New Revoluionary Fluid Base Monopod from Bogen

Alan Galbraith · December 11th, 2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Reilly

I was highly disappointed with the payload capacity limitation after seeing the unit skillfully demonstrated by the salesman at my local video store...

My FX-1 is "naked" at 4.8lbs.....add the battery, wide angle lens and my Rode Stereo Video Mic and I'm way out of the ballpark.

The article referenced in the above post confirms the payload capacity of 4.4lbs, noting that exceeding this limit 'could damage the pod'.

I can only hope Bogen comes out with the "Big Brother" soon!

no worries on weight... look at my rig (as noted in previous post), it weighs more than your and does just fine on the monopod.

this unit will work just great for anything up to a full sized, shoulder carried ENG style camera.

As a matter of fact, I can try it out with my DV5000 and see if it will "support" the weight without collapsing. That might be pushing it a little. but for anything short of that size/weight camera, its going to do just fine.

Meryem Ersoz · December 11th, 2006, 12:32 PM

i think it will work fine for heavier cameras, even substantially heavier than the FX-1, if all you want to do is stabilize shots. i'd be interested in seeing footage of what happens if you add motion, however. i would hazard a guess that i lose about 40% of the available range of motion when i have worked with a stripped down FX-1 due to the stickiness created by the added weight. this is still very useful--some motion is better than none. but a more heavy-duty version would be better for a heavier camera. i'd buy one in a minute. for lighter camcorders, like the HV10, this is the nearly perfect piece of stabilizing equipment for maximum mobility.

Alan Galbraith · December 11th, 2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

i think it will work fine for heavier cameras, even substantially heavier than the FX-1, if all you want to do is stabilize shots. i'd be interested in seeing footage of what happens if you add motion, however. i would hazard a guess that i lose about 40% of the available range of motion when i have worked with a stripped down FX-1 due to the stickiness created by the added weight. this is still very useful--some motion is better than none. but a more heavy-duty version would be better for a heavier camera. i'd buy one in a minute. for lighter camcorders, like the HV10, this is the nearly perfect piece of stabilizing equipment for maximum mobility.

Are you sure we are talking about the same piece of equipment?

I loose no range of mobility with it, no matter what wieght the camera is. I've had no issues with stickiness. the fluid pan base works the same with light and heavy cameras, and the dutch tilt works the same.

you might look into tightning or loosening the allen screws around the ball socket at the foot and see if that makes a difference. Or perhaps using some white lithium grease on the ball socket.

I've done 360 pans, and dutch tilts from/to both sides of the stops with my rig on it with no problems.

Meryem Ersoz · December 11th, 2006, 02:39 PM

i'm just relaying my experiences here and showing a bit of footage....

bogen's specs for the 560B list the maximum load capacity at 4.4 lbs. my FX-1 at 4.8 lbs. seems to push the limits of mine--at least when i compare the performance with a 15.5 ounce HV10. your mileage may vary.

Brian Martens · February 23rd, 2007, 01:26 PM

I know the 560B's intended functionality is not as a steadicam, but can anyone who owns one share their experience using it in a mobile environment. In short, between monopod shots does the 560B help at all in moving shots.

As a wedding videographer at first I was leaning towards a Merlin, then the fatigue issue convinced me a monopod type solution might be a smarter choice. So now I'm thinking of a FlowPod or the 560B and the 560B definitely has some good points on its side. I'm just wondering if the 560B offers some steadicam type benefits since the weight below the camera would act as a counterbalance.

Peter Greis · February 24th, 2007, 03:43 PM

Brian:

I have both the Flowpod and just recently purchased the 560B. Why? The flowpod is a pretty heavy beast and works well with my VX2000 (both as a monopod and stabilizer), but I wanted something smaller for my Sony HVR-A1 that was lighter and easier to carry around. The 560B works nicely and I also use it with my still cameras.

That said, I can't really answer your question about whether the 560B would work as a substitute for mobile shots. I haven't tried that yet. I have used the Flowpod with the HVR-A1 as well with good results, although your arms get tired quickly.

Alan Galbraith · February 24th, 2007, 04:53 PM

as far as using the 560B as a motion stabilizer...

sorta....

picture this, with the camera on top of the monopod and the camera parallel to the ground... now tilt the camera skyward so that it is at the limit of its tilt travel. Now you can grab ahold of the monpod about half way down to the ground and tilt the whole rig so that the carema is level again. It gives the camera a "tail" that you can use to steady your movement... some. Not a ton, and its no substitue for a steadicam or flowpod... but you can get some smoothER motion shots with it. The whole idea, ala the fig rig, is to get the little motions of your hands further away from the camera on a lever with the camera at the fulcrum where the motions will be much smaller. You will still have one hand on the camera and one on the 560B, but it helps some.

Brian Martens · February 24th, 2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Greis

Brian:

I have both the Flowpod and just recently purchased the 560B.

When you get a little experience with the 560B I'd be interested to see if it helps as a stabilizer to some degree. Basically I'm thinking Flowpod or 560B for my wedding video business. I'm using a PD170 and I'd like to have the flexibility to go from mobile to using a monopod to save my arms/back/wrists/etc. (you know the drill). The Flowpod will function as a monopod obviously, and I'm sure it will be better as a steadicam device. The 560B looks like it will be better in the monopod arena, the fold out feet would add some real stability to shots, and if it did a decent job as a camera stabilizer when I'm moving then I'd be tempted to go with it.

Having both could you make a recommendation for someone who will only have the money to purchase one or the other?

Peter Jefferson · February 27th, 2007, 12:59 AM

jsut got my 560, and cannot fault it.. swivel base makes a HUGE diffrence to pans and crane like dutch tilts

The head also screws off so ive mounted my still cameras 322RC2 head so i can have a short handle with ball level. This isnt needed though, but i thought id see how it fares with shooting stills as well as it works a treat.
I also mounted my BeBob Zoe Lanc and as tight a fit as it is, also works a treat. Basically i now hold the 560 with my right hand, and thumb rests on lanc. My left hand comes up to control focus.
The 560 is about 6ft high once fully extended, and i definately WOULD NOT leave the unit unattended acting is a makeshift tripod.

by the way, i was using a fully loaded DVX100a - (5600mah fat battery)(mics, wireless reciever, satchler reporter75 on cam light - this was to test.. usualy i wouldnt have all this stuff on all at once.. ) and a fully loaded Canon 5d with 580ex, battery grip, tested with 24-105L IS as well as a 100-400 L IS and also worked a treat with these top heavy loads

February 23rd, 2007, 01:26 PM	#20
Brian Martens New Boot Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Cedar Rapids, IA Posts: 7	560B's utility as a steadicam I know the 560B's intended functionality is not as a steadicam, but can anyone who owns one share their experience using it in a mobile environment. In short, between monopod shots does the 560B help at all in moving shots. As a wedding videographer at first I was leaning towards a Merlin, then the fatigue issue convinced me a monopod type solution might be a smarter choice. So now I'm thinking of a FlowPod or the 560B and the 560B definitely has some good points on its side. I'm just wondering if the 560B offers some steadicam type benefits since the weight below the camera would act as a counterbalance.

February 24th, 2007, 03:43 PM	#21
Peter Greis Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 41	Flowpod and 560B Brian: I have both the Flowpod and just recently purchased the 560B. Why? The flowpod is a pretty heavy beast and works well with my VX2000 (both as a monopod and stabilizer), but I wanted something smaller for my Sony HVR-A1 that was lighter and easier to carry around. The 560B works nicely and I also use it with my still cameras. That said, I can't really answer your question about whether the 560B would work as a substitute for mobile shots. I haven't tried that yet. I have used the Flowpod with the HVR-A1 as well with good results, although your arms get tired quickly.

December 11th, 2006, 12:32 PM	#17
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i think it will work fine for heavier cameras, even substantially heavier than the FX-1, if all you want to do is stabilize shots. i'd be interested in seeing footage of what happens if you add motion, however. i would hazard a guess that i lose about 40% of the available range of motion when i have worked with a stripped down FX-1 due to the stickiness created by the added weight. this is still very useful--some motion is better than none. but a more heavy-duty version would be better for a heavier camera. i'd buy one in a minute. for lighter camcorders, like the HV10, this is the nearly perfect piece of stabilizing equipment for maximum mobility.

December 11th, 2006, 02:39 PM	#19
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i'm just relaying my experiences here and showing a bit of footage.... bogen's specs for the 560B list the maximum load capacity at 4.4 lbs. my FX-1 at 4.8 lbs. seems to push the limits of mine--at least when i compare the performance with a 15.5 ounce HV10. your mileage may vary.

February 24th, 2007, 04:53 PM	#22
Alan Galbraith Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 98	as far as using the 560B as a motion stabilizer... sorta.... picture this, with the camera on top of the monopod and the camera parallel to the ground... now tilt the camera skyward so that it is at the limit of its tilt travel. Now you can grab ahold of the monpod about half way down to the ground and tilt the whole rig so that the carema is level again. It gives the camera a "tail" that you can use to steady your movement... some. Not a ton, and its no substitue for a steadicam or flowpod... but you can get some smoothER motion shots with it. The whole idea, ala the fig rig, is to get the little motions of your hands further away from the camera on a lever with the camera at the fulcrum where the motions will be much smaller. You will still have one hand on the camera and one on the 560B, but it helps some.

February 27th, 2007, 12:59 AM	#24
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	jsut got my 560, and cannot fault it.. swivel base makes a HUGE diffrence to pans and crane like dutch tilts The head also screws off so ive mounted my still cameras 322RC2 head so i can have a short handle with ball level. This isnt needed though, but i thought id see how it fares with shooting stills as well as it works a treat. I also mounted my BeBob Zoe Lanc and as tight a fit as it is, also works a treat. Basically i now hold the 560 with my right hand, and thumb rests on lanc. My left hand comes up to control focus. The 560 is about 6ft high once fully extended, and i definately WOULD NOT leave the unit unattended acting is a makeshift tripod. by the way, i was using a fully loaded DVX100a - (5600mah fat battery)(mics, wireless reciever, satchler reporter75 on cam light - this was to test.. usualy i wouldnt have all this stuff on all at once.. ) and a fully loaded Canon 5d with 580ex, battery grip, tested with 24-105L IS as well as a 100-400 L IS and also worked a treat with these top heavy loads