Here we are testing a Markins M10 ballhead mounted to a full Wimberly head II (WH-200) via a Wimberly P40 long lens plate. The Wimberly is mounted to a Gitzo G1410. The payload includes a D200 and two of my longest/heaviest non-collared lenses, a 105 AF-D Micro (older non-VR version) and a 200mm F/4 Ai. All images were shot at 1/15s F/11, which is a very difficult shutter speed. I did not shoot any other shutter speeds.

I chose these lenses for the test because I felt that testing very short focal length lenses would be a waste of time, but vibration is strange; you never know :-).

I have attached several images illustrating the precise setup and alignment used for the 105 Micro tests. Taking advantage of the long P40 plate, the payload was balanced such that it stayed put even when loosening the gimbal. This is an optimum configuration for safety purposes, eliminating the chance of a payload flop if the gimbal is loosened. An alternate configuration might put the camera far forward in front of the gimbal. You might do that when using a wide angle lens to keep the gimbal apparatus out of the image.

The 3 vertical columns represent images taken with very different techniques:

S-Rem - An MC-20 remote fires the shutter. The D200 is put in S mode- shutter fires with no delay. This is about the worst way you can shoot (hands off) on a tripod and always results in the most vibrations. This is the acid test of the stability of the configuration.

Exp Delay - Same configuration except custom menu option d5 is set ON to enable the 0.4s exposure delay mode. I have a general interest in testing the utility of exposure delay with different configurations.

Mup - Mirror Up mode. I gave it about 5-10s delay between mirror up and shutter fire. This is the reference image for each line. There should be no vibrations in this image. This is always the optimal shooting mode when you have the luxury of time.

The top 4 rows include the full configuration with both lenses. As indicated, I shot with all axis on both heads locked down, and then shot with the Wimberly pan base loose.

I then removed the Wimberly head from the tripod and mounted the M10 directly to the G1410 in a standard configuration, shooting the 200/4. Consider this a reference set of the basic capability of the tripod and M10.

Conclusions
====================

I saw little or no difference between images with the 105 Micro. The Wimberly + M10 performs very well here.

With the 200/4 lens, I see very minor vibrations in the first image (remote with no delay). The vibrations resulted in a loss of contrast between some of the finer resolved horizontal lines. I see little difference between the pan base locked and unlocked. Exposure delay was very effective here.

With the M10 mounted directly to the legs and 200/4 lens attached, I see about the same slight loss of contrast in some horizontal lines, only in the remote-no delay images. Most likely the performance is essentially identical with or without the Wimberly head.

Based on these results, I would use the Wimberly + M10 configuration without hesitation with any of my collarless lenses. The images reflect the "feel" of the Wimberly head- it is a very solid and well built piece of gear that gives me a nice warm and fuzzy feeling in real world use.