I came across this gizmo (http://www.jimmybox.com/) in the current (August, 2004) issue of Video Systems. I've no idea how good it is but it appears to be a novel idea for handling wireless receivers on cameras that have no provisions for such a device.

You don't want to know what popped into my head when I read Jimmy box... of course I guess not everybody would have heard a reference to "Jimmy".

I clip my receiver onto my belt and run a 3' xlr up to the cam... I'm wondering who will get this "Jimmybox"?

For those searching for a"work around" this device might just be the ticket.

Ever lock your keys in the car? Of course you have! You gotta "Jimmy" the door open! That's why the tow trucks keep a supply of Slim Jims in the cab!

Maybe I should change my name to MacGyver.

I like your last name... if you're going to change anything I wish your first name was Doug... or Bob... in that order. I see you're even from the Great White North.

We've got some great contributors to this forum who hail from Canada.

I do the same thing, I've got a belt unit, mine's fitted with a walkie talkie mount, but I've forgotten the part number. Just modified one of my brothers Sam Brown belt mounts. (he's a cop)

<<<-- Originally posted by Matt Gettemeier : You don't want to know what popped into my head when I read Jimmy box... of course I guess not everybody would have heard a reference to "Jimmy".

I clip my receiver onto my belt and run a 3' xlr up to the cam... I'm wondering who will get this "Jimmybox"? -->>>


I'd think about getting it (or something like it), for when I'm shooting events/seminars on a tripod. A nice place to chuck a receiver, rather than velcro to the tripod or lay on the desk/floor. I have an XM2 so there is no place for stuff like receivers on them

Aaron

There's always the Bracket 1. the guy that developed it is a tad paranoid. He freaked out when i asked dimensions.

Bracket 1 site (http://www.bracket1.com)

B&H sells them for $60 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284435&is=REG)

they have several accessory plates to help mount receivers.

I was thinking of mounting a Mix Pre

Does he think you'll rip his design off or something? Very strange!

Aaron

I've used my cam in odd configurations fairly often... but without a doubt I've found that the more junk I have up on the pod the worse it works.

Keeping your cam seated DIRECTLY against the top plate of the pod results in the most stability. That extra lift and airspace created by anything on top of the legs will result in more vibration transmitted to your camera then you'd have with a direct contact.

Nobody ever thinks that stuff is a big deal until they have to do a whole day at max telephoto. Don't believe me? Try it... Put your cam on the mini-rover or some other bracket/box which can be attached to the top of your pod... now zoom in and pan around... notice how careful you need to be? There is a difference...

My mini rover is rock solid and I use it the way you describe with no problem. Mind you, I always attach it properly, I also use a quick release plate.

My mini rover is rock solid and I use it the way you describe with no problem. Mind you, I always attach it properly, I also use a quick release plate.

Does the mini-rover allow you to have the camera centered over the legs exactly as it would be normally? (Minus the thickness of the Rover of course.)

If you use a bracket that positions your cam off center that's when it can affect the camera... the quick-release plate raises your cam about 1-2mm off the head... if you mount up your cam and then get a light source on the other side you'll see light under whatever portions of the cam aren't touching the quick-release plate.

Then if you use a bracket which positions your cam off to the side that airspace extends over to wherever the camera is... the further the cam is off center the more vibration will be induced.

The mini-rover is probably the most solid of these type products however and maybe it allows you to keep your cam centered over the head? Maybe it's time for me to look into one of those...

Because of how my bracket attaches to my cam it forces the cam to be off to one side... that's when you lose some of the stability of pod mounting... Keep in mind we're talking max telephoto too... an imperceptable vibration at wide angle is a shot-ruining vibration on tele. Even wind moving across a pod can vibrate it too much at full zoom... so adding even a tiny "weakness" to the system will have a pronounced effect at that focal length.

Matt you might want to search out a couple of simple parts that could help. Some (but not all) camera-mounting thumb-wheel 1/4" studs also have a 1/4" threaded hole directly beneath the stud. This might allow you to center the camera if your stud isn't like this. Which bracket are you using, is there something else that's interfering with placement other than the stud itself? Check photo stores for other studs and adapters like I'm describing.

You can also easily make a stiffener plate from 1/16" aircraft aluminum. Basically it's just a rectangle a little smaller than your camera, with the two holes drilled for the 1/4" stud to pass through as well as the alignment stud in front. The camera doesn't actually attach to this plate like a real baseplate, but it will provide greater stiffness as a sandwich rather than just the limited area that most quick release plates contact. I made one a long time ago for a full-size S-VHS camcorder. It made a big difference and it only weighs a couple of ounces.

My impression from reading the review of the JimmyBox was that it was intended for times when guide audio was being transmitted to the camera from a mixer via a wireless link. In other words the quality of reception didn't have to be perfect. The reason I say this is because this bracket would really put your antennae in a bad location for drop-out free pickup. Otherwise it looked very heavy-duty with a good handle.

I'm using this bracket right HERE. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=142740&is=REG)

I thought it was the same basic design as the Rover... but the cam can slide back and forth along the base plate... and the base plate is attached to the quick release plate by either a 1/4 or 3/8 threaded hole... those mounting points are a little over half-way to the verticle arm. The camera can then be slid into position close to that... but it still results in an inch or so of offset.

If I take some material as you suggested and eliminate any airspace between the bracket and head that should do the trick... that may not be a bad idea anyway... if there's a direct contact like that I might have a problem positioning the cam front to back though...

Realize that a lot of people aren't as picky as I am too. I'm referring to any induced vibration while in the process of panning slowly on an object at max telephoto... AND having to touch the cam... for zooming or focus. In a simple pan the cam is fine... The stuff I use is pretty high-end... it's just that I think most likely ANY bracket that doesn't CENTER the cam directly ontop of the head is going to do this. So I figure it would be best to find a bracket that will mount tightly to the cam and also have the camera mount in the exact verticle position it would normally be in... centered over the legs. So if the mini-rover does that... by only changing cam position by raising it the thickness of the base-plate... then fine... if it adds any offset then I'm going to make my own bracket.

I have a better visual of your problem now. My suggestion for using a new stud that has both a male and female 1/4" would solve your centering problem, but might not be any more vibration free. It appears your camera-attachment thumb-wheel stud is too thin to also have a female 1/4" on the bottom. Am I correct here?
If you use my idea with a new stud, then you wouldn't use the fixed female threads on the bracket or your existing thumb-wheel stud. Instead you'd use the new stud to attach both the camera above and the quick-release plate directly below.
This bracket is so narrow from front to back that I'm not sure my plate idea would give you much more stability. I was intending that the new plate would go between the camera and the bracket. It would become a longer, rigid support for the camera, which is what you're bearing on when you adjust the lens, rather than going between the quick-release and the bracket.

I can see where your problem is. The bottom of the 'grip" is slotted and you have a round locking collar. i'm assuming that this is where the tripod screws onto.

People scoff at the though of spending $50 on the Mini Rover. Well the Rover base is 5mm aluminum with a 1mm cork pad by 1 3/4" wide. The rover attached to the tripod socket by meqns if a countersunk screw. The base has an alignment pin as well, to ensure a solid and well aligned fit.

There is a threaded 1/4" tripod mount with an alignment hole, 1/2" inboard of the camera tripod screw.

It's flat just like the earth and rock solid too, but there are those that claim a $12 cheapo flash bracket will do the job. The problem is with the rigidity of the locking collar and the attached mounting holes.

My quick connect plates are 2 1/2 hex, 2 1/4" X 4 1/2" and 2"X 5 1/2" , all metal and built like a tank. Again people snear and shake their head at my frivolous expenditures, claiming they can do the same for but a fraction of the cost.

I do know that Matt goes the best way and certainly not the cheap way. He's a fellow member and a co-founder of GSA International. I can also see where an open box could flex, for that reason I'm still looking at the Barcket 1

Youse uses a cheap and dirty quick connect or bracket and youse pays da price old son (Newfanese dialect).

I'll get a lot better look at the rover pretty soon. I did a lot of shooting with a buddy of mine this weekend and he was using the mini-rover while I was using the stratos bracket... I originally would have considered them to be equals, but maybe the rover is a superior design in this respect. The stratos bracket is really thick at the bottom but there is a slot running down it for the cam to be locked anywhere along the length... that "thumbwheel" is 2" in diameter and knurled... so it locks the cam down REALLY tight... that thumbwheel also fits under the bracket so that when the cam is locked into position it eliminates the gap anyway!

I guess I'll just have to try out the rover... Like I said, if you guys were here you may slap me saying, "THAT'S what you're talking about?" But I can't help it... I get pissed at anything less then perfection.

The stratos was $39.95 and the rover was $49.95... so trust me... I didn't go with the stratos 'cause it was cheaper... I thought it looked and felt good.

My mic bag is worth more then my camera... so I'm not worried about spending $50 to get a rover... I just want to be sure it's perfect in function.

EDIT: It's an hour later and I've got a solution... the stratos bracket is 12mm thick at the thick part and 6mm thick in the "thin" part and it's all billet aluminum from aircraft stock... so strength isn't the issue... I was using the thumbwheel to lock down the cam forcing it off center and using one of the threaded holes in the 12mm section to hold the mic... which WAS at center. After playing with it for about 15 minutes I see I can go to Sears and buy a 1/4" allen bolt and run it through the tripod's quick-release plate... through the bracket's 12mm section... and into the cam... I'll leave the shotgun stick out to the side... if it slightly vibrates who cares? Problem solved.