TOMAHAWK - GIMBAL ATTACHMENT vs Wimberly Sidekick

[bjanes]

I just read Michael's post on using the TOMAHAWK - GIMBAL ATTACHMENT FOR BALL HEADS with a monopod. The Tomahawk is similar to the Wimberly Sidekick, which was reviewed by Michael earlier, but the former has threaded holes in both the horizontal and vertical axes of the Arca style mounts allowing it to be attached to a monopod via a screw as well as the tripod mounted ballhead in both axes. The Sidekick has the Arca mount only in the vertical orientation and can not be easily attached to the monopod. Since I might occasionally want to use the gimbal mount with a monopod, I am leaning toward the Tomahawk. Wimberly seems to be a more established company with a reputation for excellent quality, and I would be interested in the experience of other forum members with these two devices before making my decision. Michael does vouch for the quality of the Tomahawk, but does not compare it to the Wimberly.

I am interested in a sidekick style gimbal for use with my new 80-400 Nikkor AFS zoom, primarily for use on my tripod with the RSS BH-55 ballhead. If one uses the lens with the BH-55 in a loose configuration (ball not clamped down), the lens/camera tends to flop to one side and the experience is frustrating. Another question is whether one should use VR when in this loose configuration on a tripod or on a monopod. Nikon suggests that one can use VR in this situation, but I have heard conflicting reports. Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Bill

[E.J. Peiker]

It really isn't that similar as the Tomahawk is a stand alone unit while the Sidekick requires you to mount it on a ballhead first.  Sure they are both side-mount gimbals but really the similarities end there.  Another similar option to the Tomahawk that is fairly popular among wildlife photographers is the 4th Generation Mongoose M3.6 which has been around for quite a while and has a good track record.

[bjanes]

It really isn't that similar as the Tomahawk is a stand alone unit while the Sidekick requires you to mount it on a ballhead first.  Sure they are both side-mount gimbals but really the similarities end there.  Another similar option to the Tomahawk that is fairly popular among wildlife photographers is the 4th Generation Mongoose M3.6 which has been around for quite a while and has a good track record.

The Tomahawk also offers the option of mounting on a ballhead first as well as a direct mount (stand alone), so the two units are not as dissimilar as you suggest. Although there are workarounds, the stand alone units essentially require a dedicated tripod. As I said, I am leaning towards the Tomahawk.

Bill

[Colorado David]

I have the Sidekick and like it just fine.  I mounted mine to a Kirk ball head.  I experience one problem when the QR mount on the Kirk head came loose and caused the whole rig to flip over.  I was fortunate that I was paying attention and nothing was damaged.  I didn't use it again until I got home and used some blue Loctite on the Kirk screw.

[DaveCurtis]

I have a sidekick on  a BH-55 ballhead and use it with a Canon 400mm f4  DO.  I use it on a Gitzo 3 series carbon tripod.

The Sidekick has worked great over the years with no issues. I bought it not long after Michaels review. And also the 400DO come to think of it. His reviews have cost me a few k over the years ;-)

I've used the Sidekick mainly for birding and aviation shots where it's great for panning.

I cant comment on the Tomahawk however it looks good and would work better than the Sidekick on the Manfrotto monopod .



Cheers Dave