New member needs help

[lurechunker]

I am new to the forum and asking for help. Our granddaughter plays basketball and I would like to photograph her. I kayak and would like to photograph birds. Is the EOS 760D the camera for me? Other? What lens or lenses? How can I protect my equipment form damage from saltwater? Thank you.

[ebiggs1]

"I do not like the Sidekick, or any similar gadget."

I am in the same boat. Not a fan of the Sidekick but I do like gimbal heads.  The ability to balance the gear is just part of the way to use the gimbal head.  They allow movement in any direction effortlessly and maintain great stability.  Even if you do zoom and have to hold on to or be aware of the now slight unbalanced load.  Really not much different than adjusting knobs on a ball or pan head.  It is a matter of which you prefer.  Both or all types have a place.

On my 3046 I use the 501 head.  One 55PROB has a gimbal and the other a ball head.  

[ElizabethH]

Thanks to all who are replying! This is really helpful. 

[lurechunker]

For what it may be worth, I sent emails to B&H and Wimberly. Both suggested that a long lens like a Tamron 150-600 G2 on an 80D would be okay on a sidekick and a myfoto globetrotter carbon tripod. Wimberly recommended that I purchase a Wimberly P-30 lens plate for a safe coupling. I mean no disrespect and I do not want to start an argument. Since I already own the globetrotter, I'd like to put it to good use.The max capacity is 26.4 puunds. The lens weighs 4.42 pounds and the sidekick weighs 1.3 pounds. With 80D, the total would be about 7 pounds or about 1/3 the rated capacity. It's possible that balance could be an issue if changing between 150 and 600. I appreciate your help.

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

For what it may be worth, I sent emails to B&H and Wimberly. Both suggested that a long lens like a Tamron 150-600 G2 on an 80D would be okay on a sidekick and a myfoto globetrotter carbon tripod. Wimberly recommended that I purchase a Wimberly P-30 lens plate for a safe coupling. I mean no disrespect and I do not want to start an argument. Since I already own the globetrotter, I'd like to put it to good use.The max capacity is 26.4 puunds. The lens weighs 4.42 pounds and the sidekick weighs 1.3 pounds. With 80D, the total would be about 7 pounds or about 1/3 the rated capacity. It's possible that balance could be an issue if changing between 150 and 600. I appreciate your help.

---

After sitting in traffic for a couple of hours, I contemplated on a using a long zoom like the 150-600 that changes its' length.  Seeing how the 150-600 can lock at 600mm, then it shouldn't be much of a problem. 

Get the balance as close as you can at 600mm.  I think the you'll be using it locked at 600mm most of the time, anyway, just as if it were a 600mm prime.  If you do use a shorter focal length, it would more than likely be just temporarily, for a very short period of time.

I suggested using weight bags, and so did Robert.  Don't forget to add the weight of the ball head, too, which you can estimate as an additional pound.  The load ratings of tripods are a pretty grey area.  Some manufacturers seem to over rate their gear, while others seem to under rate their gear. 

Worry more about the setup being top heavy, which it will be without any leg weights. How's the feel with the supplied ball head?

[lurechunker]

Thanks for the idea of adding mass to lower the CG and increase stability. The globetrotter has an attach point for additional (rocks) weight. The sidekick costs about $300 with the additional plate. A full Wimberly gimbal head goes for $595. I'm leaning toward the former in order to avoid a costly divorce. 

[ebiggs1]

You know you really don't need either. Sidekick, Wimberly or divorce!  You can get a very serviceable and preferred by some pan head for about a hundred bucks.

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

Thanks for the idea of adding mass to lower the CG and increase stability. The globetrotter has an attach point for additional (rocks) weight. The sidekick costs about $300 with the additional plate. A full Wimberly gimbal head goes for $595. I'm leaning toward the former in order to avoid a costly divorce. 

---

You should look at the Benro and Induro gimbals, if you're dead set on a gimbal.  A Wimberly gimbal head is not a good match for your triood.  If the gimbal head isn't balanced, then twisting and turning it will only further unbalance the setup.

I think that a high quality pan/tilt can do the job far better than an unbalanced Sidekick, and do it for about one third the price.  I like Ernie's suggested head.  Shop around.  There are others just as good as the Manfortto, but for less cost.  

Whatever you choose, you will almost certainly need leg weights with the 150-600mm.  Lock it at 600mm, I say 500mm, and use it like a prime.

[lurechunker]

Should I add a 2.8 70-200? Any opinions on the Tamron? It is $600 less expensive than Canon.

[ebiggs1]

The 70-200mm zoom is a mainstay.  Almost every serious photographer will have at least one of them.  Opting for the f2.8 models is even a better idea and way more useful.

Here is how my favs stack up;

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens is the best.  Maybe the best lens made, period.

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens for Canon in second place in the IQ department but not as well built but it is  adequate.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Canon. Good choice and quite serviceable.  Not as good as the above two but absolutely no slouch.

IMHO, got the coin go for the real deal Canon.  You will not be disappointed.  Otherwise go for the Tamron.  See a good deal you can't pass up, you will love the Siggy, too.

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

Should I add a 2.8 70-200? Any opinions on the Tamron? It is $600 less expensive than Canon.

---

When I bought my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM, I was uncertain as to when or how I would use it with my 6D.  Yes, it filled a hole between my 24-105mm and a 150-600 lens.  I don't know anything about using the Tamron, or the Sigma, just the Canon top of the line lens.

I have since discovered that it is a great lens for shooting people going about their everyday lives, and that it can take really good portraits, too.  By portraits, I mean casual shots at social events, for example, and not necessarily shots where the subjects are posing..  I'm no portrait photographer.

The first thing I noticed about images when using the lens was the amount of detail that can be captured.  Maybe it's my imagination, but others who have seen some of my shots say the same thing, which is many photos almost seem to have a 3D presence to them.  

I do not know if the lower priced Canon 70-200mm lenses can do that, too, but I definitely wonder about the non-IS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8.  I went for the IS version because of the much higher degree of weather sealing, which the non-IS has to a lesser degree.  

My f/2.8L lenses seem to focus better under low light conditions than slower lenses.  I think this is by design with certain camera bodies, with the 6D and the 7D2 being the least expensive camera bodes to take advantage of this feature.  I do not know if the 80D can take advantage of the f/2.8 lenses, but I would not be surprised if it did.  All Rebels seem to be excluded from this behavior.  Likewise, I would be surprised if the new 77D is compatible, either.