One of the great developments in camera design over the last few years has been in the area of image stabilisation. 

For me personally Synch IS (what Olympus/OM Systems call their combination of IS technologies) has meant that I seldom us a tripod anymore and that has been truly liberating. For video it is a different story. For short focal lengths I can just about handhold without inducing motion sickness in my viewers, but for long telephoto work just forget it, which is unfortunate as I do like filming wildlife. So I have taken to using a video tripod – a Sirui CT-3204 with Sirui VH-10X fluid head. The biggest problem is that it is heavy (3.56Kg) which is fine if I don’t want to walk far, but a real burden if I do. The other strike against it is that is awkward to use in the bush. So what has been happening is I make a decision – stills or video as a priority and more often than not it is stills and the tripod gets left behind in the car.

 

 

A little while ago I started thinking about monopods for video. I am no stranger to monopods I used to use them a lot for sports and events photography and I can’t remember a time when I’ve not had one. The one I have had for the last 25 years or so is the Manfrotto 679B with the stock Manfrotto 234RC head. A fantastic bit of kit but totally unsuited to video work. So as video was becoming more important (it was part of a unit I was teaching) I bought a Manfrotto 560b-1 monopod which featured a set of 3 feet at the bottom attached to the body of the monopod via ball joint with fluid cartridge. This means that horizontal pans are nice and smooth. The stock 234RC head meant that smooth vertical pans were impossible. Shortly after Manfrotto started making sets up with a better version of the monopod with a 500HLV video head so being a thrifty kind of person (my father would say I had deep pockets and short arms) I decided to get a second hand fluid head and found a cheap Manfrotto 700RC. For lighter set ups with short focal lengths it worked very well, but with the heavier longer focal lengths required for wildlife it just wasn’t up to snuff. So it was back to the tripod – or so I thought.

 

 

 

Fast forward a few months and I watched a video review on monopod heads and the reviewer talked very favourably about gimbal heads for monopods. In particular he raved about the Wimberley MH-100 Mono Gimbal Head. Now I’d never heard of it before and I quickly jumped online to find out more. It seemed to offer what I wanted in every way except price. $455 AUD, which was a bit much to take a punt on. So on looking around I found that Leofoto have their catchily named MPG-01 Mini Monopod Gimbal which was cheaper at $231 AUD but still too much to pay for an experiment. Further research turned up the Neewer GM39 Side Saddle Monopod Tilt Ball Head and that was a more reasonable $70 AUD. Now Neewer are one of the many Chinese photo accessory manufacturers that have sprung up in the last decade or so. Their products are generally what I would call cheap and cheerful. There are plenty of reviews out there that say the products are crap, but there also just as many that say they are good. I have used quite a few of their products and my experience has been largely positive. I like their LED video lights and replacement camera batteries. I’ve tried some of their filters and found them be not that great. So I decided to keep an open mind and try the monopod head.

 

 

 

---

Neewer GM39 Side Saddle Monopod Tilt Ball Head

 

I ordered the GM39 head off of the Neewer website and it arrived very promptly. The head was supplied in an eco friendly cardboard package with an Allen key, an Arca Swiss plate and a set of instructions in umpteen languages.

 

 

 

First impressions were very good. The head appears on the surface as nicely finished in black anodised aluminium with the knurled knobs finished in grey. Quite smart. In the hand everything feels nice, solid and well put together. It has a compact low profile and weighs in at svelte 259g (without plate) and has a maximum load capacity of 4Kg. There are three knobs; one for tightening or loosening the Arca Swiss compatible clamp, one for adjusting the ball head, and one for the panning control. The base has a diameter  of 40mm with a 3/8” thread to allow mounting to a monopod or tripod. An interesting touch is that the base is cut so it will slide into an Arca Swiss quick release clamp. You can use the head with the clamp vertical as a traditional ball head, or you can rotate the clamp through 90º and use it as gimbal head.

 

 

 

---

In Use

 

 

On their website Neewer says that clamp on the GM39 is compatible with “most Arca Type QR plates” . That is my first bugbear. I’ve got numerous Arca plates knocking around and beside the one it came with it wasn’t compatible with those from Sirui, Smallrig or Sunwayfoto. Also the safety notches cut into the clamp to engage with the screw heads on the base to the quick release plate  don’t stop the plates from sliding out if clamp isn’t done up tight enough.

 

I decided to test the GM39 with the following four combinations:-

• Canon EOS 6d with battery grip and Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary weighing in at 3.88Kg
• Sony A6500 with Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary weighing in at 2.99Kg
• Olympus EM1x with OM System 100-400mm weighing 2.47Kg
• Panasonic G85 with battery grip and Panasonic Leica 100-400mm weighing 1.88Kg

 

 

 

All of the combinations came in at under the 4Kg maximum load and yet it was impossible to cinch down the ball head to prevent movement, but more importantly there is no friction control. What I mean by friction control is that there is no way to control how the head moves – whether slowly or quickly which means that the camera and lens can flop about in an uncontrolled manner. Now I’m no engineer but looking at the ball it has a diameter of 20mm which is pretty small and that makes it hard to resist the torsional forces exerted by the heavy lenses. For example my Sunwayfoto FB-44II ball head has a 44mm diameter ball and that is hard pushed to lock down my Canon 6d and 150-600. With the included quick release plate it is possible to balance the G85 and EM1x combinations, with larger lenses you’ll need to buy a longer plate taking into consideration it is not compatible with all brands of Arca Swiss compatible QR plates.

 

 

The diameter of the base of the head is 40mm. This is something to be aware of. My Manfrotto 560B-1 has a head diameter of 34mm and everything is fine. My Manfrotto 679B has a head diameter 60mm and you have be careful when using the head in the gimbal mode that the release knob for the clamp is upper most or it will foul on the monopod and restrict your movement.

I tried using the GM39 on a tripod where I used its already installed ball head as a levelling base and and attaching it using the Arca Swiss rails that milled into it. It’s quite an interesting function and for the most part it does very well the only down side is that my head, a Sunwayfoto FB-44II is quite tall and having the GM39 on top of that makes it quite top heavy and unbalanced when using a long lens. This would be more suited to an inverted or low profile ball head.

 

 

 

Out in the field I used the GM39 primarily on my Manfrotto 560B-1 which has a fluid base that allows for smooth horizontal pans. So I had the gimbal set up  just to do the vertical pans. Despite some of the short comings mentioned above I found that it worked quite well. I particularly like the combined weight of 890g. This means I’m more inclined to take it with me. For photography I didn’t really use it much, but where I did use it a lot was with video. No it’s not a match for a proper video tripod and head but it is 2.6 Kg lighter than my Sirui CT-3204 with Sirui VH-10X fluid head. When using a combination of the GM39 on my monopod, Synch IS image stabilisation and correcting for camera movement in my video editing software I can get good results and that is all I wanted.

 

 

---

Conclusion

On line I’ve read and watched reviews from people who have either really liked the Neewer GM39 Side Saddle Monopod Tilt Ball Head or hated it with a passion. It seems to be quite polarising. What do I feel about it? Well I think it’s important to understand it’s strengths and weaknesses. 

You can’t expect Wimberley MH-100 Mono Gimbal Head performance from a product that costs a sixth of the price. Both Wimberley and the Leofoto use a different mechanism that involves bearings mounted round a spindle and there is only up or down movement which would mean that it is easier to lock down the head when needed. This mechanism is then contained within the structure and not subjected to the ingress of dirt or water meaning better longevity.The GM39 has a freely rotating ball head that give 360º motion in any plane. The locking mechanism is cruder and the mechanism is open to the elements which means grit could enter it and cause malfunction.

Below I’ve listed the pros and cons as I see them:

Pros:

• Cheap
• Lightweight
• Arca Swiss compatible

Cons:

• It’s not possible to lock the head out or control the movement in the head
• The camera and lens aren’t mounted over the axis of the monopod so can feel unbalanced in certain circumstances
• The ball head could become easily fouled by ingress of dirt and water
• The clamp is not completely Arca Swiss compatible which could make finding replacement plates or longer plates difficult.
• Not the best choice for heavy camera and lens combinations

On using the GM 39 for a while I realised that there is nothing to stop you using an existing ball in this manner and so you don’t need to buy anything.

 

 

From the above it would seem that I didn’t like the Neewer GM39 Side Saddle Monopod Tilt Ball Head and that is not correct. What I appreciate about it  is that it is cheap, light and does the job well enough. It works very well with my M4/3s setup. Whether it is right for you that I can’t answer, but what I can say is that the Neewer GM39 is cheap enough to take a punt on.