Beholder EC1 Gimbal

What appears to be an official instagram account of Zhiyun includes several photos of a Canon 5D mk III with reasonably-heavy lens on a Zhiyun Crane. Example.
So I wrote them asking about whether the Crane works with such a heavy payload. Maybe they're just being conservative when they say the max load is 1200g, because in their own photo they've got about 1500g of camera and lens on the thing.

I made a little table of Zhiyun and Beholder gimbals, their state max loads, and the weight of each gimbal+battery. The Zhiyun Crane and Beholder EC1 are nearly the same exact weight, but the EC1 claims to carry 166% of the Crane's max load. When I look at the rated max loads of each gimbal as a percentage of the weight of the gimbal, I see that the Zhiyun gimbals claim to only carry around 130% of their weight yet the Beholders claim to be capable of carrying 200% of their weight and beyond. Perhaps this means the Beholders are built more sturdily and use more powerful motors than the Zhiyun, or maybe Zhiyun's gimbals are very similar in construction and capability but they just make far more conservative estimates of their gimbal's carrying capacity. It's curious.

I've uploaded a screenshot of that table to here -- can't seem to get it to upload to this board (it just says "bad URL"). I'll also try pasting it below:

gimbal
zhiyun crane
zhiyun shining
Beholder EC1
Beholder DS1

[TD="align: right"]max capacity (gm)[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]gimbal weight (gm)[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]max load as a percentage of gimbal weight[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]1200[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]950[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]126.32%[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]4000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]133.33%[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]2267.96[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]997[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]227.48%[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]2000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]997[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]200.60%[/TD]
 
If you add the H2 and Optimus to the list, you will see the same sort of discrepancies between weight ratings and weight. The Optimus and H2 weigh the same, but the H2 claims twice the load rating. Since there are no standards to which the gimbals can be tested, the ratings are meaningless until field testing by early adopters proves what really works. Early adopters will do the heavy work for us.
 
I was thinking along those lines. That's why I included the Beholder DS1 in the list. It appears as per this video that the DS1 can function while carrying a 5DmkIII and 24-105 f4L, a combination that weight 1620g. So if the DS1 can do that, and the EC1 is the same company, same weight, and roughly the same max load rating, I'd expect it's also capable of that payload.

But it'd be great to know if the Zhiyun Crane is also as capable. I guess I'll see what the early adopters say.
 
I'm on the fence between the Crane and the Optimus. Being cheap, the Crane, at less than half the Optimus, is the way I'm leaning. But the long ass battery handle really gives me pause. The modularity of the Optimus and replaceable battery are great, but 2.5X as great...?
 
I'm very interested in Zhiyun's strategy of owning their own software and hardware. While it provides a cost advantage, I'm wondering if it will deliver a performance/feature advantage. Most vendors are at the mercy of Basecam. If Zhiyun can find a feature/performance advantage over Basecam in addition to the cost advantage, they could carve out a decent portion of the market.

It may also drive down prices as Basecam vendors will press Basecam for relief to stay competitive.
 
I made some additions to the table:

gimbal
zhiyun crane
zhiyun shining
Beholder EC1
Beholder DS1
Pilotfly H2
came-tv optimus

[TD="align: right"]max capacity (gm)[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]gimbal weight (gm)[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]max load as a percentage of gimbal weight[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]price[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]cost per gm of capacity[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]1200[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]950[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]126.32%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$600.00[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$0.50[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]4000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]133.33%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$900.00[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$0.23[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]2267.96[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]997[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]227.48%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$900.00[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$0.40[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]2000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]997[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]200.60%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$700.00[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$0.35[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]2200[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1200[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]183.33%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$1,049.00[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$0.48[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]1100[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1200[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]91.67%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$1,388.00[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$1.26
[/TD]

I guessed that the weight of the came-tv optimus gimbal is the same as the came-tv single -- I can't find an actual listing of the optimum's weight on the net. So grain of salt there.
 
Cool. That's a great table.

If those load ratings are real, the Optimus is looking not so good. Much heavier and expensive compare to the Crane.

I'm pretty sure you have it right for the Optimus weight. 1200g is what I recall reading somewhere.
 
By the numbers yes, but if the other manufacturers are overstating the capacity of their gimbals, and came-tv is not -- or if they're all deciding their load ratings using different criteria, then it may be a wash. Difficult to know, though the videos of the DS1 capably carrying 1.6kg worth of camera and lens makes the 2kg capacity listed for that gimbal seem believable.

I also didn't list battery capacity and expected run time. It's possible that the heavier or more expensive gimbals just contain larger batteries, which might be a worthy compromise for some.
 
Last edited:
Zhiyun says that the Crane's specified max capacity is very conservative. I wrote them as follows:

在 2016-08-12 00:23:29， 写道：
Hi Ivanka,


I see images like this one on the zhiyunivanka0419 instagram feed:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BFW0d9zgZtp


That’s a Canon 5DmkIII with 16-35mm lens on a Zhiyun Crane. The Crane’s maximum capacity is listed as 1200g, but that camera and lens combination is 1448g (actually probably closer to 1516g if I count the filter on the end of the lens).


Is the Crane capable of carrying such a large amount of weight, or does this cause problems or damage the gimbal? Maybe Zhiyun is being cautious about recommending using the gimbal with more than 1200g of payload, but it’s actually capable of being used with heavier cameras? Have you used it with even more than 1500g cameras?


Thanks for any information.



​
Click to expand...
And the response:

Hi Zach,


Thank you for your email.
Our Zhiyun Crane can bear Canon with 16-35 lens and works well. And the weight 1200g is the Conservative valuation.
Click to expand...
 
There's a long thread over at eoshd about the Zhiyun Crane. I've crossposted to this thread in the hopes of hearing whether anyone over there has tried a heavier load on the Crane.
 
zachnfine said:
I took the leap and bought the Crane, and it definitely works just dandy with my 1620g setup. Did a test last night upright, and one this morning inverted. Will post a clip.

Edit:
Here's a clip from this morning's test run in inverted mode (vimeo link).
Click to expand...

Looks awesome. I'm surprised the crane can carry that much weight. I rented it and I was getting some jitters. I probably did something wrong but your footage looks pretty smooth and stable. Makes me wish I had bought the crane instead of the EC1. What I'm wondering now is if the EC1 can can fly a 1dx mark ii with a canon 24mm 2.8 IS lens. Total is about 3.9 lbs & the EC1 claims a 5 lbs payload. On paper it's possible but I'm wondering about real testing.
 
It definitely can carry that much weight -- but I did run into some shakes this morning with the same setup that was too unbalanced. Balance becomes much more critical and tricky with such a payload. When I flew it carrying "only" 1240g (Canon 50mm f1.4), it was a piece of cake to use and easier to balance (as the lens was less front-heavy). And with the shorter lens, the platform could rotate 360º around the X axis (er, tilt).

Getting front-back balance is kind of a pain, I'm tempted to whip up something with a lightweight nylon screw attached to the bottom with extra weight on its end, to use as an easily-adjustable counterweight so I don't have to keep unscrewing the camera's tripod mount and moving it.
 
For any of these gimbal stabilizers (Beholder, Crane, Pilotfly) does it matter if the lens and/or camera has its own stabilization? For example, is it better to turn on or off the IS for a Canon 16-35 f4 IS lens or the 28 f2.8 IS, etc? thank you.
 
mikey50 said:
For any of these gimbal stabilizers (Beholder, Crane, Pilotfly) does it matter if the lens and/or camera has its own stabilization? For example, is it better to turn on or off the IS for a Canon 16-35 f4 IS lens or the 28 f2.8 IS, etc? thank you.
Click to expand...

It depends, some lenses have IS that looks pretty bad in video, but on my A7SII and native FE lenses I always leave the IBIS on since it helps keep my shots smooth even if the gimbal has a slight vibration etc. Some other brands have very aggressive IS designed for stills where it doesn't pan well as the IS will hold the shot static and then let go of it past a threshold and that becomes visible in footage. I'd test and see.
 
nyvz said:
It depends, some lenses have IS that looks pretty bad in video, but on my A7SII and native FE lenses I always leave the IBIS on since it helps keep my shots smooth even if the gimbal has a slight vibration etc. Some other brands have very aggressive IS designed for stills where it doesn't pan well as the IS will hold the shot static and then let go of it past a threshold and that becomes visible in footage. I'd test and see.
Click to expand...


thanks for the reply. To slightly rephrase the question. Let's say between the 35 f1.8 OSS, the FE 35 f2.8 ZA or the Zeiss Loxia 32 f2 Biogon. Certainly, these vary in price and characteristic. But in regards to using on a gimbal stabilizer, does it matter if the lens has OSS or not? I don't have a camera with IBIS.
 
Last edited:
You can definitely get away with a lens that doesn't have OS/IS/VC/OSS since the stabilizer is doing most of the work. It can help to have the option in some situations as I mentioned though. I'd be more concerned with how good the lens' AF is since that is super handy on a gimbal, and a lot of native E-mount lenses have useless MF so you're stuck with AF especially for video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top