7 Tips for Zhiyun Crane

[mojo43]

 

[Turboguard]

Thanks for the video, even though I do not own it. I checked the price which is very affordable and it looks like it could handle a BMPCC + Sigma 18-35mm. Will maybe try this out!

[jonpais]

5 hours ago, Turboguard said:

Thanks for the video, even though I do not own it. I checked the price which is very affordable and it looks like it could handle a BMPCC + Sigma 18-35mm. Will maybe try this out!

I haven't tried that combo, but pretty certain it won't balance.

[scotchtape]

I can't balance it with g7.  That lens is just too heavy compared to the smaller cams and makes it too front heavy.

[Axel]

10 hours ago, Turboguard said:

Thanks for the video, even though I do not own it. I checked the price which is very affordable and it looks like it could handle a BMPCC + Sigma 18-35mm. Will maybe try this out!

 

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

I haven't tried that combo, but pretty certain it won't balance.

 

2 hours ago, scotchtape said:

I can't balance it with g7.  That lens is just too heavy compared to the smaller cams and makes it too front heavy.

Will try this with A6500 (size and dimensions comparable to BMPCC). Have the Sigma for MF as my standard lens. If I mount it on the Metabones' tripod socket (connection is moved ~1,5 inches to the front), I guess it would work. Some move the camera further back with a QR-plate (this, and not the weight of the plate, makes the difference):

Too lazy to test it right now, because I want a lightweight gimbal. Turbogard, you should consider a MFT lens for that, see here:

Just received used video glasses from ebay, because my display (like your's on the Pocket) is of no use in bright daylight, and I didn't want to add any more weight with an external monitor (will report my success/failure in due time). Have to find better cables and anchorage, maybe I even need a cage (which I'll try to avoid if possible). One day I will venture to the attic and dig out my old monopod (could velcro a long HDMI cable to it) to try one of these higher crane shots. One thing at a time ...

[Turboguard]

Thanks guys! Yeah, I understand the lens will make it very front heavy, as the lens is 1.8lbs itself, but according to the limitations of the crane which is 2.6lbs I believe. It should be working. Usually when I mount my camera I mount it on the speedbooster to get a more even weight distribution. Also looking at some videos on YouTube, I see that the space between their cameras and the the back end of the crane is like 2 inches. I should probably head over to B&H and see if they'll let me play around with it. Again, thanks for the replies!

[scotchtape]

You're going to use af-c?

[Phil A]

@Turboguard But deciding is not only the weight but also how it is distributed. If it is a long and heavy lens, the momentum will be too big for the Crane to compensate. The Sigma is 12cm long and weighs 800g-ish, in comparison it's impossible to balance a Samyang 35mm 1.4 which is 11cm long and 750g on a Sony A6300.

The video Axel linked to shows in my opinion that this is just a odd setup. He had to use x things to weighten down the camera, then even tape additional weights to the gimbal to balance it. If you have seen videos where people used Canon 6D cameras and alike, you know it won't be as smooth but have more quirks in the balancing. Plus you now get to weight levels where I would really prefer a two handed gimbal because I doubt you will be able to hold this for any reasonable amount of time.

[Davey]

1 minute ago, Phil A said:

@Turboguard But deciding is not only the weight but also how it is distributed. If it is a long and heavy lens, the momentum will be too big for the Crane to compensate. The Sigma is 12cm long and weighs 800g-ish, in comparison it's impossible to balance a Samyang 35mm 1.4 which is 11cm long and 750g on a Sony A6300.

Same principle applies to all gimbals. People look at weight on a spec sheet as if that is the all-deciding factor. 

I just wish that gimbal companies would be more honest in their sales pitches. Yes, there are a million and one combinations of lenses and bodies but there are only a few dozen very common combinations of cameras and lenses that they should list as compatible or non compatible. The DS1 will not accept all manner of A7s2 combos without massive compromises - like the 16-35 f4 smashing against the back of the unit. When these were being shown off on YouTube by the makers, people were asking about that combination (myself included) and the answer would be:

"Yes, it should work" and then they would quote the weight limitations as if that was all the evidence needed.

What they should have said is:

"Don't buy the unit until we have tested that extremely common combination of camera body and wide angle lens. Yes, it is within the weight limit but we cannot guarantee the ease of balance due to the front heavy distribution of weight. We have tested your camera with 'these lenses' and can confirm that it works perfectly"

When people began reporting issues with that combination they backtracked to the position that I stated above. Why can't people say "We haven't got a clue, mate" instead of "It should do"?

[jonpais]

16 minutes ago, Davey said:

Same principle applies to all gimbals. People look at weight on a spec sheet as if that is the all-deciding factor. 

I just wish that gimbal companies would be more honest in their sales pitches. Yes, there are a million and one combinations of lenses and bodies but there are only a few dozen very common combinations of cameras and lenses that they should list as compatible or non compatible. The DS1 will not accept all manner of A7s2 combos without massive compromises - like the 16-35 f4 smashing against the back of the unit. When these were being shown off on YouTube by the makers, people were asking about that combination (myself included) and the answer would be:

"Yes, it should work" and then they would quote the weight limitations as if that was all the evidence needed.

What they should have said is:

"Don't buy the unit until we have tested that extremely common combination of camera body and wide angle lens. Yes, it is within the weight limit but we cannot guarantee the ease of balance due to the front heavy distribution of weight. We have tested your camera with 'these lenses' and can confirm that it works perfectly"

When people began reporting issues with that combination they backtracked to the position that I stated above. Why can't people say "We haven't got a clue, mate" instead of "It should do"?

In Vietnam, stuff like this is a common sight, but I wouldn't try it. (the image is actually from Nanjing, but we see similar examples in Saigon all the time).

[Davey]

18 minutes ago, jonpais said:

In Vietnam, stuff like this is a common sight, but I wouldn't try it. (the image is actually from Nanjing, but we see similar examples in Saigon all the time).

Ha - that's what my gimbal looked like after trying to balance the 28mm f2.

[mojo43]

 

4 hours ago, Turboguard said:

Thanks guys! Yeah, I understand the lens will make it very front heavy, as the lens is 1.8lbs itself, but according to the limitations of the crane which is 2.6lbs I believe. It should be working. Usually when I mount my camera I mount it on the speedbooster to get a more even weight distribution. Also looking at some videos on YouTube, I see that the space between their cameras and the the back end of the crane is like 2 inches. I should probably head over to B&H and see if they'll let me play around with it. Again, thanks for the replies!

If you add a sliding quick release system and mount that forward essentially you are extending the room to mount the camera more forward. Have you tried this?

[Axel]

On 30.3.2017 at 7:27 AM, Axel said:

Just received used video glasses from ebay, because my display (like your's on the Pocket) is of no use in bright daylight, and I didn't want to add any more weight with an external monitor (will report my success/failure in due time). Have to find better cables and anchorage, maybe I even need a cage (which I'll try to avoid if possible). One day I will venture to the attic and dig out my old monopod (could velcro a long HDMI cable to it) to try one of these higher crane shots. One thing at a time ...

Okay, so I tested the said glasses. They are the Zeiss Cinemizer OLED. This is a positive review, but there are others also. If this is the best video quality for these kinds of goggles, then it's a shame. They'd cost over 600 bucks new, luckily I bought a defective one from Ebay (a dead pixel on the left side, not an issue) for 240 €. The colors are a bit weird, they look faded and remind me of old NTSC broadcasts. You can't enjoy colors, and you can't accurately judge focus. However, since I've seen a dozen or so reviews in advance and most of them say these are state of the art for FPV and superior to Fatshark and the like, I can only assume that the competitors are even worse, and that I made a bargain.

Usability for my purposes? 

+ shows the image the camera records, lag acceptable (like with most external monitors)

+ it's visible even in direct sun

+ adds no weight to the gimbal, and they are quite comfortable to wear

+ I can still see my feet under the image and won't stumble 

- it needs some time getting used to the fact that turning your head doesn't change the frame. Some might feel nauseous after a while.

- with the HDMI-output of the A6500 set to 1080p (the Cinemizer can't read UHD), there is no "HDMI info.Display" (greyed out), so no histogram.

- poor image and sound quality, no immersion, just a framing assistant.

I had various monitors before (Sony, Ikan, Marshall, Lilliput), and I didn't want to buy another. So I'll keep it. Won't use it indoors though, where the Sony's display suffices.

 

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Axel said:

Okay, so I tested the said glasses. They are the Zeiss Cinemizer OLED. This is a positive review, but there are others also. If this is the best video quality for these kinds of goggles, then it's a shame. They'd cost over 600 bucks new, luckily I bought a defective one from Ebay (a dead pixel on the left side, not an issue) for 240 €. The colors are a bit weird, they look faded and remind me of old NTSC broadcasts. You can't enjoy colors, and you can't accurately judge focus. However, since I've seen a dozen or so reviews in advance and most of them say these are state of the art for FPV and superior to Fatshark and the like, I can only assume that the competitors are even worse, and that I made a bargain.

Usability for my purposes? 

+ shows the image the camera records, lag acceptable (like with most external monitors)

+ it's visible even in direct sun

+ adds no weight to the gimbal, and they are quite comfortable to wear

+ I can still see my feet under the image and won't stumble 

- it needs some time getting used to the fact that turning your head doesn't change the frame. Some might feel nauseous after a while.

- with the HDMI-output of the A6500 set to 1080p (the Cinemizer can't read UHD), there is no "HDMI info.Display" (greyed out), so no histogram.

- poor image and sound quality, no immersion, just a framing assistant.

I had various monitors before (Sony, Ikan, Marshall, Lilliput), and I didn't want to buy another. So I'll keep it. Won't use it indoors though, where the Sony's display suffices.

 

But the reviewer says it's like watching an HD TV from two meters away. 

[Axel]

4 minutes ago, jonpais said:

But the reviewer says it's like watching an HD TV from two meters away. 

Before flat panel TVs there was a not-so-popular solution to achieve bigger images: rear projection. That's what it looks like, an NTSC-video rear-projected. But one thing is true: the image is big! 

I saw another review:

Well, it's not exactly "pretty lousy" but not "brilliant" as other reviewers call it. The truth is in between.