there isn't any significant difference in stability because of the mounting
point. both Wimberley heads have the lens suspended from an attachment point
to the side as well. what matters is that the lens is attached with the
tripod mount rotated 90 degrees. this means that when you loosen the clamp
to slide the lens back and forth to balance the system after adding or
removing a teleconverter, the weight of the lens is concentrated on a much
smaller area in the King Cobra than the Wimberley head and that makes it
harder to slide back and forth. the Wimberley Sidekick makes you mount the
lens the same way as the King Cobra and it's hard to move the lens when
rebalancing. the Wimberley Head mounts with the tripod mount downwards and
that spreads the load so that the clamp isn't supporting the weight of the
lens/camera on the edge of one jaw. it is much easier to slide back and
forth after adding or removing something like a flash or a teleconverter.
Herb...
----- Original Message -----
From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 1:36 PM
Subject: For Bertha: King Cobra vs. Wimberly
I don't understand the King Cobra design. Isn't the whole rig more stable
with the weight of the lens pressing directly down onto the tripod (as with
the Wimberly) rather than having the lens hanging out in the air and
attached from the side (as with the King Cobra)?
Can anyone clarify the King Cobra design? How well does it work?
Is there anything else about these that I should consider?
