DJI launches Ronin-S

[rob norton]

Indeed—not first to market with this product.

Hopefully DJI can bring their X7 into the handheld realm. If you could invest in the X7 + lenses and move it seamlessly between a drone and a handheld solution, I think that would be pretty innovative.

But the more I fly with my Mavic Air, the less interest I have in the larger drones. I'd be all for a product twice the size of a Mavic Air (but same form factor) with silent props, proper wireless and beefed up IQ/DR.

Considering people are going out of their way to keep using the x7 on the ground, the handheld gimbal will be a huge hit, although surely it will be something between a ronin s and ronin m? I don't see a tiny osmo type set up cutting it. As far as innovation, they must be cooking up something that'll easily let you shoot with a gimbal on ground that can then be connected to a drone seamlessly just like a handoff. I'm interested to see what that looks like. I don't know how they'll ever make silent propellers either.

 

[brettsherman]

About FS7 and similar cameras. The biggest problem is, even though you are able to balance it, gimbal is limited when it comes to movement. You are basically able to do just walk in/out shots. If you are fine with that, than it could work.

The offset roll-axis motor may make more movement possible. It just depends on how you get the thing balanced. I'd certainly want to see someone else attempt to balance an FS-7 first before jumping in. I'm pretty confident I can get a C200 balanced on it, but I'll have to invest in Canon's $300 monitor cable. Most of the time I'd use the gimbal for my SLRs, but want the possibility of balancing a C200.

 

[AndreeOnline]

…the handheld gimbal will be a huge hit, although surely it will be something between a ronin s and ronin m? I don't see a tiny osmo type set up cutting it. I don't know how they'll ever make silent propellers either.

The handheld side of the platform would need to house a battery, the CPU and storage (realistically the smaller CineSSDs). But I'd personally much prefer something more like the Ronin-S than the Ronin-M. I would want to be able to run around with the setup without calling TOO much attention to myself.

Regarding silent props: I don't mean "Blue Thunder-silent", but more like the updated props that DJI is already selling. I haven't heard them myself, but people say they are better.

 

[cpreston]

I am surprised the offset roll axis motor actually works as a design. My understanding from a physics perspective is that the motors needed to be perpendicular to one another in order to fully compensate for movement. I can still see a physical way to compensate for any shock to the roll angle, but it would require all three motors to work in tandem and it wouldn't be simple. I am wondering if this is contributing to the jitters I am seeing. My Crane only experiences those type of jitters when I have the center of the gimbal off axis to the force of gravity or I am trying to move the camera through all three axis at once. Does anybody know more about this then I do?

 

[Bubble]

I am surprised the offset roll axis motor actually works as a design. My understanding from a physics perspective is that the motors needed to be perpendicular to one another in order to fully compensate for movement.

because they have a small camera on it. Try a C200 or 1Dx mkii or A9 with battery grip on, as it get taller, it will throw off balance..just like the Tilta G2X

 

[puredrifting]

Considering people are going out of their way to keep using the x7 on the ground, the handheld gimbal will be a huge hit, although surely it will be something between a ronin s and ronin m? I don't see a tiny osmo type set up cutting it. As far as innovation, they must be cooking up something that'll easily let you shoot with a gimbal on ground that can then be connected to a drone seamlessly just like a handoff. I'm interested to see what that looks like. I don't know how they'll ever make silent propellers either.

I agree, the X7 in a handheld form factor would be innovative. But costly too. The camera now and full lens set is about $7,300.00. Add in another grand or so for the gimbal part of it and you are at "real camera" pricing. Gimbals are kind of one trick ponies, they're cool but I wouldnt put that much money into one personally.

 

[Samuel H]

Gimbals are kind of one trick ponies

I think at least 80% of my shots right now are on a gimbal. I not only use it as a "digital steadycam" and "fake dolly" but also "fake crane" and even "fake tripod" (this last one works well enough for me and saves a lot of time when shooting without a crew). The only thing I'm not fully happy with is the "fake shoulder rig": the motion is very different, and I've never mastered the art of adding camera shake in post.

 

[puredrifting]

I think at least 80% of my shots right now are on a gimbal. I not only use it as a "digital steadycam" and "fake dolly" but also "fake crane" and even "fake tripod" (this last one works well enough for me and saves a lot of time when shooting without a crew). The only thing I'm not fully happy with is the "fake shoulder rig": the motion is very different, and I've never mastered the art of adding camera shake in post.

Ughh, I own three gimbals and I have grown to hate the look and movement for anything but a few shots here and there. A gimbal is no substitute for a compound movement from a quality tripod head. I think a gimbal can fake a dolly shot pretty well. But to me, gimbals have a mechanical, robotic quality to the movement that looks fake and generic to me and has nothing to do with the skill of the operator, I'll take skilled handheld camera work over gimbal any day of the week. But gimbals have their place, for walk and talks or tracking a subject through an environment, they can work well, although Steadicams with a good operator are so much better. I think for versatility, drones are actually pretty cool other than the noise from them for sync sound shots. That German film that's been getting press that they largely shot with the Inspire and X7 is impressive. I have three colleagues, one had a MoVi and two had Ronins and all three sold them over the past three months. Too much hassle, too boring of a look. I sold my Helix and now just have a Crane and Crane M for my iPhone. I don't think I would buy a real gimbal again though, the look is too tired to me.

It also goes back to the visual language of cinema, the gimbal, to me dilutes the visual language of motivated camera movement versus non-motivated, too many people HAVE to move the camera for every shot, it's a terrible (Bourne Identity) aesthetic. To me, the camera should only move if there is a good reason for it to do do. So many gimbal users (not saying you do this) just move the camera because they can, all of the time, everywhere.

 

[Run&Gun]

I agree with you PD. Most electronic handheld gimbal work is mechanical and blah even when it's "good" and absolutely horrible when you couple it with people who think that it's supposed to be "magic" and all you have to do is turn it on and walk around. It's almost always a beat or two behind the action, because it's being done by a lone operator in some sort of "majestic mode" and it's a whole lot of aimless, 'walking around shots'. The really good stuff you see in demo's are usually highly planned and blocked with multiple operators(someone physically carrying the gimbal/camera, someone controlling the gimbal movement and a focus puller). The bulk of the real life people that are buying them and using them are not doing that.

I have friends that are very good Steadicam operators and I have taken the workshop a few times. I've also tried my hand at using electronic gimbals like the Ronin, too. And while I'm a complete novice and hack of a Steadicam op, at best(I use the term just for illustrative purposes, I am not in any way shape or form a Steadicam op), I would rather operate a real Steadicam than handheld electronic gimbal for almost anything, any day. Especially with some of the God-awful contraptions, that themselves look like pieces from sci-fi movies, that they have come out with to allow you to hang onto the electronic gimbals for more than just a few minutes.

Like so many other things, they do have their uses and can be useful when used correctly in the right situations, but everyone tries to shoehorn them into everything.

 

[NorBro]

It's just another piece of the puzzle of robots taking over, lol.

I think it really comes down to cost and usability for most people.

It's very easy to put your 500g camera on a gimbal, have automatic balancing (for the most part), and then set your framerate to 120p, ha.

You're instantly a filmmaker...

In today's production world (not the 1%), most companies are using smaller cameras and doing much more with much less. I can't tell you the last time I saw a steadicam (all Ronins), but I also don't work in production as much as others here.

I think if more people used the gimbals with longer/blocked/creative takes in regular speed, they would look better...but it's just mostly someone's back or face in slow-motion.

 

[puredrifting]

Not to get too side tracked, but same with the UTTER ABUSE of high frame rates/slow motion. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you have slow motion capability, doesn't EVERYTHING look cooler in slow motion? (sarcasm on) The documentary I am shooting, we are mainly shooting the racing in 4K 60p but I have to say, in the sizzle, crowdfunding videos, so far we have not used one shot in slow motion, it just makes the paddlers we're shooting look less impressive, like they're lazy. Like every other tool at our disposal, slow motion looks amazing WHEN IT'S MOTIVATED from a story perspective. But YouTube video and demo reel after demo reel filled with ALL slow motion and or speed ramped shots, enough people! Learn how to tell a story with nothing but sound, cuts and good photography, then I'm impressed. Five minutes of 120 fps gimbal work, not so much.

 

[cpreston]

The slow motion also helps to hide some the jitter and tracking problems with a gimbal.

 

[C100Scottie]

Feiyu A2000, best bang for the buck as far as gimbals go. Mine has been flawless.

 

[alohype]

Not to get too side tracked, but same with the UTTER ABUSE of high frame rates/slow motion. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you have slow motion capability, doesn't EVERYTHING look cooler in slow motion? (sarcasm on) The documentary I am shooting, we are mainly shooting the racing in 4K 60p but I have to say, in the sizzle, crowdfunding videos, so far we have not used one shot in slow motion, it just makes the paddlers we're shooting look less impressive, like they're lazy. Like every other tool at our disposal, slow motion looks amazing WHEN IT'S MOTIVATED from a story perspective. But YouTube video and demo reel after demo reel filled with ALL slow motion and or speed ramped shots, enough people! Learn how to tell a story with nothing but sound, cuts and good photography, then I'm impressed. Five minutes of 120 fps gimbal work, not so much.

Even with all those crazy slowmotion frame rates available I still like 60 fps slowed down the most. There's something special about it, you still see a motion yet everything is a little dream like.

 

[brettsherman]

think if more people used the gimbals with longer/blocked/creative takes in regular speed, they would look better...but it's just mostly someone's back or face in slow-motion.

I agree with this in one sense that the tool itself is quite a capable tool. Just because it is not used fully to its capacity does not make it the tool's problem. Yes, I can see how a Steadicam can be more organic and less jittery. But there are limitations with the Steadicam. Weight is perhaps the biggest one. The only way Steadicam's work well is with a lot of inertia, meaning weight. Weight means a lot of gear. Means a one-man crew cannot possible use it. Means flying with it is expensive. Means you need room to operate. Means you have a large physical footprint. Means you have to plan out moves. Means you need time for setup. Means you have to mainly shoot at roughly eye-level and can't change heights mid shot.

To me the gimbal shines when for whatever reasons you can't meet those requirements. I'm not an all gimbal/all the time shooter. Most times I leave it at home. But to say gimbal shots are terrible is really more about the shooter. Throw a telephoto lens on there and you get a whole different world.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I agree with this in one sense that the tool itself is quite a capable tool. Just because it is not used fully to its capacity does not make it the tool's problem. Yes, I can see how a Steadicam can be more organic and less jittery. But there are limitations with the Steadicam. Weight is perhaps the biggest one. The only way Steadicam's work well is with a lot of inertia, meaning weight. Weight means a lot of gear. Means a one-man crew cannot possible use it. Means flying with it is expensive. Means you need room to operate. Means you have a large physical footprint. Means you have to plan out moves. Means you need time for setup. Means you have to mainly shoot at roughly eye-level and can't change heights mid shot.

To me the gimbal shines when for whatever reasons you can't meet those requirements. I'm not an all gimbal/all the time shooter. Most times I leave it at home. But to say gimbal shots are terrible is really more about the shooter. Throw a telephoto lens on there and you get a whole different world.

Addressing a few of these points:
"The only way Steadicam's work well is with a lot of inertia, meaning weight. Weight means a lot of gear." It is entirely possible to get fantastic results with one of the lightweight Steadicams carrying a 5 lb camera, given the operator's skill. It is EASIER to get good results with a heavier rig, but not necessary.

"Weight means a lot of gear. Means a one-man crew cannot possible use it." No physical reason why a one-man crew can't use a Steadicam. My very last time wearing a Steadicam was picking up some establishing shots and I brought one person with me just to keep an eye on the docking stand during the shot!

"Means you need room to operate. Means you have a large physical footprint." It's worn on the body. No footprint beyond your feet. It sticks out from your body, but so do gimbals. If you use a bodymount with the gimbal, it surely will be a larger physical footprint (often taller and sometimes wider) than a Steadicam.

"Means you have to plan out moves." No different than a gimbal. Again, skill and experience based.

"Means you need time for setup." Same with a gimbal. Balancing is required with both. It generally takes longer to balance a gimbal from scratch than a Steadicam.

"Means you have to mainly shoot at roughly eye-level and can't change heights mid shot." That is essentially correct, you are more limited in your height ranges with a body-worn Steadicam, although you still get 2.5 to 3 feet of boom range which is a bit better than roughly eye-level. And you can flip into low mode which gives the same amount of range but several feet lower.

 

[NorBro]

Balancing is required with both. It generally takes longer to balance a gimbal from scratch than a Steadicam.

This is really going to depend on the gear because there's actual almost no balancing required with a small mirrorless/pancake gimbal setup. And with phones, there is zero balancing with phone gimbals, IMO.

With my experience - again, with a lighter setup - you just have to get it as close as possible and the motors/electronics will do the rest. Having perfect balance in theory should provide you optimal results, but I still have seen jitters in footage where people take 20 minutes getting everything just right (software tweaking may also be necessary) opposed to myself just sliding a small setup somewhere in the middle and having the gimbal do the balancing (even in situations where the setup was clearly too front heavy).

 

[Bern Caughey]

I like the record trigger option plus GH5 users willl be able to pull focus with compatable lenses. It is on the heavy side.

For GH5 users the ability to pull focus, & trigger recording, with the Ronin-S are killer features. Briefly handled the combo yesterday during Cine Gear, & was a bit surprised to see the focus pull feature was functioning. DJI stated it works not only with Panasonic’s lenses, but also EF AF glass when used with a Metabones. If this proves workable I’d love to see DJI release a stand alone focus controller for use without a gimbal.

As Erik stated, the Ronin-S is on the heavy side, but once any kinks are worked out I may purchase one, mostly for the focus pull feature.

 

[KrocanX]

Funny how some people here talks about gimbals.

It doesnt meant that if it not suit your style of work that it is bad think. It is simply another tool. Maybe those fancy youtube vloggers are using it much, but it is gimbal's fault?

I often shoot with cars and it was never easier to get stable shots just hanging from the trunk with gimbal. Or I was shooting reality tv show about running and I had to run quite a lot with participants. I couldn't imagine better tool than gimbal. Try to run for couple kilometers and shoot stable with shoulder rig or steadycam.

But when it comes to commercials, I always prefer easyrig look. It is just more natural and pleasing. But it does not mean gimbals dont have their place in production.

 

[brettsherman]

Addressing a few of these points:
No physical reason why a one-man crew can't use a Steadicam. My very last time wearing a Steadicam was picking up some establishing shots and I brought one person with me just to keep an eye on the docking stand during the shot!

What you are describing is a shoot with a limited scope. There are shoots where that one person produces, negotiates schedules, sets up for interviews, conducts interviews, grabs B-Roll, and if there is time get a few moving shots. I would suggest that the gimbal is a better match for those situations.

It's worn on the body. No footprint beyond your feet. It sticks out from your body, but so do gimbals. If you use a bodymount with the gimbal, it surely will be a larger physical footprint (often taller and sometimes wider) than a Steadicam.

One of my primary uses for a gimbal is one-man, two camera shoots at rallies and press conferences. In those situations I clamp the pistol grip gimbal to the tripod of the main cam to get a wide shot. While fighting for space with 10 other cameramen on a small platform. Then unclamp to get moving and stationary B-shots. I can go from manning the main cam to filming with the gimbal in 3 seconds. I would suggest that I would be tarred and feathered if I attempted to set up a steadicam in that situation.

There is a point at which gear adds friction to a shoot. It depends on the project how much that friction matters. For my shoots the small gimbal is much less friction, meaning I can concentrate on the multitude of other things I need to do. I have owned a Glidecam V5 so know a bit about the Steadicam style of stabilization, though I was never an expert by any means.