavy lenses in their pursuits, consider the gimbal head as a mainstay for supporting heavy gear packages that enable easy and rapid movement while tracking fast-moving quarry. While I sometimes go hand-held in my photographic chases, I quickly discovered that a gimbal head was a necessity for much of what I was doing.

After discovering the potential for and my desire to get into wildlife videography, it soon became apparent that the camera support I was using for still photography was not going to be the most appropriate for shooting video of quickly moving subjects. Gimbals are perfect for fast-action still photography, but they fall short of providing the smooth panning one needs for capturing high-quality video.

After investigating my options, most signs pointed to a video fluid head, designed specifically for videography. Additionally, it had to be functional with the relative heavy load of camera, super telephoto lens and accessories. At the time I was looking into this, there were very few quality options in video fluid heads that would handle the kind of weight I needed at an affordable price point. Also, I was hesitant to try a dedicated video heard because of the prevailing opinion that they are not well designed for still photography.

At nearly the exact timing of doing my research on this, Gitzo announced they were going to release the GHFG1, a fluid gimbal head! Could this really be true? A fluid gimbal head that delivered what Gitzo promised would be the perfect support for a hybrid still and video wildlife photographer like myself. Additionally, it was going to be launched at a respectable price point (I believe I paid close to $475 for mine in 2017), especially for Gitzo. Gitzo is considered among the best of the best when it comes to camera support systems, and their tripods and heads reflect this in their purchase price. At the time, the cost of the GHFG1 was competitive with the other leading models of regular gimbal heads and was actually lower than several competitor’s models.

The Gitzo GHFG1 Fluid Gimbal Head. The perfect support for the hybrid wildlife photographer?

For the rest of this post, I will provide an overview of what is different about a fluid gimbal head compared to a regular gimbal and give my review on different aspects of the GHFG1.

Gimbal vs. fluid video vs. fluid gimbal heads
A gimbal head is a camera support that allows for smooth and stable movement of a camera and lens. It consists of a tripod mount and a gimbal mechanism that allows the camera to move via panning (horizontal rotation) and tilting (vertical rotation). These different axis of rotation combine to allow movement in nearly any direction while maintaining balance and stability. Both pan and tilt movements can be adjusted with knobs that are designed to increase or decrease the amount of friction, or drag, that can be applied to each movement. For still photography, most are not concerned with drag and prefer to have quick action in the tilt and pan movements. For videography, being able to control the amount of drag and the capability to provide smooth movement in both orientations is critical for getting smooth video without jerky stops and starts. While possible for some to get acceptable quality movements in their video by using a typical gimbal head, most photographers would agree that in the majority of video applications, this is not a feasible option.

A typical gimbal uses metal on metal connection points for adjusting drag during panning and tilting movements. Even among the top quality gimbal supports, the amount of drag across the entire range of movement in both panning and tilting directions will vary, creating uneven movement speeds as you track the subject. Additionally, to break the drag when force is first applied to your movement, there will be a tendency for the mount to stick, creating unwanted rapid movement before you are able to get the rig under control for the smooth motion desired.

A fluid video head solves the problems I mentioned above with the use of “fluid cartridges” to control drag. Instead of metal on metal friction, a fluid cartridge allows the photographer to control drag by adjusting pressures applied to a hydraulic fluid, like grease. This fluid creates the desired amount of precise drag force, slowing the camera’s movements, thus resulting in smooth, controlled motion that is free of jitters, vibrations, and varying speed.

There are other fundamental differences in how gimbal heads and fluid video heads are designed and function, and there are pros and cons to each type. However, it is not my goal in this post to fully define a video head, other than describe the benefits in function when referring specifically to videography.

It is probably obvious that a fluid gimbal head is designed as a typical gimbal, but with the exception of replacing the metal on metal friction adjustments with fluid cartridges. I had very high hopes that the GHFG1 from Gitzo would be the perfect combination I was looking for – something that would be perfect for tracking both for still wildlife photography as well as giving exceptional panning and tilting for videography. Would this head meet my demands, or would I be forced to find another solution? Read on to find out.

The Gitzo GHFG1
As I mentioned above, I have been using the GHFG1 as my primary support for wildlife photography since 2017, so I have had plenty of experience using this unit. Here I will provide my opinion of the GHFG1 in the areas of build quality, materials, design, hands-on use in still wildlife photography and my experience with using it for videography, and finally price and value.

Build quality, materials, and design
At first glance, you can immediately recognize the GHFG1 as a Gitzo product, due to the mottled grey paint job flecked with silver and black that perfectly matches the fit and finish of their tripods and other heads. It is a bit more bulky looking than comparable models, but the use of aluminum and magnesium keeps the weight down. At about three pounds, it weighs about the same as competitor products in the same payload capacity and price points.

I consider the overall quality of materials and design good but not great. The cradle clamp that is used to mount the lens foot to the head is kind of funky, but appears to be replaceable if desired. The cradle-clamp is Arca-Swiss compatible, but not exactly standard. It opens much wider than most clamps I have encountered on other gimbal heads and I suppose this allows for a variety of widths of plates to be incorporated, including the giant plate that comes in the box with the GHFG1. My main complaint of the GHFG1’s cradle/clamp is the cheaper feel when compared to similar knob-controlled clamps from competitors like RRS, Kirk and Wimberly. I’ve never had a problem with it, but it does not give me the same amount of confidence when I have it tightened down as do the heavy duty options from the above mentioned competitors. I do really like how the cradle can be adjusted up and down via the use of a small locking lever. Most gimbal heads allow for the cradle to be adjusted in this direction, but many require the use of an Allen/hex key to do so.

A close up look at the cradle clamp of the Gitzo GHFG1. Notice the lever lock that allows for quick and easy adjustment of the cradle in the vertical direction. Just below this lever is the port to insert the panning handle.

I found the panning handle, which can be attached on a port located on one side of the cradle, to be pretty much useless because of how short it is. With a 500mm or 600mm prime lens attached, it barely sticks out past the back of my camera. I solved this problem by purchasing a handle that can be clamped to my camera’s L-bracket. Having the panning handle attached on the camera probably does not work as well as having it attached to the cradle assembly, near the center of gravity, but it is something useable. Another problem that I faced with the panning handle is that because the handle is so close to the cradle clamp, there are some instances, like when using a pro camera body or a body with a battery grip is connected to a shorter lens. In this type of setup the camera will interfere with installing the panning handle. With the gimbal design, I doubt there are better placement options the designers could have gone with that allows for the handle to be near the center of gravity, so I do not fault the designers too heavily for this.

The panning handle that comes with the Gitzo GHFG1 is too short for use with longer rig setups.

My solution to the panning handle issue – A handle from Manfrotto that can be attached to an Arca-Swiss plate like that of the L-bracket on my Canon R5.

The tilt knob is quite large and covered in ribbed rubber, making it easy to use even when wearing heavy gloves. I did have a quality control issue with this knob. The cradle arm developed significant side-to-side play shortly after I began using it. After I figured out how to remove the Gitzo-branded plate on the outside of the knob, I was able to tighten the anchoring screw and have had no problems with it since.

The panning knob is smaller, but large enough to use in winter gloves and is covered in the same ribbed rubber. The action of this knob is disappointing, however. There is an obvious wobble as it is adjusted, and there is no real negative-resistance stop. All resistance is gone after about a half of turn and then it is able to be turned for quite a few rotations afterwards, providing zero change in the panning resistance.

The knob size and placement for the tilt (top) and pan (bottom) movements are perfect.

Many gimbal head manufacturers are now installing bubble levels on the plate immediately above the tripod mount. Unfortunately, Gitzo did not include this. I find this to be a rather glaring omission in a product that is partially designed for videography, where leveling your base is critical. This would have been an easy value-added addition.

Use in still photography
I believe there is a good deal of copy to copy variation in the GHFG1, or, Gitzo has significantly changed something in the design of the GHFG1over time. I have read a few reviews where the writers do not recommend this unit for still photography due to the minimal amount of resistance in the pan and/or tilt being too high, thus not providing enough speed to track fast-moving subjects. With my copy, this is not the case at all. I actually prefer a bit of resistance in panning for still photography and often wish for a slower and smoother action while tracking subjects. When both pan and tilt knobs are fully loosened, there is no resistance at all when using the GHFG1. My copy seems to perform just as well for still photography as the other gimbals I have used. I would give the GHFG1 top marks for use as a traditional high-end gimbal head for use in still photography for the fastest moving subjects.

Use in videography
For videography, I find using the GHFG1 to be disappointing. This is due to the lack of precision in controlling the resistance in the panning direction and the uselessly short control handle provided. I’ll start first with the tilting resistance and control knob. I found the tilt mechanism on my copy to be very smooth and the resistance control to be precise. I was easily able to make the resistance adjustments to my liking and was quite pleased at the ability to make smooth movements in the vertical direction.

As is probably obvious, when tracking wildlife, the photographer is going to mostly rely on panning movement. In my copy, the panning knob has little-to-no precision in controlling resistance. There may be a half-turn or less in controlling the resistance from completely locked down to no resistance at all. When I try to modify resistance with the panning knob, I find that the motion is quite variable, not smooth, and no better than a typical gimbal head. Additionally, on the rare occasion that I do find a sweet spot in resistance, this will usually fall off in short order, changing to very low or even no resistance within seconds of beginning movement.

In combined panning and tilting movements, the lack of usable resistance in the pan combined with the desired resistance in tilt combines to form an unpleasant user experience.

Price and value
Gitzo tripods are expensive; however, I find them to be competitively priced when compared to other leading competitors like Really Right Stuff. I do find what they charge for most of their accessory products, like heads, bags, replacement feet, etc., to be completely ridiculous. This is why I was surprised at the price point they chose for the GHFG1. It is now much more expensive than when I purchased it – B&H now lists it for $639. I really expected a unit like this from Gitzo to be much more expensive than it was. Perhaps they should have considered a roughly 50% price increase, if this would have given them the ability to make a true all-in-one fluid gimbal head that they claim the GHFG1 to be.

Conclusion
As I said, the performance of the GHFG1 in still photography use with the heaviest of rigs is comparable to any leading gimbal on the market. However, in just the past few years, the number of great gimbal head options has increased dramatically. Without doing a lot of research, I would argue that there are plenty of other gimbal heads currently on the market that are just as good or likely better than the GHFG1 and at better price points.

With my copy at least, the performance of the GHFG1 for wildlife videography does not rise to the claims that Gitzo has made. The importance of the smoothness of pans in videography is somewhat subjective. I know of several photographers who are completely happy with the results they get from handholding their video footage. But most serious videographers would claim that having smooth camera movements in video footage is one of the most important aspects in their applications. In recent years I have had several video projects that I have yet to work on or share because I am not happy with the panning movements I made. Sure, there are definitely aspects of technique that come into play. But even with practice and refinement, I do not see myself being able to create the kind of footage I desire using the GHFG1 for video applications that require any movement of the camera.

It should be apparent that I do not recommend the Gitzo GHFG1 fluid gimbal head as the solution for hybrid wildlife photographers who want exceptional results from their support during both still and video applications. Is there such a head that would make the top wildlife still and videographers happy? Probably not. I think there will always be some tradeoff in one direction or the other depending on whether one is using a traditional gimbal or a fluid video head. However, as a hybrid wildlife photographer who desires to get the best possible results for both types of photography in a single support system, I feel there must be better options.

Next steps
What is my plan to get the most appropriate support head for the type of hybrid still and videography work I am interested in? Something I probably should have done from the start. I have recently acquired a leveling base and fluid video head that, on paper at least, should serve my needs. I really don’t like the idea of hauling two relatively heavy heads into the field and swapping them on the fly for the two different applications. My hope is that this new setup will work well enough for both still and video. Several top wildlife photographers are using fluid video heads and seem satisfied with their performance for high speed still photography. Hopefully this will be the case for me as well. If this does turn out to be the hybrid solution I am hoping for, I will be happy to sell the GHFG1. When I have had ample opportunity to get the hang of my new support system, I will be sure to review this setup here in the future.

Comparing Canon’s Newest Teleconverters

Gear, Short-eared Owls, wildlife, wildlife photography

Short-eared Owl
Image made with Canon 7d mkii, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens and Canon Extender EF 2X III

I don’t usually like to discuss gear on this blog, but once in a while I think there are some things new or interesting enough to talk about, particularly when I think they may be critical for producing the best possible results. I have been wanting to test and compare the 2 latest Canon teleconverters (Canon Extender EF 1.4X III, Canon Extender EF 2X III) in a head to head test for sometime and this past weekend found me with an opportunity to do so. To be clear, this was not the optimal situation to make this test. The light was poor and the subject was probably too far away and not covering enough pixels to make a relevant comparison. But, I thought I’d give it a try.

These tests were setup as equally, but not scientifically, as possible. For these first two images, I processed as normal and tried my best to be equal in all capture and processing steps. I cropped to make the bird approximately the same size in both images, so obviously, the photo made with the 1.4X tc was enlarged more than the one made with the 2X tc. I then resized each to make them 1000 pixels on the horizontal. The purpose here was to see if there is a discernible difference in sharpness and image quality between the two. The 2X tc often gets poor reviews, but just as often gets raves by those who claim to know what they’re doing. Many claim that the better results are made by using a 1.4X tc, or native lens and cropping in post to obtain better results than those obtained by using the 2X tc for an optical zoom.

Short-eared Owl Image made with Canon 7d mkii, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens and Canon Extender EF 1.4X III

Open the two images above in separate tabs to see a roughly equal comparison. In my opinion, I was pretty pleased with the results of the 2X tc in sub-optimal conditions. Both photos are fine for sharing on the web, although the IQ would limit print size. Like I said, the conditions were poor and the bird at a great distance. However, I think I would give a slight edge to the photo made with the 2X converter. This edge might just as well be due to differences in how I processed or with changing conditions within the few minutes between captured images.

Let’s look next at the “100% crops” of both photos. This simply means that these photos were both cropped at the same dimensions (4″ x 6″) and not resized. These examples were NOT sharpened.

Focal length equivalent = 500 x 1.6 x 2.0 = 1,600mm

Focal length equivalent = 500 x 1.6 x 1.4 = 1,120mm

Again, with this comparison, I find the two very close. Either one would work well enough, but if your goal was to maximize print/display size, I would probably go with the 2X tc. I guess this has surprised me a bit. I was expecting that, under these sub-optimal conditions, the 2x tc would fall behind the supposedly sharper combination of the 500mm + 1.4X tc.

What do you think? Did I make any major blunders in my comparison or analysis? Please let me know. I do hope to make this comparison again under perfect light and optimally placed subject sometime in the future.

Thanks for stopping by and reading this far!

-OZB

On Generic Battery Replacements and Local Camera Stores

Gear

I have used the combination of Canon 7D/7D mkii and the 5D mkii camera bodies for about 5 years, give or take. This pairing has worked well for me as a wildlife/landscape package that provides acceptable image quality along with several other benefits, including the interchangeable use of battery packs. Until recently I have always used the Canon brand batteries, which have performed very well. With shooting almost every weekend and sometimes daily, some of my original batteries are beginning to show their age. I have retired one battery pack and several more are nearing their last days.

Upon receiving a gift card from a loved one, I headed into Creve Coeur Camera with the idea of picking up a few batteries to gradually replace the old ones as they eventually fail. The associate tells me they rarely carry the primary brands, preferring instead to carry the cheaper and equivalent third party options, like this…

The associate explained that she had been using this battery for years, she strongly felt that they were equivalent in every way and they have had no complaints about them. Now I had done some research in the past about generic accessories, including these batteries and always turned up mixed reviews. Some would say they were equivalent, while some would give very negative reviews. Unless you know something about the shooting habits of the particular reviewer it is hard to know whether they are occasional shooters, pulling out the camera around birthdays and other special occasions, or if they really put the accessories they are reviewing to a real test.

Because this is what they had in stock, because these generics were roughly 40% less the cost of the Canon brand in this particular store, and because of the glowing review by the store associates, I decided to go ahead and pick up three of these. This was a while ago and I did not fully test these right away. Instead, I was trying to focus on using up the older Canon brand batteries that were still functioning fine, but slowly loosing their performance. Lately I have been using these new generics more often, primarily in the 7D mkii under bird and wildlife situations, and have been able to put them to the test.

They are not equivalent. Starting with a fully charged battery (100%), I estimate I am getting on average about 1/2 the shutter trips that a Canon brand LP-E6 gives me. This has proven to be the case for all three of them. But, it’s worse than simply poorer performance. The other day I was at a local marshy area and checked my battery status before leaving the car. It read somewhere near 40% remaining. In my experience with Canon-brand batteries, I knew this should be plenty as I would only be out shhoting for about an hour. I decided it was not necessary to carry a replacement with me into the field, which proved to be a disastrous mistake. I watched a pair of Mississippi Kites grow to four and then to six birds, all in the air at once, soaring and diving as they caught dragonflies and other insects on the wing. I just began shooting when the battery started failing. It went completely dead and the camera’s LCD screen gave me the empty battery signal. I was dumbstruck. How can a battery that was reading ~40% 30 minutes ago be completely dead with so few shutter releases? How could this happen at such an inappropriate time?

I removed the battery from the compartment. It did not feel overly warm, the connectors were clean and showed no oxidation. I slapped it back into the compartment and closed the door. Turning the camera back on, I was pleasantly surprised to see the display functioning as normal. I found the nearest Kite in the viewfinder, obtained focus and pressed the shutter release. Three or four times I heard the mirror clack and then nothing. The display inside the viewfinder went black. Dead battery. I repeated the process described above. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it would take up to five minutes. When I was able to get the camera to function I checked the battery status in the menu. It was still reading between 20 and 30%. This is not what was supposed to be happening. I have gotten prime performance with a Canon brand battery with less than 5% remaining.

This was rather long-winded sob story about why I will never again purchase a third-party battery replacement. But, I also want to discuss my thoughts on the current status of local camera shops and why I will be very careful and weary about what, if any, business I give these places in the future.

I have fond memories of long ago browsing through a number of camera stores looking at equipment I doubt I could ever afford, talking with the friendly store associates about all sorts of things and getting great advice. Most of these stores are gone and only two that I am aware of remain in the StL area. Professional and serious photo enthusiasts have mostly moved to online sources in purchasing their equipment as well as print processing services. It seems that theses stores’primary customers are local beginners with extra spending cash.

The way I see their pricing is that they are pretty competitive with online sources for cameras and lenses. You do have to pay sales tax, while most online vendors currently do not charge a sales tax.. This can be quite an extra cost, depending on what you are purchasing, but there is the benefit of having someone to talk to if you have a problem or need to make a return. I’m not sure if this is worth the extra cost, but I can see that side of things.

Where these stores seem to make the extra they need to run their brick and mortars is from the sale of accessories and printing services. I used CCC for a printing job once or twice years ago and vowed to never do so again based on the quality of what I received. Accessories is where the markup they charge runs to ridiculous levels. I would never recommend anyone in the market for an extra memory card or camera bag to purchase from one of these stores. Recently I picked up the Canon-brand battery replacements from Amazon for a cheaper price than what CCC charged me for the generics! Memory cards and filters are likewise marked up to levels bordering ridiculous.

Speaking of filters, here is an area where these stores really pull in the cash. I have sent a number of friends to these stores to purchase new camera kits. Likewise, I have purchased a few lenses from these stores. Every time the store associate has forcefully recommend purchasing a “UV filter” – a + $100 hunk of glass to screw on the front of your lens. I have contemplated using these things for a number of years, but have never done so. In my opinion, there is no real evidence they help protect the front element of a lens, assuming one is careful. There is good evidence that they can reduce image quality in certain situations.

This is has been my two pennies on using generic battery replacements for dSLRs and my current perspective on St. Louis camera stores. If you have read this far and care to share a different perspective, please consider doing so by leaving a comment.

-OZB

Gear Review – TravelHood from LensCoat

Gear

Greetings on this wonderful spring weekend. I spent a few magical hours at Shaw Nature Reserve yesterday. Spring migrants have begun to arrive and I was quite fortunate to gather a nice list for this time of year as well as some great looks. For reasons not worth mentioning, I did not have my bird lens, but enjoyed the day and the hike, nonetheless.

A bit of a different subject matter for me today. Normally I won’t speak much to gear on this blog. But, when I find something I find interesting, that I think is a great value and that might help fill a void in someone else’s kit, I will try and mention it here.

Today I will be doing two things: 1) giving a quick review of a new product from LensCoat and 2) giving a rundown of the new travel kit I have put together for when I want a supertelephoto in a light and easy to transport package.

I have used a number of LensCoat products, including the Lens Coats, Hoodie Lens Caps, Rain Coats and Gimbal Cover. The latest from LensCoat that has gotten me all excited is the Travel Hood.

I know what you are thinking; “Holy cow, where can I get a cylinder just like that one!” Yes, unless you are a big-lens photographer, particularly one that uses a rather disappointing Canon product, there will be nothing in this post that grabs your attention. Let me give you some background that will explain two reasons this is so exciting for me.

Chances are, if you have owned or used a Canon supertelephoto lens, then you know about a particularly horrendous design flaw concerning the tension screw that holds the lens hood to the lens body. The lens hood is designed to be removable in order to turn it around for easier storage options. The problem is that these tensioning screws tend to wear out and not behave as intended, leading to a good deal of hassle to get these things tightened down. I’m sorry I don’t have the engineering background to describe such a simple problem, but trust me, both the lens hoods for my 500mm f4.5 and 500mm f4 I.S. have been showing this on occasion. OK, so just order a new tension screw, right? Nope. Both of these lenses are out of production and, if one were able to easily find one, they are not easily replaced. OK, so just order a new lens hood. How much could it cost for an aluminum or carbon fiber tube? When I have seen these available, they have been at or above $600. You can find some folks on the web that have the do-it-yourself capability of being able to make something out of plexiglass, carbon fiber, plastic plant pot, etc… I am not one of those fortunate ones.

Another and more important reason I have been looking for an alternative is space and weight savings in moving and storing this equipment. Even with turning the lens hood around, it still takes up a good amount of space in addition to the giant lens itself. I have slowly been working on developing a light and space saving means to take a large supertelephoto lens, in my case my 500mm f4.5 in a smaller, less conspicuous bag. The LensCoat TravelHood has helped me to do just that.

I wanted a bag I knew would make it through any interpretation of the carry-on rules and I found a minimalist, inexpensive bag that has plenty of compartments and adjustments in this Sandpiper bag pictured below. Even the name is perfect… 😉

This pack should work great for trips that will require air travel, – either work, business or combination. When I want to minimize weight, bulk, and setup time, I have been carrying the gear seen below in this bag with good success.

My light telephoto kit includes the 500mm f4.5 lens, the Canon 7d camera body (stored detached from the lens), the TravelHood (stored collapsed), a short and light monopod (MeFoto) – good, but I would not want to use gear that is any heavier with this one, and a monopod head that I picked up used (Kirk brand). This has been working great. In an upcoming trip to Puerto Rico, I plan on traveling with this gear along with a landscape lens or two, binoculars, a laptop or tablet, a field guide and all the necessary accessories for such a trip. Because the Sandpiper bag has no protective padding to speak of, I bought the cheapest foam sleeping pad I could find and have lined the inside and bottom of the bag with this. Everything is nice and snug and relatively well balanced.

I wanted to make a point about all the options that are currently available for smaller supertelephoto that are available on Canon systems. I already owned this lens and want to take advantage of its superior imaging, but if you are starting from scratch and want to stay smaller, lighter and cheaper, there are some very nice options out there, both from Canon and third party lens manufacturers.

Back to the Travelhood. Here is the simple item unfolded.

The materials are good quality, there are a number of colors available for the outside and the inside is black, as expected. Only time will tell, but the velcro and other materials look as though they will last, although ask me again in a couple of years after a few hundred uses. The fit is nice and snug and the hood keeps its shape. I have taken it through some thick brush and it comes out as well as the original hood. It stays in place and does not become deformed under normal to slightly rough handling. I think it should even work a bit as a shock absorber in case you drop your rig, but, obviously not as much as the original, hard hood.

To place the hood, the designers have created a kind of tongue-in-groove fit that is easily followed.

Simply follow this around and tighten the velcro support straps. A little practice is needed, as you want the velcro tight enough to keep the hood attached as well as keep its cylindrical shape. Too tight and you might deform the shape, resulting in partial blockage of the field of view. The current hoods are actually designed to fit a couple of specific Canon and Nikon lenses, but it looks as though there is enough of a range that it should fit many older supertelephotos. Contact LensHoods if you want their opinion.

I’ll be sure to update if my opinion of this product significantly changes or if there are any new developments. Here is what the working kit looks like put together…