Came-TV stabilizer

[Eddy Chartrand]

Well, I bit the bullet and ordered their 2.5 - 15 Kg stabilizer, vest and arm. There is a 14 day return period if not happy with quality. I will let you know how it is in case anyone is interested. HMC150, Letus and accessories getting to heavy for my Pilot.

[Eddy Chartrand]

got the stabilizer the other day. Works great. Both dynamic and static balance great. Great system for $829.00. I will sell my Pilot now.

[Eddy Chartrand]

some pics of the stabilizer

[Chris Harding]

Interesting!! I sold my Proaim 5500 as it was just too darn heavy and bought the CAME vest but the arm and carbon fibre sled is made by Wieldy ... build quality is very good indeed compared to the Indian made "stedicams" and a lot smaller and neater. Mine is the 1 -7kg unit and it is just right for my Sony EA-50's that are around 2kg all up weight. Because it's a shoulder mount camera with lots of back weight behind the camera I had to mount the QR plate a lot further back but it balances very nicely. The CF post makes the sled lighter and the vest is under 2kg as well ..a welcome relief from the heavy Indian one.

It makes a HUGE difference when you have to drag 20kg of stedicam to a shoot instead of under 10kg

Mine was a mere AUS$550.00 including shipping (by courier too!!) from China

[Charles Papert]

Not noticing any difference in performance in the isolation of arm on the CAME vs the Pilot?

[Chris Harding]

Hi Charles

Any comment from you is always valuable! Can you explain a little deeper? I'm slightly lost with regards to "isolation" ?

The arm on the CAME is very nicely made but it's slightly shorter than most so I found that when booming up I actually got to limits pretty easily BUT the booming was nice and smooth! The only thing I have added to the vest is a foam/fabric square (stolen from a camera case) on the inside of the breast plate which makes it a lot more comfortable.

Chris

[Charles Papert]

Hi Chris.

The most important test of any stabilizer arm is how well it isolates the operator's footsteps (low frequency vibration) along with how it works when riding a vehicle (high frequency vibration). This is the isolation I was speaking of. It's typical for most arms to boom up and down smoothly, because that is the nature of springs, but the how those springs are mounted, how precisely the arm is built, and the overall geometry determine the degree of isolation. A simple test is to stand with the rig and rise up and down on one's toes, and see if the rig raises or lowers or not (hopefully, the latter). Another way is to run a length of rope between two c-stands and walk alongside it with the lens pointed sideways, you can easily see the rope appear to bob if the arm isn't up to snuff.

While the largest Tiffen arm (G70) is not necessarily the most popular amongst the professional crowd (that honor arguably goes to the GPI PRO arm), the smaller Tiffen arms are unequalled in the industry, because of their application of isoelasticity. Most of the other arms out there that I've seen will introduce a certain amount of bounce into the results because they can't properly isolate the operator's movements. This becomes exaggerated as the rigs become more lightweight. The Pilot and Flyer (now Scout) arms were pretty miraculous when they emerged in terms of performance considering how light the payloads are for those rigs.

So, as someone coming from a Pilot I'm curious whether you have noticed any difference in performance with the CAME arm. Generally, along with less isolation comes less linearity, a sense that the arm is more "springy", meaning that it takes more force to push it down to the bottom limit (and that it will settle back to the center position). Also, if one jogs in place and then comes to a sudden stop, a less linear arm will continue to bounce after the rest of the system has stopped, like a bad shock absorber on a car.

[Chris Harding]

Thanks Charles

That makes sense. I'm wondering if Eddy will come back to this thread as he posted a while back. I haven't had the luxury of a pilot sadly as they are rather pricey over here so I was stuck with the knockoffs from India .. I must admit the knockoffs are getting better and better quality wise...the earlier Indian ones were downright shocking and tolerances were very poor. The newer Chinese ones (I actually suspect they are all churned out in some factory and then branded to suit various suppliers) seem very well machined and bearing and bones work very smoothly

I'll give my arm a whirl and see if it's iso elastic but I very much doubt it at this price!! I would say that it's close though ..if I do a book up the rig certainly doesn't need any force to stay at a full boom up which would demonstrate certainly some iso- elasticity there. If it does then I will certainly be surprised but also delighted. Haven't had much time to "play and compare" but that will happen in the next few weeks.

Chris

[Charles Papert]

Ah yes, I hadn't noticed who was posting what.

The typical reality with stabilizers is that the differences only become apparent once you've had time to get used to a given rig and have a point of reference to compare. A newbie doesn't really "get" the differences in arm performance, but someone who has worked their way through with a lesser system will have a real eye-opener when they try on a better-performing system.

When it comes to arms, it can be a little tricky to define "iso-elasticity". It is possible for an arm to appear to be working great because it doesn't require force to hold up or push down, but that can actually be a function of friction (or more accurately, stiction). The best arms require little force throughout the range but are also fantastically responsive and thus efficient isolators.

A sticky arm can be overcome to a degree, usually by incorporating something of a handheld walk (to soften footsteps) and under cranking the arm then holding it up in place with one's own arm (tiring, but effective).

Ultimately, the degree of precision required varies from operator to operator. Many are content with "close enough" as you said, especially when the rig is inexpensive enough that one's expectations are not as high. Which is totally cool!

[Garrett Low]

Hi Chris & Eddy,

Interested in the Came-TV Steadicam. Would like to hear your impressions and experiences with it.

Thanks,
Garrett

[Chris Harding]

Hi Garrett

I have the model that is rated 1kg to 7.5 kg and I do have a wedding next weekend where it will get used so I can give you some practical comments in a week.

I have given it a quick spin around our garden and it seems very nicely engineered but I would say that the weight rating is not a camera weight but a camera plus sled weight. I cannot see the arm being able to lift a 7.5kg camera ... My Sony's are just under 2kgs so I would say a cam up to 2lbs is pretty much perfect.

Everything is machined and accurate and fits neatly. As the Sony is a should mount camera (EA-50) I had to offset the mounting plate way back so can only use a single mount hole ...however it works fine for me.

I really like the super light vest and arm ..that was my main reason for getting it. However I will keep you guys informed.

Chris

[Eddy Chartrand]

Sorry, been away. The Came-tv stabilizer I bought works great. It is a heavy unit though. I had to add some weight when I put my HMC-150 on it. Well built.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Eddy

I bought mine because my flycam 5500 was too heavy and the Came was much lighter overall. It depends what you call heavy. The Came units do have both adjustable post lengths and adjustable gimbal positions so that, in conjunction with weights on the lower stage you can get your drop time to between 2 and 3 seconds. The higher your gimbal position, the less weight/post length you need but if it's too high it's not doing anything useful.

Maybe look at your gimbal top stage to bottom stage ratio? How far is the gimbal down the shaft?

Chris

[Eddy Chartrand]

I meant I added weight so the stabilizer was smoother. I find it well built.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Eddy

I see your gimbal is quite a long way down the shaft ? If you need the extra camera height then fine, leave it there but if not, then if you reposition the gimbal closer to the top stage (people tend to suggest between 2 and 2.5" from the top stage usually) then you can reduce your bottom stage weights which will make the unit easier to fly. As long as the drop time is around 2.5seconds then the weight is right!

Chris