A7s on steadicam- stabilized lens options

[M. Gilden]

I'm currently one of those A7s owners that don't own any FE glass. When I need a stabilized lens for docu-style shooting, I throw a Canon 28-105L on the commlite, where the IS function works a real treat. But this setup is far too front heavy to fly on my trust old Steadicam Jr stabilizer. I tried balancing it last night for about an hour before concluding this lens is just too danged big.

I do own small primes in the 24-28mm range, but they lack stabilization and I feel like I would want that when flying to iron out my less-than-ideal balancing. Before the A7s, I used to fly this with a Panasonic GH camera, and even with a long kit lens like the 14-140 it was still light enough to sit just fine and balance and fly (In fact, I didn't sell it solely because it was useful as a 14mm f/4 with OIS for flying on the steadicam). Now I'm kind of bummed that the A7S didn't come with at least a kit for these rare occasions.

What would you guys do? Options that have occurred to me:
1) Buy a wide stabilized EOS prime to use on the commlite. The ones I am aware of aren't cheap though, and this doesn't happen often enough for me to be worth investing too much in what is essentially a one-trick-pony. I have non-stabilized fast lenses in that range that I already like.

2) Buy a second-hand 28-70 3.5-5.6 FE kit lens that, you know, the one that comes with the A7. Cheaper than an EOS prime, but I'm guessing it is still a bigger lens than the micro4/3 kit I used to fly with. Also seems silly to buy a zoom just as a 28mm f/3.5 stabilized prime essentially (its different when it comes with the camera vs going out of my way to BUY it), but I do like the idea that I can use AF with it should the need arise with the stabilizer. I've heard mixed things about this lens- is it worth it?

3) Use an 18-55mm Canon EF-S lens I happen to have in my closet that has barely seen the light of day, shoot in APS-C mode and IS on. I like that this option is free. I tried it last night after giving up on the 28-105, and it DOES balance and does work. But the FOV is meh, and somewhat distorted perspective at 18mm.

Open to other ideas, let me hear them!

 

[wallrc]

How much are you willing to spend?

I bought the Sony 10-18mm which is FF from 12mm to 17mm, plus in crop is 15mm-28mm equiv. It's stabilized, f4. I am pretty happy with it, it was about $600. I shoot a lot of architecture/landscape stuff though, so it makes sense for me to be shooting wide quite a lot.

Another option, that you might not want to hear, is to dump the old steadicam jr. It's really dated, and while I'm sure you've gotten good with it, there's other options out there that are easier to get a good result with, I think.

 

[M. Gilden]

How much are you willing to spend?

I bought the Sony 10-18mm which is FF from 12mm to 17mm, plus in crop is 15mm-28mm equiv. It's stabilized, f4. I am pretty happy with it, it was about $600. I shoot a lot of architecture/landscape stuff though, so it makes sense for me to be shooting wide quite a lot.

Another option, that you might not want to hear, is to dump the old steadicam jr. It's really dated, and while I'm sure you've gotten good with it, there's other options out there that are easier to get a good result with, I think.

Hah- its a valid point. I'm not dumping the steadicam until the motorized gimbals are cheap enough to be worthwhile for me though.

Still, with a better stabilizer you think the A7s can be easily balanced with the 28-105? Have other people done it? The camera weighs nothing so its all glass and front heavy. Other kit lenses work fine (as I proved to myself with the 18-55), just seems like a smaller lens would be a much simpler solution than a new rig at this point.

Meanwhile, that 10-18 is pretty cool. Didn't realize it can cover the FF if you wanted, and I like the option of being able to switch and avoid some rolling shutter in APS-C mode and still get wide enough. But no, I was hoping not to spend more than a few hundred at most on something like a Canon EF 28/2.8 IS. I'm interested in the 28-75 kit because its actually cheaper than that, looks like about $200-300 used, and I'd be able to do face tracking AF as an added bonus.

 

[wallrc]

The 28-75 kit is probably the most versatile and cost effective option. I have the 24-70, and am thinking of selling it, but mostly just because it's really expensive for what it does. However, I am not sure that the 28-75 will balance on a steadicam JR. It's definately lighter than a lot of the other lenses, but not sure if it's light enough.

 

[M. Gilden]

The 28-75 kit is probably the most versatile and cost effective option. I have the 24-70, and am thinking of selling it, but mostly just because it's really expensive for what it does. However, I am not sure that the 28-75 will balance on a steadicam JR. It's definately lighter than a lot of the other lenses, but not sure if it's light enough.

I would not think it is much heavier than an 18-55 kit on the EOS adapter, which DOES balance. Yes, the optics are larger since it is a full frame lens, but without the EOS adapter it should balance out somewhere, no?

 

[M. Gilden]

Whoops, just realized that I messed up the mm range of this lens - its the 24-105 f/4 constant, not the 28-105 3.5-4.5. I said 28-105 above, which implies the latter, much smaller and lighter version. I'll bet I wouldn't have a problem with that one. The one I'm dealing with is bigger and heavier enough that it makes the balance awkward.
I eventually got this 24-105 to balance by pushing it back really far and using some additional weight on a flash bracket. But this setup is clearly heavier and more unwieldy than it needs to be!
Considering either a cheaper and smaller Canon lens, or perhaps the FE kit. Not sure how I feel about the kit yet.

 

[DPStewart]

Am I the only one who DOESN'T want my camera to be smaller and lighter?

 

[M. Gilden]

Am I the only one who DOESN'T want my camera to be smaller and lighter?

When flying a steadicam? Probably.

This whole thread started because the 24-105L makes the setup too front heavy for what this stabilizer was designed to carry. Then there's my arm... oy, my aching arm.

 

[joker454]

The 28-75 kit is probably the most versatile and cost effective option. I have the 24-70, and am thinking of selling it, but mostly just because it's really expensive for what it does. However, I am not sure that the 28-75 will balance on a steadicam JR. It's definately lighter than a lot of the other lenses, but not sure if it's light enough.

That's what I was going to suggest as well, going with the Sony 28-70 kit lens. It's OIS is good enough to where I can use it handheld on the Sony A7s, and compared to the op's 670g Canon lens, the Sony one is just 295g. The A7s with memory card and battery is listed as 489g so in theory it shouldn't be quite so front heavy anymore, although I haven't personally tried it on a steadycam. It's fairly cheap as well, I got mine for $250 and it's quality to me for video use isn't bad really.

 

[M. Gilden]

That's what I was going to suggest as well, going with the Sony 28-70 kit lens. It's OIS is good enough to where I can use it handheld on the Sony A7s, and compared to the op's 670g Canon lens, the Sony one is just 295g. The A7s with memory card and battery is listed as 489g so in theory it shouldn't be quite so front heavy anymore, although I haven't personally tried it on a steadycam. It's fairly cheap as well, I got mine for $250 and it's quality to me for video use isn't bad really.

Where did you get yours for $250?

 

[joker454]

Where did you get yours for $250?

I got mine on ebay from a USA seller that had barely used it. It was complete with box, manuals, etc and in mint condition and did indeed look barely used when I got it.

 

[nyvz]

Yeah looks like the 28-70 FE lens regularly goes for $220-300 new (usually pulled from a kit). Maybe even lower used... How's the AF on that lens? I was thinking of getting one just for in case I ever need a lightweight OSS lens or need AF or something.

 

[joker454]

Yeah looks like the 28-70 FE lens regularly goes for $220-300 new (usually pulled from a kit). Maybe even lower used... How's the AF on that lens? I was thinking of getting one just for in case I ever need a lightweight OSS lens or need AF or something.

I've only done a test shoot with it so far and it's AF was slightly slow but smooth and it didn't hunt on my A7s. I did my tests with the camera in full manual but I have the AF/MF button on the back set to where keeping it pressed enables continous AF and I use a medium size center focus point. When I need to move/refocus I press and hold that button while I keep the focus point on the subject, shift position and then let it go once I stop moving. That's my particular use of AF and it's kept focus just fine on my tests like this, and the XLR-K2M mic that i use on the A7s doesn't pick up the sound of me pressing that button. I'll be using it on a real shoot on Wednesday so I'll see if it's AF works well in real world use. So far though for video needs the kit lens to me seems underrated. I like how it's native so I don't have to worry about AF issues, electrical connection issues, etc that people seem to complain about when using metabones type adapters, there's no extra weight from adapters, it's light, useful focal length range and cheap!

 

[olof]

Unfortunately the only thing that makes stedicam work really well is weight.

I have an old stedicam from the 90's and it works very well but it needs about 20 lbs to be really smooth, 30+ is better. I have used it with lots of lighter cams but I always add a couple big brick batteries and a 7" monitor to it for that.

It is actually very comfortable even for hrs of shooting once you learn the proper technique, steer it by leaning and basically lean back to let the weight be transferred to your hips. Done right it has a wonderful floaty feeling. The rig was more then $5K back then, I think the big rigs still are but they are worth it.

Some shooters added the Kenyon gyros for added smoothness as well, this works great but is noisy and adds more weight.

These days I use Drones a lot instead of StediCam, it gives you more options and is a lot easier on the old bod. I am hoping to add my A7s to my DJI S800 and Zenmuse, as soon as DJI comes out with the right interface.

I think the Ronin and the other brushless gimbal systems are fantastic and the prices are dropping quickly, and this new technology will definitely replace the old StediCams. I may get one and mount it to my StediCam west, this should be very comfortable.

Just a few thought sipping Sunday morning coffee on a snowy winter day...

 

[nyvz]

Yeah after looking online I think I'll pick up a 28-70 just for the smooth AF and OS in a very light form factor. Some youtube tests I saw of AF-C mode with that lens look promising.

As for steadicam, I have to agree about the weight. Steadicam largely depends on a very heavy sled rig to increase inertia which significantly adds drag and to operation movements which allows operation to be more precise and minimizes the effects of forces like air drag and any imperfections in the rig transferring walking or other unintended movements to the sled's movement. There is little doubt that with steadicam heavier is better, which is part of the reason handheld steadicams will always be significantly limited. That said, obviously they may have a place for when you need to travel light and need ok-ish steadicam moves. Personally I've started thinking about getting a Nebula 4000 ($700 3axis brushless gimbal) and 28-70 OSS which seems like a pretty impressive combination for an inexpensive and lightweight stabilizer and capable lightweight AF lens except that it still will suffer from lack of translational axis stabilization like a handheld steadicam.

 

[timmytimetravel]

I have a steadicam flyer for sale, pm me if interested.

Noah is right, it needs some weight. For smaller cameras I have a cam tech cage I use. You are always rigging something on smaller cams, so it's a good mounting point and adds some weight. You can shoot all day on it, and for those putting gimbals on it you finally can counter a gait with the spring loaded arm, something that gimbals find hard to do. You could always get an easyrig for a gimbal (exists for good reason), 2nd hand steadicam covers those weight/fatigue gimbal issues and more. (And of course you can use without the gimbal for normal wide to mid lens shots with no gyros)

 

[Andrew Stone]

Unfortunately the only thing that makes stedicam work really well is weight.

I have an old stedicam from the 90's and it works very well but it needs about 20 lbs to be really smooth...

It is actually very comfortable even for hrs of shooting once you learn the proper technique, steer it by leaning and basically lean back to let the weight be transferred to your hips. ...I think the big rigs still are but they are worth it.

These days I use Drones a lot instead of StediCam, it gives you more options and is a lot easier on the old bod.

...brushless gimbal systems are fantastic and the prices are dropping quickly, and this new technology will definitely replace the old StediCams. I may get one and mount it to my StediCam west, this should be very comfortable.

I am not so sure brushless gimbals will replace Steadicam. There will be a melding of the two technologies. You have two issues that are not removed from the brushless gimbals. One is footsteps and the other is dealing with the weight so you can focus on flawless camera moves. Fatigue is the big enemy when dealing with floating cameras. Once that sets in the shots go to sugar.

The other major issue and anyone who operates Steadicam to any degree will tell you this. Brushless gimbals have a mind of their own, you don't truly control the shot the way a Steadicam Operator does. You also don't have the ability to move instinctively to various modes like tracking shots to POV to crazy dutch shots in an instinctive way that you can with Steadicam.

Not sure what kind of rig you have from the nineties Olof. Maybe an EFP or Master Series rig? For the past 8 years or so there have been rigs that deal well with camera packages in the 10 to 20ish range. If you set your camera setup properly making the setup sort of typical of today's rig with batteries hanging off the back with rails and a decent weighted lens you can get proper inertia to have the rig behave pretty much like a full sized rig with a payload of 30+ pounds. I normally fly around 15 pounds. Still heavy enough that you do get tired but nothing like hucking a Ronin or a MoVI around for even 10 seconds.

There's a Steadicam Op who makes an attachment to take a Ronin and afix it to a steadicam arm. But even so the gimballed rig is still going to behave like a dog with it's backend swinging out on a regular basis. Other solutions are in the works specifically for steadicam. I suspect there will be one or two to see on the NAB floor this year or at least at CineGear.

 

[wallrc]

I agree with Andrew; steadicam and gimbals have significant overlap but they are not the same. For heavier cameras, especially cinema type, the standard steadicam is still unbeatable - obviously the gimbals are eating up market share for light video production. Consider one of the bread and butter shots in cinema for steadicam - something like the Goodfellas shot - 2 minute continuous fly through followed by a considerable hold at the fly through destination - a) a gimbal would have trouble doing the continuous take if solely supported by an operator, but most important, b) it's that hold at the end that distinguishes good steadicam operators - the ability to combine motion going into an almost static shot, even after being very tired. I don't see that much with gimbals, but maybe that's because a lot of gimbal operators are new and inexperienced for the most part.

For me the biggest consideration to get a compact gimbal is just that it's easier to travel with and use; my own steadicam and vest are a pain when switching from steadicam to handheld to tripod and the vest and arm in particular are a pain to deal with by myself in quick moving situations.