Web Link....
http://www.thecinecity.com/product.php?productid=16193&cat=243&page=1

Seems, key word seems like a good deal at 1600.00, but then again Tech support is in India (insert Sprint joke) and the product is coming from India.

I have a JVCHD110U, I film weddings with it all of the time and I want a shoulder/back/arm saver at this point. I also dont have the money to pick up a full Glidecam system to support my camera.

Feedback on this?

This is the first time I've seen this particular system, and it represents some interesting developments but a few immediately obvious drawbacks.

The first as you mentioned is the overseas customer support, although they may already have distribution here. An immediate flag for me is that when you select the "contact us" tab on the website, there are no phone numbers or direct email address,, only an email form...

As far as the rig goes, there's nothing particular innovative about it except that they have done their homework and co-opted design elements from a number of different manufacturers, unlike their entry level gear which is directly copied from Glidecam.

The top stage is an interesting design but I would be concerned about the adjustment screw threads being so exposed to the elements--with a fine pitch thread it doesn't take much for dirt to get in there and start grinding. It also looks rather heavy (that Bogen quick release that is incorporated into it is a notably weighty component), which is only good if you are using the system with a particularly lightweight camera and want to add some heft. Otherwise, you will need to bulk up the base of the system considerably (in something like a 4:1 ratio to the top) to accomodate this overage.

The gimbal looks like a reasonably good design. I myself have never heard the term "wheelbarrow bearing". However all gimbals must be judged by their operation, not by looks or specs. The fact that the gimbal is movable up and down the post is good, although I would be wary of the thumbscrew adjustment clamp, that could be dangerous.

The base of the sled with telescoping monitor and battery brackets is a good idea and one that you see on high end sleds, although usually the rods themselves migrate fore and aft rather than the mounting point (I think it might allow for this looking at the picture but it's hard to tell). Nevertheless, this is the right concept and will allow for dynamic balancing as well as maximizing or minimizing the inertia of the system depending on the needs of the shot (something most users of a system like this will likely never use, but it's good to have). I can't tell if the monitor bracket can rise up the post separately from the battery bracket--it should.

The arm looks like a standard design--there is only so much performance that can be achieved by an arm of this type, they tend to be a bit springy and stiff compared to the Tiffen arms (Merlin, Flyer, etc.).

The vest is interestingly another entry into the backmounted camp that has become the flavor of the month for low-end manufacturers. I can't tell how stiff the back section is but this type of design will tend to twist a bit more due to increased torque if it's not done right. Since there isn't a rear view I can't tell if there are any adjustments for pitch angle on the arm connector, which is the critical means to regulate the flying attitude of the rig relative to the operator and without which the rig may want to fly away from the body, requiring much more effort to hold in place. In the small picture of the gal operating at the top of the site, this exact phenomenon is occurring (notice the arm to gimbal connector under her right hand, this should be level/horizontal, instead it is showing a pitch of about 10 degrees which is enough to send the rig screaming away from the body if you were to let go).

The "adaptor plate" for hanging the rig is intriguing in shape, definitely a unique design and it's clever that it accomodates all three components, but I would be concerned about it's thin construction and it doesn't seem to offer a secure way to dock the rig safely so you can walk away from it (the balancing pin is nice to have but there needs to be a way to mount the rig so that it isn't swinging around freely). Also I would be hesitant to mount a fully-laden sled on the pin with a lightweight stand unless it was festooned with sandbags or a helper--this is a potential recipe for a crash.

This all said, there is some decent design work implemented into this rig for the price point. I am guessing that it has a substantial amount of weight to it, which is not necessarily the worst thing if one is flying cameras around 6-8 lbs (as the added weight will give a more solid and inert feel to the operating), but given a tricked out 1/3" camera with 35mm adaptor, prime lens and other accessories, you will be getting the rig up to a range where the various components are being subject to levels of torque that will make the previously comfortable less so, especially the vest. However as I indicated earlier, the proof would be in the pudding, in this case flying the rig rather than inspecting pictures (the accompanying text is a tad didactic; 5 full paragraphs describing the theory behind the arm, but no mention of the maximum payload it will support, or how to fine tune the springs?).

Jim, specifically to your thoughts about using it for weddings--I know there have been plenty of discussions in the wedding thread about the pros and cons of using stabilizers, particular "full-size" ones like this for weddings, in terms of the amount of hardware, involvement of getting in and out of it quickly enough and the limitations of what you can and can't shoot when from the rig (while you can get beautiful moving telephoto shots, having the same sort of control over focal length [zoom] and focus as you do with handheld will be an issue, especially with the manual lens you are used to on the JVC camera).

Sorry guys. It's a fake. I know because these same idiots tried this same thing by taking pics of an HBS members system and pasting it into a collage to signify something genuine. Do not be fooled. All those pics you see are pics of HBS members systems. Look at the Gimbal. It's the Gimbal that we had in a venture on HBS made by Gorden. They've also used products from other stabilizer websites. Really a smart touch. ;)


We blew their cover before when they mistaken cut out and paste in a members photo into their website. The website they had was different. I see they have a new one. AGAIN. IT'S Fake!!! Do not trust.

Wow, that's mindblowing CK. Can you link to some of the sources of those pictures? that's a fascinating amount of work to have put into this. So what is the deal--they just take your money and you get nothing?

Unfortunately I'll have to go through the members system to find these pics and it will take some time. The back mount is from another company which I cannot remember. I'll also have to do a search to look for the rest. I remember this because there was a member on HBS who was inquiring about this new system. When we checked out the website we found out it was pieced together from different websites but mostly from members on HBS. I guess they read our post and they removed the site. I should have saved it. Stupid me. Here's the post on HBS that started it:

http://hbsboard.com/index.php/topic,2744.msg24846.html#msg24846

It's been awhile but here is the stage from the group build we did:

First up, the tilting stage. See this link at HBS:

http://hbsboard.com/index.php/topic,2344.msg22161.html#msg22161


Well, if I'm wrong about this then I'll have to make a huge apology

Yeah, the stage looks like a simple copycat, but I haven't seen that gimbal anywhere, and it certainly isn't any of the group venture gimbals. Take a look at the clamping mechanism - just a screw through the grip pushing against the post! This one might be a real rig, might not be. But, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen that arm before, and both it and the vest look quite similar to the usual rigs from India that pop up on eBay quite regularly. I think this rig was also sold on eBay at one time too, because I know I commented on the Cody copycat topstage. That last copycat was a dead-on picture-for-picture copy with no description, this looks like it's just another one of the cheaply made knockoffs.

EDIT: Here's a thread about that rig and its sale on ebay. http://hbsboard.com/index.php/topic,2799.0.html

I'm sure not saying it's a good rig, but the situation may not be anything more than a cheap rip of some designs.

You might be right Tom. But it does seem that this is something I've seen else where. Well, If I am completely wrong then I apologies for jumping to conclusion.

Now I am to scared to give these guys any money at all.

Who is this guy selling at HBS and what is he charging?

Now I am to scared to give these guys any money at all.

Who is this guy selling at HBS and what is he charging?

Jim, pass by HBS and check out the venture forum. It's much easier than trying to explain. In fact there are gimbals, stages and socket blocks, that you will swear were commercial built. You'll be surprise what HBS is capable of manufacturing as a group. ;)


People just think we deal in broom sticks and paddles. :)

People just think we deal in broom sticks and paddles. :)

They keep confusing you with those other guys, the Homebuilt Quidditch/Ping-Pong_Supplies.com site.

HA! HA! CP you're worth a million bucks :)

I'd be very leery of a company that will make an exact copy of a stabilizer (even the accessories) and sell it as their own. They don't even acknowledge they ripped of Glidecam. Many stabilization systems use elements of various rigs but not exact copies. Well, maybe not exact...probably their components aren't as good as Glidecams. I mean really...a wheel barrow bearing! I have some wheel barrow bearings and they aren't even close to the bearings used in most stabilizers.

Tery
Indicam

OK, I'm still laughing about the "Quidditch" comment.

All those pics you see are pics of HBS members systems.You know CK, I'm really glad you're here. Thanks to you, a scam has been avoided -- much appreciated,

Hi everyone,

The gimbal is a copy part for part of www.laigleparis.fr
but a dont think it is fluid like L'Aigle

Greeting!
Frédéric Savard

These guys have been bugging me ever since I emailed them. I even called their bluff on the copied material.

Here is an email they sent me today, one of many that demand money.


Dear Sir,

Thank you for your mail.

Are you still interested in our products ?

I have viewed your all comments on Forum - DVinfo.

This product is not copied, this is designed by us.

Waiting for your reply.

Thank you,
Best Regards,

Pratibha

actcare@gmail.com

While the idea of building one from books and instructions from HBS, I just want to buy one, without paying 10K for it.

I have a JVC HD110U, with extra gear, what do you recommend?

Jim,

What kind of extras? How much extra weight?

Tery
Indicam

While the idea of building one from books and instructions from HBS, I just want to buy one, without paying 10K for it.

I have a JVC HD110U, with extra gear, what do you recommend?


Do not worry Jim, it wasn't a sales pitch. I did not say you should build one. The idea of the venture group is to have someone else build the parts for you as a group for less. Someone asked about the parts and that's why I answered. Do not worry, I do not recommend anyone to build one, but rather buy a commercial system. In fact I've never sale pitched HBS to anyone. That's not my game. If someone is interested they just go there.

You've made a good decision though. Building or putting one together is not for everyone. Check out what Terry has to offer.

By the way Charles, we just did a modification to allow us to move forward with the double upgraded arm. It took a while but it should work.

All we need to find now is a machinest who is hungry. Our current one likes to take his sweet time.

Thanks for your sense of humor!

Tery (or Terry)
Indicam

By the way Charles, we just did a modification to allow up to move forward with the double upgraded arm. It took a while but it should work.

All we need to find now is a machinest who is hungry. Our current one likes to take his sweet time.

Thanks for your sense of humor!

Tery (or Terry)
Indicam


I'll be looking forward to that upgrade Terry. I guess one needs a little humor in this day and age :)

I need to make this fast as I am heading out the door, I am filming Godsmack tonight in Dallas and I have a full day of shooting to look forward to.

I have a light which I use during Receptions/dark clubs.
Anton Bauer batteries 2 of them plus the charger stay on the camera
format brand matte box
and wireless gear stay on the camera at all times. I have no idea what the weight is, but I am sure it is up towards 20-30lbs I would think.


what do you have in mind Terry?

I want to upgrade to a screen, and a T-Bracket for holding 2 batteries on the camera, plus maybe an led light here soon.

Jim,l

That's some serious equipment. I'm a feared that even the Flyer won't be able to handle that much weight as it says it can handle cameras up to 15 pounds. You might want to weigh everything you will be flying so we can suggest rigs that are in the running.

THE GLIDECAM V-25 can handle cameras up to 25 pounds but alas it is close to the $10k mark. Maybe a used support system...?

I agree with the move to LED lights as even when they are dimmed the color temperature stays the same. They also go a long time on a set of batteries compared to regular lights.

Tery
Indicam

You most certainly don't need all that kit on a Steadicam. Take it down to the lights, the wireless, and the matte box. A good rig for that caliber of camera should have 12v power through the post, so one set of batteries down below will cover you. The screen on the bottom of the sled will work fine, so don't figure that or its mounting into the equation, and the LED lights should if anything reduce weight. The wireless shouldn't weigh too much, and the Matte Box should be relatively lightweight, and the light really should be quite light too, so that should considerably lighten your rig. According to JVC's specs, the camera itself only weighs 7 pounds, so that plus maybe 4 or 5 pounds in accessories should be good for a Flyer. Is there a reason why you say 2 batteries and the charger (I'm assuming the Titan charger/power unit) stays on the camera?

Just a quick one to say i have dealt with this company, and i must say their products are of a good quality, i bought the jumbo matte box with rods for my XL2 and it is amazing for the $390 i payed for it. People should give these guys a break they are not con men or women they are just trying to make a living the same as us all.

Hi I bought from them a mattebox and rod support. Good price good delivery time. And the Matte box is working fine and fine build... sorry to hear about the glide cam thing

JP

Looking at various threads, its seems that many people have got their system from them and have good feedbacks on the quality. I do not think they are con-men, but rather they copy the basic infrastructure of those stabilizer system and make minor changes to avoid infringing patent laws and sell them to budget videographer who simply can't afford Steadicam or Glidecam rigs.
The material in making those system are cheap anyway (just simple metal), even for Steadicam brand. Just that you are paying a premium for the name "Steadicam" and their slightly better built products.

The material in making those system are cheap anyway (just simple metal), even for Steadicam brand. Just that you are paying a premium for the name "Steadicam" and their slightly better built products.

It's not about the materials, it's about the design. There is a fascinating misconception in the indie filmmaking world that because something seems to be possible to copy in a local machine shop, that it should be priced at around the cost of the components. For any given product, the manufacturer has spent a tremendous amount of time, energy, resources and money developing the goods, tooling up, distributing, advertising, providing customer support etc.

It might be surprising for people to know that the Steadicam brand is actually NOT the most widely used stabilizer in feature film and episodic television production emanating from Hollywood, and has not been for more than 10 years. There are a few other manufacturers who came up with their own variations on the design that were embraced in the light of the Steadicam manufacturer's refusal to upgrade their product at the time; these other rigs cost the same amount and do not boast the Steadicam brand but are excellent pieces of gear. After owning several used Steadicams I was able to move to one of these systems about 10 years ago myself; my current rig is made up of components from 5 different manufacturers that I have opted to "mix and match" thanks to their intelligent compatibility.

Having clarified that I am not a blinkered follower of the Steadicam brand, in the DV world, the Steadicam brand is far from token and their products are significantly beyond "slightly better built". The performance and design features of the Merlin, Pilot and Flyer are well beyond ANY of their competition. The Pilot and Flyer arms are in a league of their own, performing with the same precision and feel of the $20K full-size arms.

Just because there are anecdotes on the web about happy customers for any given rig doesn't mean that these rigs are equal, or close to it. I have yet to hear of anyone who owns a "no-name" stabilizer and has spent enough time in it to really get the skill down slip on a Steadicam rig and not immediately recognize the difference in performance, adjustability, accuracy etc.

Whether the difference in price tag is justifiable is a choice that is virtually always made by one's personal finances. If one's standards are up to a certain level, then one must have the gear that fits those standards. A Stradivarius would be wasted on a first-year violin student who may not appreciate what makes it so great (and thus considers it to be great in name only), but a first-rate concert violinist will appreciate the difference and may settle for nothing less.

That's it CP! I have crown you my personal Idol and GOD!!!! :) Beyond your steadicam wizardry I admire your openness and level-headiness. Thank you for being down right honest and absolutely obsolete, to big headiness. There should be more of you. :)

I just found two cents so I'll throw it in here.

Charles P. has it correct (as usual).

The almost exact copies of the Glidecam sled and other equipment shows that someone from another country can take a good rig, copy all the parts, assemble it, and sell it for a lot less. This is because they don't have any design time, trial and error, many prototypes, frustration, anger, jubilation, (on and on), into the system. It's a lot of design (R&D) that goes into the price of a rig as it should be. After all, the cost of the elements in a human body don't amount to very much but our designer made everything work together so that we are priceless. It's not as much as what we are made of as it is what we can accomplish.

OK, back to the subject at hand. Our problem isn't with someone who uses a rig (like the Glidecam for an example) and makes something similar but still different with improvements and style changes. The problem we see with the Flycam etc. is that they look like exact copies. I'm sure Glidecam isn't happy about it and we (as stabilizer manufactures) aren't either. We know how much work goes into the design and engineering aspects of a good stabilizer and manufacturers should receive the fruits of their labors. Also, just because it looks the same doesn't mean it works the same.

There are a lot of stabilizers in the market today. There are many different design changes or adaptations which are available. There are also a great variety of prices. Buy one from someone who didn't just copy someone else.

We all owe thanks to the original Steadicam designer, Garret Brown, and we manufactures know to whom we are indebted.

We are also very grateful to all of you guys (and girls) on all of the various forums for your selfless help and time. Hail to the Charles' and all the rest!

Are my two cents up yet?

Tery
Indicam

Thanks CK and Terry, and I will add to my words that there is nothing inherently wrong with being satisfied with a lower-cost rig, or even manufacturing a lower cost rig. I've seen some design elements on some of these that frankly baffle me as they could have been made to work a lot better for the same price (just design choices that are somewhat arbitrary). For instance, years ago I met with the designer of the Magiqcam to discuss an early version of the rig. He had set up his gimbal to arm connection the opposite way of any other rig I had seen, in that the armpost section was a permanent part of the gimbal handle which then fed into receiver holes at the end of the arm. I had suggested to him that variable armposts were a great way to deliver flexibility in lens height, but his design was making it much more complicated to accomplish this, plus it was harder to mount the post into the arm (the arc of the gimbal with post attached was unwieldy). I asked him why he had made it this way and the reason he gave was that it was just different, so it wouldn't resemble the Glidecam in this aspect. The problem was that it didn't work as well as the tried-and-true in theory or practice. And thus the rig suffered for it.

Another example is the FS-Pro rig that I tested a few weeks back; discovering that the gimbal handle had been milled square rather than round was a complete head-scratcher, as it was instantly apparent that it was less comfortable to the operator. In the course of operating, one's hand often migrates in position around the diameter of the gimbal handle and in the case of a rig that lacks a 2-way leveling system for the arm-vest connection, many operators will have find themselves gripping the handle extra tightly to reign in the rig. It's easy to see why a square stock handle, even with rounded edges, is not ideal.

So what to learn from this? There are certain design elements of the body-mounted stabilizer that have been field-tested for 30 years now and while there may still be new ways to skin the cat (the back-mounted vest is a relatively late arrival that is a good example of this), it's only worth implementing change if it is beneficial to the user. At the same time, there is the argument laid out here against making a simple knock-off, i.e. rip-off.

My feeling is that at this stage of the game, we are pretty far down the road with the original Steadicam design. There's not a whole lot of cosmetic difference between a gimbal circa 1976 and today, whether wearing the Steadicam brand or a 3rd party design (however the use of ball bearings and linear axis convergence were welcome developments along the way). So in some ways it's not surprising that many rigs appear so similar. I have no doubt that once the Pilot is well-established, the flat-bottomed sled that first appeared on the Glidecams years ago and have been oft imitated will slowly turn into Pilot-like telescoping or migrating tubular systems with weights around the circumference. The "big secret" that we have long known in the full-size rig world is that expanding the components of the rig adds exponential amounts of inertia and stability that is so sorely lacking in lightweight sleds, without adding more weight if desired--the Pilot's ability to spread out the counterweight more than previous rig's is a major reason why it feels so solid to operate.

Anyway, outside of that--I've said this before and I will say it again--if someone has an absolute maximum budget and can only afford a particular stabilizer and they are perfectly satisfied with its performance, then I wish them happy flying and all the best. I do get frustated reading about difficulties with customer service especially with the overseas/eBay brands, as well as badly manufacturered gear that falls apart easily, or incomplete documentation accompanying the rigs. Mostly I hate to see people get frustrated with a stabilizer purchase and be unable to get the results they want, because after all this is supposed to be fun--isn't it??!

It's only a 1/2 penny because I am truly a newbie in this particular world. After 15 years in live stage production I have started my own production studio, based off two GY-hd110's. I have used and abused my friends and co-workers in this industry, and spent on average 4 hours a night for over a year now studying and researching all the different components.
Purchasing a steadi-cam rig was a major quandry of mine. I have considerable fabrication skills in metals, and have used "frankenstein" rigs that others in town have. I thought the 4,000 tag on the Steadicam Pilot was a bit rough on my budget, when I could get one far cheaper. I went back and forth over this a BUNCH. However, the fact that I am so new to the vid industry actually leaned me towards the more tried an true, so I shelled out and purchased the pilot.
Today was the first true shoot it was on (other than balancing time and quick non-recording walkthroughs of the office), and it was a stunning thing to behold. I am a big fan of saving a buck when its not necessary, but here I am SO VERY happy i did not skimp. Far sturdier than other systems I've seen/worn, its still light enough to dance around the subjects. after only 5 or 6 fittings, I can get into an unasembled rig in minutes, and changing around for the other op (240 pounds to my 170) is a cinch. Smooth movements, wonderful pans and rotation, Im in love. (this may change when I loose my first finger to the springs) Oh, and being able to walk the scene with the dir without tracks and cords in the way is really nice.
Long story short, there are times to go with the costly name. Im looking into the matte box setup, but am overjoyed I stuck with the name for the large of a purchase.
Quick note: Right now Im running w/out battery power as Im waiting for the JVC A/B promotional trimpack battery to come in the mail, but DID purchase the A/B mount on the steadicam. In an earlier reply, some one (cant find the reply) commented the having the two battery on back of cam was overkill, and a 12v supply running from the bottom of the post was fine. Do I take that to mean I can set the steadicam battery up to power the camera as well? therefor the cam wouldnt need the extra weight of mount and battery?

You have a Pilot already? Lucky!

Well, about the power system, the Pilot should have a DC output on its stage, which you should then be able to feed into your camera. That'd sure make a big camera like the JVC easier to fly. Having two batteries back there for any type of Steadicam work is overkill, at least on a rig this lightweight. You could use that weight in other places. As the Pilot manual isn't out, I'm not exactly sure if it comes with a DC cable to connect to the stage, and also, I'm not sure what power inputs your camera has, but maybe someone else can give you a better step-by-step description of how to power your camera directly from the sled.

Damon,
Congratulations on your new rig! You are the first person we've heard of to actually have recived a Pilot, that means that they are truly offcially shipping.

Yes the sled has a 12v power output at the stage that you can use to power your camera.

I'm pretty sure the HD110 doesn't have a 12v power input (proprietery 7.2v I think), but that battery plate of course accepts 14.4v from the AB battery.
You could use one of these to get the power from the sled into the camera: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/135979-REG/Anton_Bauer_SOXLR_SO_XLR_4_pin_XLR_Snap_On.html
I think the Pilot comes with a Power cable from that DC connector to an XLR-4 connector. (coudl you confirm?) - if it doens't, those cables can be bought or made cheaply.

You'd still need the battery mount on the camera, but the battery itself wouldn't be necesarry as the battery at the base of the sled would provide the power.

- Mikko

Wow, I knew the Pilot was new, but didnt know just HOW new. Ordered through B&H inearly sept I believe, and then the order actually placed on 17th (I had to send a check and then verify) The Pilot claimed a 4-8 weeks ship time, and arrived within the 4th week i think. fast and prompt. The instruction maual is a wee-bit lacking, it seems to leave out JUST a bit of info or diagram to make it doable, but with a bit of trial and error. Sorry i dont have the power specifics, my techie is out for the day, butit came with a dc ended power cord, free wires at other end, and what looks like an rca to pin adapter. again, when the rig comes back in I will take a closer look and get better info up, and maybe a pic or two.
Thanks for the help guys!
Q2; see if anybody has Ideas.... I NEED a focus control for the th16x5.5brmu fuji lens on the hd110, and would LIKE a zoom as well. The electronic pre-set focal point models seem like they are worth their costs when compared to cable driven manuals, am I correct? And for zoom controlls, I need to find the slowest, smoothest...cheapest one available. zoom is secondary to focus though, darn long lens.

Nothing mechanical will work - you need isolation from the rig. If you can, go for a wireless follow focus, but those can get very pricey very fast. The BFD (Bartech Focus Device), which is considered pretty "industry standard" as a low cost remote FF will run you around $4000. If you can find something wired, you should be just able to make it happen, but focus pulling on the Steadicam is certainly an art form in itself! I'd look to just shooting wide most of the time, at least until you can figure out a focus device.

Or you can just hire someone to pull focus for you.

[...]it came with a dc ended power cord, free wires at other end,[...]

Great, then you just need to put a Female 4-pin XLRconnector on the other end.

Pin 1 of the XLR should go to the shield of the DC connector (ground)
Pin 4 of the XLR should go to the center of the DC connector (+12v)

..of course that's presuming that you get one of those AB "Dummy" plates I mentiond in my previous post.



Regarding focus: Your lens does not have a built in focus motor, so whatever your solution for focus control, it's going to involve an external focus motor (which will then need some sort of controller).

- Mikko

There are a number of folk working on low-cost follow focus systems (like [ulr=http://www.redrockmicro.com/microRemote.html]this[/url]) but they have yet to be unleashed. This does require a focus puller as CK mentioned. There have been a number of gimbal-mounted systems out there in use by live event operators, often adapted from Stanton Jimmy Jib components.

Generally with a small-chip camera you don't need to pull focus on Steadicam too often, however if you intend to be doing a lot of stuff from the long end of the lens it may be more of a priority.

ok, Im back, thanks for the responses and i'm sorry bout not replying. lemme backtrack.
After posting I got called away from town for a few days, when I got back the Anton Bauer trimpack's were in. A day and 1/2 later (after allowing for a full charge) I slapped a battery on, no go. something was wrong (in the ab mount i think) and had to send it back. took me 2 weeks to send off, and 2 to get it back. Now it is powered and OMG is it waaay easier to focus off the pilots screen.
Got a Varicam EFC electronic focus control. 4 presets (a-b-c-d-c-b-a, kinda bites, but i can work with it), fair manual control, LOTS of extra cord with the package. fumbled with it before attempting to attach, trying to figure how to do it for about 1 hour. The screw on to the lens seemed way to close to allow the gear. then I realized i was looking at zoom not focus, and now it goes on and off camera in about 1 minute.
Once again, thanks allot for all support. I will try to become a more active member of this forum as I grow my studio