The DJI OSMO - is it groundbreaking?

[endlessmikehellstrom]

There is a market, I can't understand why GoPro didn't tried it directly! GoPro are great cameras in many ways and the biggest problem is the fisheye lens. If they resolved the fisheye lens they would bring a camera to the market not only for people who jump out of planes or sky in black trails!!! ;-)

They don't do it because too many people would discover, that we actually live on a flat plane. 

 

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

They don't do it because too many people would discover, that we actually live on a flat plane. 

 

The Church was right all this years!!! ;-DD

[Zach Ashcraft]

Have you tried the Beholder MS1? It works great with the Sony a7 series as long as you don't fit a bulky lens. Same joystick control as this OSMO, works with many different cameras and a lot cheaper.

Do you have any footage you've shot with it? I've struggled to find much

[wernst]

Holding a 3-axis gimble stick to avoid shaking? Complaints that this camera can’t be operated separately? Fixed lens, no RAW? 

Do you forget that there are already serious mft/full frame cameras with 5-axis IN (!) camera stabilizations on the market? For much less than the mft X5R alone?

 

In 2016 we will see cameras with highly advanced 5-axis in camera stabilization from Olympus, Sony - and Panasonic. I’m sure about this, just wait.

These cameras will have stabilization systems with stabilization power comparable to the gigantic steady cam rigs, Movi-type systems or recent stick solutions. The evolution of stabilization systems goes from monster to smart solutions. The endpoint of this evolution is IN camera stabilization, the stabilization of  the sensor.

 

Some years ago Sony has demonstrated what their “Balanced-Optical-Steady-Shot” system can do (in some of their consumer camcorders, even 4k) Amazing.

 

Keep it as simple as possible, not from behind through the chest. As Andrew has stated a while ago: The art of downgrading.

[fuzzynormal]

systems with stabilization power comparable to the gigantic steady cam rigs

As a guy that utilizes the EM5II often, I can attest that it's definitely NOT really comparable to steady cam rigs.  What steady cam does and how it does it is a whole lot different than sensor "floating"

Bottom line: to get really smooth motion having some sort of a rig with a bunch of mass is going to probably look the best; might not be practical, but it'll offer the smoothest shots.

[wernst]

Yes, fuzzy, you’re right, the EM5II is close but not fully comparable to “true” steady cam rigs - yet.
TMO it’s just a matter of less than one year and we will see solutions which don’t need “some sort of rig with a bunch of mass” or external x-axis gimbal rigs.

Just google “Sony Balanced Optical Steady Shot” (BOSS), see some footage taken with this system and you’ll see what I mean.
I own a Sony CX730 (prosumer) camcorder with BOSS just because of this incredible stabilization power. Unfortunately the IQ is based on a 1/3"sensor.
I've tested it under different hand held conditions and I can say it's truly amazing, a truly comparable solution to any kind of existing external staedy cam rigs.
It makes me believe that highly effective in cam stabilization will be a standard feature in less than 1 year from now.      

[fuzzynormal]

Yes, fuzzy, you’re right, the EM5II is close but not fully comparable to “true” steady cam rigs - yet.
TMO it’s just a matter of less than one year and we will see solutions which don’t need “some sort of rig with a bunch of mass” or external x-axis gimbal rigs. 

I don't know.  The heavier something is the less likely you're gonna get that noticeable y-axis bounce.  "We will see solutions" might be too optimistic.  A "configuration-that-almost-works-as-good-as-a-steady-cam-for-less-than-discrimiating-users" is more likely.

All this algorithm stuff and stabilized internal sensors is cool and all, and will get you kind of close to a good tracking shot, but the "real-thing" works in large part because it weighs a lot.  If you're using a small light weight cam you just move it more because you can.  It lacks mass to slow things down.  And too much random movement is distracting in a shot that's supposedly being stabilized.  

And I can tell you from my experience, when you move the EM5II body too fast, you get an unattractive motion artifact as the stabilizing sensor will over compensate.

So, it is a bit amusing that all this new technology still can't surpass a good steady cam op's work from the 1970's.  It's great that stabilization is available and all, but the new way is not always going to be the best way.  Slow and heavy might be an asset rather than a liability depending on what you wanna do and what sort of camera configurations are necessary for a particular production.

As some Scottish dude said in an outer spacey TV show:  "You can no' change the laws of physics."

[wernst]

. . . but the "real-thing" works in large part because it weighs a lot.  

Weight is the only solution? I don't think so. Big masses of steadycams have their specific, inherent problems. (“laws of physics” well discovered in Scotland . . . )

My experiences with rigs “with a bunch of mass” are simply painful. Trying to balance these rigs takes hours. And after swopping a single piece, e.g. the battery with another type and weight you have to balance it again from zero. To set up the in-cam stabilization of the EM5II is just switching ON the camera. Yes, the EM5II has still some issues, e.g. with pan. Interestingly the “real thing” has the same kind of stabilization problem, e.g. the after drift when a pan stops. (inertia, mass vs. gimbal)   

Trying to keep systems as simple as possible is my credo. A while ago Andrew has asked here:  “Does downgrading your equipment to simpler more basic models make you more creative?” He himself gave the answer: “Creativity comes from constraints”. I fully agree. A shot with some imperfections in stability taken within seconds is better than missing a shot because it would have taken 1 hour to setup the steadycam. Or for your convenience you have left your heavy steadycam at home or in the car anyway.

For well-arranged studio type of scenery any system for the best possible IQ will be chosen. For travel or documentary style shooting I prefer an easy and simple solution.     

 

 

[Kubrickian]

Wow, reviews on B&H say this doesn't even have log like the Phantom / Inspire cameras. 

[fuzzynormal]

Weight is the only solution? I don't think so.

I'm not talking about what is the best solution for you, I'm talking about what it takes to get the best looking shot. That qualification was mentioned earlier   

Large steady can rigs with a good op can not be beat for impressive tracking shots, and I just don't see that changing -for reasons mentioned- regardless of new tech.

You or I won't bother with such large rigging and will adapt with alternatives, but that doesn't mean the old way is still not superior visually.  

[tupp]

Don't know if this unit has been discussed here, but I imagine that in the near future we will be seeing a few more of these single-handled gimbals with semi-dedcated cameras.

[Michael Ma]

I've been thinking of getting a DJI Osmo.  But the sample footages from the early reviews are really not convincing.  What I really don't like is the speed of the pan.  It's way too abrupt and it seems like even a small adjustment is made too abruptly.  In some clips I've seen, it seems to stutter.  I've been comparing it to the footage off my Pilotfly H1+, and the Osmo's movements doesn't feel organic.  The Pilotfly on the other hand, you'd swear an experienced camera man has the camera on a shoulder mount even if an unexperienced person is holding it.

All can be addressed with a firmware update and probably can be improved after tweaking settings....but that's an art in itself, and it should come tuned to the best of it's ability out of the box and it seems far from that.  

[animan]

It has the same problem that all the other one-handed gimbals have: too much bounce. Curious to see footage from the Nebula 4200 which (they claim) solves that problem.

i think using cameras a good bit under the advertised payload helps this, theres some good footage of small cameras on the nebula or came tv single and footage from ministurdyflight looks great although not many reviews around yet

[mfeldt]

On 12.11.2015 at 9:56 AM, wernst said:

Weight is the only solution? I don't think so. Big masses of steadycams have their specific, inherent problems. (“laws of physics” well discovered in Scotland . . . )

My experiences with rigs “with a bunch of mass” are simply painful. Trying to balance these rigs takes hours. And after swopping a single piece, e.g. the battery with another type and weight you have to balance it again from zero. To set up the in-cam stabilization of the EM5II is just switching ON the camera. Yes, the EM5II has still some issues, e.g. with pan. Interestingly the “real thing” has the same kind of stabilization problem, e.g. the after drift when a pan stops. (inertia, mass vs. gimbal)   

Trying to keep systems as simple as possible is my credo. A while ago Andrew has asked here:  “Does downgrading your equipment to simpler more basic models make you more creative?” He himself gave the answer: “Creativity comes from constraints”. I fully agree. A shot with some imperfections in stability taken within seconds is better than missing a shot because it would have taken 1 hour to setup the steadycam. Or for your convenience you have left your heavy steadycam at home or in the car anyway.

For well-arranged studio type of scenery any system for the best possible IQ will be chosen. For travel or documentary style shooting I prefer an easy and simple solution.     

 

 

I'm having a hard time to belive that any kind of in-camera stabilization will ever match the dynamic range of an external device like the osmo or a steadycam. Dynamic range in terms of pointing (and position for true steadycam rigs) errors that is, of course... not in terms of gray levels!

The osmo will keep your image stable even when turned 90 deg off target - nothing inside a camera body could ever achieve that!

Apart from that, any system moving the lenses will necessarily degrade the image quality in all non-ideal positions. To keep this unnoticeable, you'll need to over-specify, thus increasing heavily the cost of such systems