Quality construction? Most definitely. Light weight? Incomparable.
Gimbal head? Come on now! After using the incredible "Ultimate Ball-head" from this company, I just had to add this newer version after reading all of the hype. But in a nutshell, the gimbal aspect is not what I'd expected.

I also had the horrifying experience of seeing an EOS-1D Mk111 & 300mm f/2.8L IS combo detach itself not once, but twice from the head (I'm using Wimberley plates; supposedly compatible), but fortunately I caught it in time on both occasions.
This combination is supposed to fall well inside the head's weight range capabilities, but this experience aside, it's smoothness when slotted into the 90 degree "Gimbal" recess leaves a lot to be desired. Far too jerky, and not even close to the Wimberley Sidekick (let alone the WH-200!) to be considered a true gimbal head. My old Kirk BH-1 does this job equally as well (if not better).

It's also extremely unnerving to see that large camera & lens sitting out to one side of such a delicate head, especially as mine is mounted on a 2 Series Gitzo Basalt tripod!

It's also much closer to being a conventional ballhead than its cheaper sibling, which I believe to be far better value for money.

The gimbal aspect aside, it's got to be one of the easiest to maintain ballheads out there (along with the Ultimate version), so I would still have to recommend it. Just don't go beyond the lens weight of say, a 70-200 f/2.8.