- Status
I agree with r32.
I don't think Terence or anyone would intentionally mislead us.
Jed have been nice in his other posting and pointing out mistakes and I personally think he is not abusing his authority as a moderator.
To Jed: my personal opinion is that your direction to Terence is not quite nice, I think u should have pointed out his mistake instead of directing him to your signature.
So now...WHAT is the ANSWER to the QUESTION?
I am curious to know it too.
Cheers!
I don't think Terence or anyone would intentionally mislead us.
Jed have been nice in his other posting and pointing out mistakes and I personally think he is not abusing his authority as a moderator.
To Jed: my personal opinion is that your direction to Terence is not quite nice, I think u should have pointed out his mistake instead of directing him to your signature.
So now...WHAT is the ANSWER to the QUESTION?
I am curious to know it too.
Cheers!
Jed said:
Actually, I think he does own one. (Why else do you think he would feel qualified to post such a long and detailed response?) Whether his reasoning is right or wrong I will leave him to discuss with you, I believe he's out of town.
However, I think my sentiments on your response is not atypical of other posts. You are not being helpful. And your assumption that "it is clear he has never used a Wimberley" when in fact he has gives you the tone of being elitist and intolerant, while not knowing the full facts. And that, my friend, violates the standards you purport to achieve in your signature.
So what's the answer to Vince's question in the beginning of this thread?
I saw the picture already, hilarious! But really I think because there are many people here in this forum who react differently to many situations that we keep a more diplomatic and informative approach to questions and comments that someone makes.
How about instead of saying 'Terence's answer is completely wrong and misleading, and it is clear he has never used a Wimberley', maybe you could change that to 'Terence, IMHO, I think that there may be some different opinions to your answer. In my opinion, [Blah Blah Blah, you fill this part in].'
Wouldn't it be better, Jed?
I saw the picture already, hilarious! But really I think because there are many people here in this forum who react differently to many situations that we keep a more diplomatic and informative approach to questions and comments that someone makes.
How about instead of saying 'Terence's answer is completely wrong and misleading, and it is clear he has never used a Wimberley', maybe you could change that to 'Terence, IMHO, I think that there may be some different opinions to your answer. In my opinion, [Blah Blah Blah, you fill this part in].'
Wouldn't it be better, Jed?
Belle&Sebastain said:
No, if you have facts to back up your claim that I go around digging up old threads to stir up trouble, please back them up. Otherwise I expect an apology, because to the best of my knowledge I do not dig up old threads to stir up trouble. In fact I never ever dig up old threads because my sole method of accessing CS is to search for new posts. So I really do hope for an explanation (not in a confrontational way).
As to Terence, I hereby apologise for my comments. If you do own a Wimberley then great, but then surely you would also realise that using a P50 or P60 doesn't in any way assist you in using a camera on a Wimberley, unless you are using a tiny point and shoot that will fit within the confines of the head. The construction of the head prevents the use of a camera mounted directly to the head, and if you'd used one you'd realise this. Once again my apologies if you have similarly felt wronged by my post, and if you want I would be happy to remove it and all traces of it.
To Nickmak and others, I also apologise if I've caused any undue grief. I will strive in future to point out mistakes in a more determinate manner.
Vince, I will respond to the Wimberley question via PM when it gets back up and running. I believe it is currently inactive, but I will try once I've finished posting this.
V
vince123123
Guest
yeap dddone!
Jed said:
Actually the only reason for my silence was I never read the thread after my post! I never thought a simple post could generate so much fuss.
Jed, I was only suggesting the longer P-50 or P-60 plate as a creative answer to a query. It's not the proper way to do it but I just thought of this solution on a whim. I did state in my original post that it was not the best way to do things but if you really had to, there was definitely a way to get it done. I really posted what I did cos I honestly believed it could be achieved.
FYI, I do own a Wimberly Head and a P-50 plate which I used for my 500/4 when I had it until a few months ago. Here's a shot of it.
The P-50 has two mounting posts which are adjustable. I thought you could mount the body on the rearmost post at its extreme end. And since the plate is longer than the mount, it's easy to adjust its position on the mount to allow a reasonable level of tilt. I'll see if I can post a pic of it tomorrow to prove that it can be done.
Jed, I was only suggesting the longer P-50 or P-60 plate as a creative answer to a query. It's not the proper way to do it but I just thought of this solution on a whim. I did state in my original post that it was not the best way to do things but if you really had to, there was definitely a way to get it done. I really posted what I did cos I honestly believed it could be achieved.
FYI, I do own a Wimberly Head and a P-50 plate which I used for my 500/4 when I had it until a few months ago. Here's a shot of it.
The P-50 has two mounting posts which are adjustable. I thought you could mount the body on the rearmost post at its extreme end. And since the plate is longer than the mount, it's easy to adjust its position on the mount to allow a reasonable level of tilt. I'll see if I can post a pic of it tomorrow to prove that it can be done.
Sounds good then!
I see where you're going, but mounting the camera at right angles to the plate is really not ideal, and you will end up with tortion/pivoting problems. And unless you get the camera to the edge of the plate, the plate will also interfere with your approach to the back of the camera. It's riddled with problems and shouldn't, imo, be approached without a secondary point of attachment.
I mentioned to Vince that, unless he owns or intends to own a lens heavier than a 300/2.8 or at a stretch a 500/4, then the Sidekick is a much better approach, by far.
I see where you're going, but mounting the camera at right angles to the plate is really not ideal, and you will end up with tortion/pivoting problems. And unless you get the camera to the edge of the plate, the plate will also interfere with your approach to the back of the camera. It's riddled with problems and shouldn't, imo, be approached without a secondary point of attachment.
I mentioned to Vince that, unless he owns or intends to own a lens heavier than a 300/2.8 or at a stretch a 500/4, then the Sidekick is a much better approach, by far.
V
vince123123
Guest
Would the use of a really right stuff plate MPR-CL or MPR-1 help in this? it can mount at right angles...
Jed said:
I'm afraid I'm not acquainted with either of the RRS designations. Either way, you will probably still need to detach the plate from the clamp, unscrew the camera from the plate, rotate the camera 90 degrees for a vertical shot, reattach your right angle plate (if it is what I think it is) and then reattach again. Either that or you could get a B1 style clamp and put it atop the P50/P60 plate and mount that at right angles, but that adds yet another point of movement to the setup, and we're starting to talk serious money whereby you might as well look for a ball head and do it properly. And you'd still need to loosen clamp, detach camera, rotate camera, reattach camera to get vertical.
- Status
Similar threads
