Dennis Manske

Thanks, yeah, it felt a bit awkward, and I couldn't really get control with my other hand. It was ok if I had it tilted down though. Fortunately, for the swimming part of the triathlon, a forward tilt was a necessity and so that was very helpful. I'll experiment some more. Thanks for that Mark! Regards, D

Just thought of something whilst taking a shower and thinking about my post. (Isn't that where all great thoughts and ideas are hatched?) Low angle shots! The Steadycam rig, with the vest and arm has a lower operating range than the hand held HD4000. I believe there is also an adapter that allows you to hang the sled even lower off the arm with some sort of extended mounting bracket. Somebody may be able to make that more clear. The HD4000, because the Gimbal is fixed fairly close to the bottom of the mounting plate, the handle of the gimbal will contact the bottom of the mounting plate, right about the time the camera is at chest level. **NOTE: That is with the camera level, not with forward tilt, and I am 5'9, short'ish legs and long'ish torso. Ok, so who cares right? Well, lets take for instance, you are shooting a scene with children. If your POV (point of view) is from a dominant perspective, say, the principal looking down on a child. . .no big deal. What about child to child? Suddenly your 5 year olds POV is at your chest level looking down on his friend who is actually taller than him? There would be a certain lack of continuity there. Shooting from your knees is impractical. If you want to tilt up in perspective, a child or dog looking up at a parent or owner, you are really screwed. It ain't gonna' happen. Especially without an arm and vest. So, understanding some of the pros and cons may help with your purchase decision. You may decide that for the project you are hoping to shoot, the cheaper sled just won't get the job done, and the Steadycam is out of budget. So, in that case, maybe consider sliders, dollys, or just sitting on sticks. You can also consider stripping your camera down to bare bones, and using a little hand held rig like the Merlin or some knock-off version of it. Cheers, Dennis

So, for the new 'newbies' (hate that word) if you are referencing this thread for info, here is a little followup. The Glidecam HD 4000 is enough for the 5DIII a battery grip and a Rhode Pro external mic. Once you have flown a wide angle, e.g., 16-35mm lens, hand held, you won't consider flying a 70-200 (even the light f4) regardless of what focusing issues you could possibly run into. As for the mic and balance, I didn't experience any issues. . .until the breeze started coming up. It was more of a windage issue,than a balance issue. My mic has the Rycote Lyre Suspension System, which is firmer than the older o-ring suspension. It doesn't flop around. Since a slight change of focus of the lens will change your balance, a floppy mic most certainly will too! If you have never experienced this kind of shooting before, the Glidecam is a pretty cheap introduction. It has limitations, but they are directly related to the price tag. In other words, you get what you pay for. The most stripped down version of the equivalent weight class sled in the Steadcam series is the Pilot at about $3000. If you have Pilot funds, and you KNOW you want to pursue this field, you should get the Pilot. If you are just wanting to play, or see if this is really something you would want to learn, by all means, grab a Glidecam HD4000. You can upgrade your gear for the Glidecam, like adding a HD Monitor and batteries, but, the sled isn't prewired. It also isn't carbon fiber. Even if it was, as a former golf pro and custom club maker, I can assure you there are different "qualities" of carbon fiber. Just compare a Knock-off carbon fiber tripod to a Really Right Stuff carbon fiber tripod. In comparable class comparison of tripods, The most noticeable up front difference. . .about $1,000+. Since RRS is always my first choice, I can assure you, I understand build quality. Really Right Stuff is as good as it gets for stills shooters! The build quality of the Glidecam: ...is exactly what you would expect for a $700 sled. (that includes the Manfrotto not-so-quick release plate.) A lot of stamped sheet metal plate parts as opposed to machined / milled parts. Not a bid deal. But it is a money thing. The quick release mechanism is hampered by the distance between the bottom of your DSLR and the mounting plate. I had to remove the spring from the release, to get any use out of it. Still better than removing the entire plate and unbolting the camera every time you need it. Lets start with the most important part (IMHO)...the Gimbal! You know. . . it really is pretty darn smooth! I know that the Steadycammers are not going to like this, but it is a really. . . incredibly. . . smooth, and shall I say a 'lively' gimbal. That being said, for 700 bucks, it probably isn't cost effective for Glidecam to center the bearing on every sled that goes out the door. I'm guessing SteadyCam, for the money, will have sombody at a bench carefully centering every single rig that flies out the door. You will not be able to fully balance your camera with the plate and weights alone. You will have to adjust the bearing in the gimbal as well. That is a long and tedious process, but, once done, it should be permanent. You will have to find a tutorial online, as it is not in the instructions. On the bright side, it is adjustable! Steadycam has what looks like a hexagonal shaped grip for your fingers to lightly grasp, for controlling your pan/tilts. **Note, you can also preset your tilt angle with the mounting plate adjustments. Glidecam. . .has none. The Gimbal on the HD4000, unlike the Steadycam, does not adjust up and down the stick. It is fixed into position. This means you will likely not be shooting in "low mode". At least not in properly balanced flight. The smooth aluminum tube is all you have to grip, so, you may consider a modification. I'm going to try self adhering PVC non-skid tape. It will still be "round" so you won't develop a feel for how much pan you are inducing, and when to stop, BUT, you would be able to grasp the stick with lighter pressure to prevent an unwanted drift in your framing. NO MONITOR! So, one of the biggest downsides of being dependent upon the camera's LCD viewfinder shows itself when you are at a run, chasing a triathlete, through a transition area, with the camera at just above your eye-line (for a tall athlete and short cameraman it is even worse) and not being able to look at the ground while you are carrying $6,000 worth of camera gear on a stick! You better have seriously good interpretive skills with your peripheral vision! One day, I think the luck could run out. Have your gear insured! Even my $500 deductible would hurt, so think about that. You can get an LCD monitor of some sort for under that $500. The baseplate is kind of long. Without a vest and arm, you won't be able to carry it just forward and off to the side of your hip. Especially without a monitor. So, that means you will be keeping it somewhat extended in front of you, which gets frikin heavy..fast! Otherwise, you will be bumping the long baseplate with your leg, and that of course, kills the shot. I worked from 8:30 am until noon, and breaking only to change locations, and wait for particular athletes. At that, I still shot about a hundred clips. Two days later, I am still sore as can be in my upper arms, shoulders and upper back. Had a blast though, so there is that! Got some very useable shots, and some really horrible ones as well. Practice, practice, practice. Upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. I have also just purchased a copy of the SteadCam Operators Handbook from Tiffen. It is on sale (second edition) until September 30th. $39.95! You can get a vest and arm from Steadycam for about a grand. You can modify the mount to accept the HD4000. Not a bad way to go, since it is safe to assume that Steadycam really has been doing this from the beginning, and you will get a very high quality set-up. Then you can migrate into a Steadycam sled as you get more funds, and pass the old HD4000 onto the next curious newbie. I hope this helps clear things up for some of the new people that are kicking tires and gathering info. Special thanks to the helpful folks here on the forum. Cheers, Dennis

Scout! So needed that second cuppa'. So, can you not edit a post?

Make that a Flyer (4 to 18 pounds) not a pilot.

I'm certainly leaning strongly in that direction. With such short notice, I already will have my hands full. I just got a note from a colleague. It turns out, he actually co-owns a Flyer, and he gave me the name of a Glidecam HD4000 owner. So, I have some local help that will likely cost me a significant number of some of the best hand crafted brews to be found in New England. I have spent half the night watching every online vid on both the Glide and the SteadyCam. I'm going to work with the Glidecam for awhile, test the waters, see what the demand is in my region for SteadyCam cameramen, and if it looks strong enough, I'll likely move into a Pilot. That is, if I don't move into a bigger camera. There are local student videos and of course, Portland's 48 Hour Film Project, that I can volunteer for so that I get plenty of practice shooting. Ugh. . .and so it begins. . . :rolleyes: :)

Thanks Mark, You are likely very right. The 70-200 is mostly because it gives me the 70, more so than the 200. Still, it is likely going to be a royal PIA. The Mic picks up the growl of the IS, so I don't use image stabilization on any shot I need the sound from. I have shot a 'steady' type of shot on a monopod with a 16-35 by just adding a little weight to the bottom of the stick. It was a spur of the moment idea, on a reality show promo, walking into the local tavern. We had already wrapped for the day and were enjoying cold ones with the local characters when the idea hit me. So, there was extra creativity involved ;) It worked (good enough for that application), and it made me think about expanding my gear bag a bit. So here I am. I ordered it with express delivery, so I should have a little time to mess with it. If it is too much to deal with on short notice, I'll leave it in the trunk, and work with it on my spare time. Cheers Nice Demo reel on your Steadycam by the way.

Alex, I understand how you feel about this, I really do. But...if you actually read my initial post, all of those things were covered. And here is the reason why... I had already read through a considerable amount of posts, but also needed to pull the trigger on a order to get it here in time to use, as well as configure. Historically, pretty much every question posted by a new, inexperienced member of the forum, has been answered by Eric with a less than helpful, let alone friendly reply. The troll at the gate sort of thing. Because of this, I had great angst when I decided to register and post. I knew what would happen, and as predicted, the first reply was exactly why I hated to have to ask. It didn't however, change my need for the information I sought. I did however, make it VERY clear my intentions and expectations for my equipment, and abilities, so there was no need to answer as he did. NOTE*** The answer I got from Mr. Lawry answered the question without follow focus being a deciding factor. It certainly is good info, but only when presented as helpful information. Reread the posts, and you may notice that it was not presented that way initially. If one doesn't have experience with a particular piece of equipment, then one need not respond. That's simple. Maybe somebody could recommend an alternative, with specific information on why. One could even have said, "You have stumbled upon a pro-steadycam forum, and the Glidecam isn't really considered pro gear. Nobody here would be able to help. If you want to learn more about the Steadycam specific gear, take a look around, but you are looking at $5000+ to get started. I have spent many many hours helping people in a forum, of which I have considerable knowledge. It never occurred to me to thump on a new person with "dumb questions". Eric on the other hand, is a bully. Likely been one his whole life, and pads his ego with quippy little cyber assaults at new people that don't own a $5000 plus rig. If there are people here that choose to kowtow to him because he is all Hollywood and all knowing, that is cool. As long as there are people that find that behaviour acceptable, it shall continue. But I have worked enough in LA, to know he puts his pants on the same way I do, it is just that his are bigger. So, put this one on me if you like Alex, but I came here looking for exactly the kind of help I received from Joe Lawry, and not what I got from a couple others. I didn't deserve it, and I won't lay down and take it. I guess they have better manners in New Zealand.

Thanks Joe. The 4000 it is then. That is exactly what I was looking for. I understand how hard it is to try to keep focus on the 70-200, as I use it a lot for interviews. There are only a couple shots I want to experiment with. The 16-35 will be my main lens. I also have a 24mm Tilt shift that is manual focus and fully mechanical, but is heavy as compared to the 16-35. It is also much easier to pull focus with (off the steady rig) but, it allows for some great selective focus, and carried at a consistent height, could give some great DOF with scheimpflug. Could be a pretty creative effect. . I'm looking to add a Lee matte box and small HDMI monitor and then, and then. . .so yeah, it will likely grow. The 4000 makes more sense. I'm not expecting miracles from something that costs a third of what my tripod costs, but I want to be sure this is the direction to go before dropping thousands on a pro rig, and this is the perfect event to figure that out. Yup, wish I had more time to practice. . . C'est la vie. Thanks Joe and Jordan! Ok, got what I need Eric. It's all yours buddy! ;)

Sorry Eric. There is no way that you can successfully argue that your first response was helpful or had the intent of being. It wasn't, and for the very simple reason you stated. It isn't a "Pro Rig" and it isn't worth the effort to help. But, it is, however, worth the effort to be obnoxious. At nearly 50 years old, I don't have enough years left to live, to waste time paying unwarranted homage to somebody that is notorious for just being a jerk to people that come here to seek answers to questions about equipment you supposedly have such a vast knowledge of. So, I hope you aren't expecting me to kiss your pompous butt. Cheers, D

Yup, it is just about 7 pounds. I have found things don't always work to there advertised limits. I was hoping somebody might actually have some experience with these products. It may just be to much on the amateur side to have been used here. About to get out of cell coverage for the day. Thanks Afton. Cheers.

Thanks Afton, I understand that and appreciate your thoughtful input. I'm a photographer and understand DOF, Aperture etc., and, as I said, these are not critical shots, but it is an opportunity to mess around with it. I have also been pretty successful at manually pulling and racking focus with the 70-200, and yes, it is a major PIA. I won't have "second take" opportunity here, and I also said I was planning to use the 16-35 most of the time, but would like the ability to put the 200 on and have it balance. This is not a feature film, or even a national TV ad. Chances are, it will never be seen by anyone. So, does anyone know if it is 2000 is enough rig to balance that combination effectively, or do I really need to go to a 4000? I am so trying not to be the next new guy that everyone hates. It always seems to have a certain suck factor joining a new forum, be it Diesel Trucks, Commercial photography, aviation, farrier. It is weird. Like getting 'jumped in' to a gang. I have read enough of these posts to expect it, as I even told my wife when I posted, that, A) Eric would be the first to respond. and B) it was not going to be a helpful post. So Thank You Afton, for at least not being antagonistic.

Follow focus. . . I'm not sure how that affects the ability for the 2000 to balance out the camera with a 70-200 f4. The f4, by the way, is quite a bit lighter than the f2.8. Which of course, is why I own it. Not trying to stir the pot here, just would like a little help from some people that have experience putting different rigs together, that may know if this combination will work. I can move up to the 4000, if necessary, but I don't want to be handholding more stick than I need. Of course, as I build out a rig over time, maybe it is best to have a big enough stabilizer, such as the 4000, to grow into. For this project, with only two cameras shooting, and covering all the activities of a triathlon, a vest would be way too cumbersome, for what I need right now. Well, that is why I am here. For advice. The shots I am planning for the 70-200 (not that it matters) the athlete(s) would run/swim/bike into focus and cam2 with a shoulder rig and wide angle lens picks up the shot.

I don't.

Hey folks, Quick question. I need to get a steady rig for a spec job by next Saturday. (Friday actually, so I can set it up). I have a 5D3 with a battery grip, and will most likely shoot the 16-35 a lot, and I will also have sticks and monopod along. There are some steady shots I want to try out, and may even throw on the 70-200f4. IS the 2000 enough rig for this? You obviously know I am not experienced with Steady cam type gear, and for this gig, it is a good place to screw it up, and learn something, if it is going to get screwed up. These aren't mandatory shots, but would be great to have if I pull them off. This seemed like a good entry level unit I can get my feet wet with. I would need to order something by tomorrow I think, just to make sure I have it here. Thanks for any input and your time. Cheers, Dennis