Jump to content
Tom Wilkinson

PRO Gimbal VS. XCS...

Recommended Posts

Hi Afton

 

Spot on mate!! - Exactly! why do we all not drive the same car? or wear the same clothes?

Choice. some people say a Lambo is better than a Ferrai - but I prefer an Aston Martin :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning Everyone

 

Although we here at PRO have many pressing things happening today and the rest of the week, I will respond to this in order to clear up an absolute mess. I do not wish to discuss my day to day business on the Steadicam Forum but let me say this: I cannot speak for or about the XCS gimbal or the MK-V gimbal. We at GPI PRO have not redesigned our gimbal in any way with the exception of adding a longer gimbal handle and different grip options for our customers. The PRO gimbal pan bearing is made for your specific application and is made to the absolute best tolerances available in manufacturing today. We switched vendors in 2011 for many different reasons and NONE were performance based. We do not call every operator on the planet and ask their permission or inform them of our day to day operations. GPI PRO SYSTEMS will not divulge our manufacturing methods now or in the future. Now, we will go back to building the best equipment that we can. Have a good day. : )

 

Posted on behalf of Jack Bridges

President and Owner of GPI PRO SYSTEMS., Inc.

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Michelle and Jack for clarifying the issue. As I stated on my previous posts I NEVER BELIEVED that PRO-GPI (or XCS) would alter their designs significantly (performance altering) without publicly announcing it. I only dramatized the situation to show that what had been said previously (PRO and XCS gimbals getting significantly better and better over the years by the means of bearing upgrades) is impossible for many reasons:

 

1/ Both companies always have been great manufacturers and their production designs didn’t needed any performance altering modification to begin with.

 

2/ Both companies have great reputation and rapport with their customers so even if they would found an error or a way to better themselves, they would have announced it publicly and would find a way to offer upgrade path for older gimbal owners.

 

3/ With steadicam community is what it is, even if they secretly would make a performance altering modification, as soon as this gets public, we would have heard lots of complaining from customers.

 

I don’t have ANY vested interest in ANY of these companies (PRO, XCS or MK-V). I’m a Tiffen customer (ultra2) with huge respect to all these people who everyday design and create excellent products.

 

I am truly sorry if I offended you or Greg from XCS in anyway. My only intention was debunking a clearly erroneous statement which, if left untouched, would only hurt the reputation of these manufacturers.

 

Respectfully

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a spare Pro pan bearing.......in the original bag......with a label from the manufacturer : ) PM me with a generous offer and I'll send you a pic.

 

I love my Pro gimbal. I use gun oil on it because if you life can depend on it, so can your career. CLP 4 life.

 

Boobs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rambled on far too long one my first version of my responce, so I will just post this.
The basic core design of the XCS gimbal has not changed since it has gone into production. The core design includes tolerance of parts we have ground, machined and bearings.
The basic design from day one 1996 was to design a gimbal that fit all 3 and now four post sizes, 2.00” XCS original designer, 1.58 (40 mm) CP Master Series and the old standard CP / Pro adopted 1.50” post sizes with 1.80”recently on the market.

My reasons for this interchangeable design are another discussion for another time but always from day one.

What we have changed since the first production model is everything astatically and two changes for the increased 3D camera weights with sled weights over 90 pounds
Component designs are always and evolution. But the performance remains the same.
We changed the sleeve and cap design twice from original, one slight fork design change in the past 5 or so years, the longer standard gimbal handle 10 years ago. The Ergo of course three changes of the part over the 18 year history.
So if there are any specific question please do call and the manufacturers will most likely tell you what makes their product different from others and hopefully why. And there are differences.
Greg Bubb
Camera operator/Owner of XCS

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI guys, Thanks for your comments...

 

My PRO gimbal is great but sometimes feel that its quite 'lively'...

 

also i noticed when balancing it the other day that it might have slipped out of centre as it would balance fine with the lens pointing in one direction and then with a slight tilt to the left when i spun the camera around to face in the opposite direction... perhaps i need to get it re -centred??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro gimbals do not require centering -- the behaviour you are describing sounds more like the gimbal was damaged/bent...specifically the fork?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×