I find rod systems overrated

Zachadoodle

Zachadoodle

Well-known member
I understand I may at some point need a 15mm rod system for building out a camera as rigging out allows for efficiency, but to me, after personal experience of fiddling too much with how much time and effort it takes to build it up, I think it's kinda overrated.

I find it much easier to attach to either the camera or a tripod some simple and small parts than to spend a lot of time rigging something only to find out it was the wrong part for all the other parts in the rig. You could spend thousands of dollars trying to jerry rig with this if you don't get a rod system right.

Overall, to me, I find it much easier when I have parts that lets me just grab and go with the camera.
 
Last edited:
which is fine.

On a 'set' the camera becomes a machine that must interact with all the departments and crew, focus gubbins for the first a/c, timecode box, video transmitter, hot swap batteries. Once your camera 'needs' this stuff a rod system is a good and uniform and standardised way of mounting it all.
 
Some cameras are more get up and go, this applies to traditional video cameras, which tend to use rods just for lens accessories. If you wish to use a DSLR or a modular design, these need to be built up into an operational configuration for shooting films. There are cage systems, which allow a different approach to having everything on rods. However, rods still apply for lens accessories such as a follow focus, matte box etc.

As mentioned, on a modern production, there are accessories that are required on the camera. However, if you're working mostly on your own, less is required.

You can purchase ready to shoot camera cases, which allow you to transport your camera already configured for when you wish to use the camera.
 
I'd say rod systems aren't overrated so much as overused.

As Morgan and Brian say, rods are super useful and even necessary in lots of situations. But I think many newer and casual creators, influencers, and productions employ them in situations where they just aren't needed... and as you say can just be a non-optimal use of money and time.
 
creators, influencers,

I can tell you it is big films too. They all seem to use clip on matte boxes and a third rod for focus motor. the under rods only for the optimo 23-590 F1.2

SMM Grip.. 'to fit the camera in the fridge we must strip it back'

Production. 'Yes of course no problem.'

1st ac on the day 'break it down? - no time mate'
 

Attachments

  • rods.JPG
    rods.JPG
    95 KB · Views: 12
Lots of factors at play. But a long time ago, in a..... Well, I'll just say that I was not a huge fan, until I started using them. Generally speaking, on my large sensor cams, I'm using them 9 out of 10 times just to attach a grip for me or to support a zoom. But I actually use them on my ENG cameras, also, as I have a sphere grip I use on the left side for support. Now, if I shoot on a camera that doesn't have rods underneath the lens, even if not supporting it, it doesn't feel right, as I like having that extra grab point.
 
They are not the most elegant thing in the world. But they beat the pants off of the 1/4-20 thread. Those things and cheese plates should be banned. Much better is the NATO connection. Quick, solid, doesn't loosen up. But then, it's is not as versatile as the rods. There has to be something better.
 
Having done some engineering over the years.
Its about matching the needed freedoms of movement to a technology

A matte box on rods is free to adjust fore aft and wont spin or move off axis.
Good design

A handle on a single rod often slips and whoever made yhay hamdle doesnt know mutch

Arri rosettes correctly oppose “handle forces” And allow appropriate adjustment.

Most older designs are good if the function is understood
 
Combining two currently active threads here:

The first time I see rods under a Sony Z200 I'm going to flip my lid.
 
Jim Feeley said:
Combining two currently active threads here:

The first time I see rods under a Sony Z200 I'm going to flip my lid.
Click to expand...
Flip your lid.
I should send you a photo of mine. I have rods on my camera so I can hang my Blackmagic recorder on the side and capture the data overylays shown in the viewfinder for training purposes.
 
Run&Gun said:
Lots of factors at play. But a long time ago, in a..... Well, I'll just say that I was not a huge fan, until I started using them. Generally speaking, on my large sensor cams, I'm using them 9 out of 10 times just to attach a grip for me or to support a zoom. But I actually use them on my ENG cameras, also, as I have a sphere grip I use on the left side for support. Now, if I shoot on a camera that doesn't have rods underneath the lens, even if not supporting it, it doesn't feel right, as I like having that extra grab point.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I like have rods under my lenses for protection against having the lenses touch the ground or anything else. It's like a cage. Plus, when I feel the urge to use a polarizer or grad, its each to put the matte box on.
 
Zachadoodle said:
You end up spending thousands of dollars trying to jerry rig with this if you don't get a rod system right.
Click to expand...
Thousand of dollars? I spent $23 last week for this rod system to use on my Z200. And if you can manage to scrape up another $8 you can add some rods. Fortunately, I already had some old ones laying around so I didn't have to buy new ones.

BTW, people who waste time building and breaking down their camera at every location should be fired. All my cameras live in cases that are just large enough to keep the camera fully-rigged at all times. Just pull it out, flip the power switch, and shoot.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I agree completely. I like have rods under my lenses for protection against having the lenses touch the ground or anything else. It's like a cage. Plus, when I feel the urge to use a polarizer or grad, its each to put the matte box on.
Click to expand...
I use mostly lightweight clamp-on matte boxes, now(misfit atom, misfit atom pola+), but I have a couple of very nice Arri’s that are set-up for rod mounting and used to use them all the time like that.

And if I had had rods on my first Betacam, they would have probably saved the lens from damage when I accidentally dropped the camera on some bleachers at a basketball game and it hit on the underside of the lens, first (sweaty hands and no grip on the top handle). It broke the locating pin, but amazingly, that was it. Never even sent it off for repair. Which speaks volumes to the engineering and robustness of ENG cameras, lenses and other associated gear.
 
Run&Gun said:
Which speaks volumes to the engineering and robustness of ENG cameras, lenses and other associated gear.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.
The Fujinon lens on my last Betacam once took a really hard direct hit right straight into the front of the lens from a Lacrosse ball. It looked like it destroyed the front element of the lens. But then I took off the shattered UV filter, threw it away, and went back to shooting like nothing happened.
 
Zachadoodle said:
I understand I may at some point need a 15mm rod system for building out a camera as rigging out allows for efficiency, but to me after personal experience of fiddling too much with how much time and effort it takes to build it up, I think it's kinda overrated.
Click to expand...

Yes, building out a shoulder rig system for something like the T2i can be complicated and a bit clumsy. Building out any camera rig can be as complicated or as streamlined as you make it out to be. When and if you get experience shooting with true cinema camera bodies, you might find that the rods actually make building and re-configuring the rig much more efficient.
 
morgan_moore said:
creators, influencers,

I can tell you it is big films too. They all seem to use clip on matte boxes and a third rod for focus motor. the under rods only for the optimo 23-590 F1.2
Click to expand...
Clip-on matteboxes have gained in popularity since lenses are better designed to handle them now. Superspeeds used to bind up with the extra weight of a clip-on, which played havoc with our lens motors (which were also weaker back in the day). Nearly all jobs use remote lens controls, so at least a motor for focus and iris, and often one added for zoom when applicable. Nearly all builds I see utilize bottom rods.

Even on tiny builds with a mirrorless I'm a fan of rod systems. On a short film that was a single 20 min take, I suggested to my Steadicam operator he might want to do the rehearsals on a little rig to save his strength. He borrowed an A30 sled (brand new at the time) and I configured my A7III for him to fly with transmitter onboard, built long to give him some inertia. Very easy using rods. In theory we could have swapped to longer rods to simulate the footprint of the Varicam on the big rig, if clearance through tight spaces was part of the rehearsal process (it wasn't).
 

Attachments

  • bigsmallsteadicamsmall.jpeg
    bigsmallsteadicamsmall.jpeg
    880.6 KB · Views: 3
Since 2008 Ive had my 600mm rods.

Placed on,.. 5de, fs100, F3, fs7, c200.

Its only my R6 with the high quality EVF and in body stabilisation that makes me question the shoulder as being the 'correct' place for the handheld camera.

I allude to how 'massive' I think that new way of holding a camera is because it is so stripped back.

You saw my football BTS.. that is all shot 'no rig' and Im impressed!
 
The trend for higher end productions does seem to be using a tiny camera (Komodo etc) or Venice in Rialto mode and moving all of the outboard components to a backpack. I think this works well when you have a team, but for run and gun shoots I feel like you end up holding the camera more than you would normally because you can't just set it down. I watched a DP on a friend's film shoot like this, he gave his lighting directions and discussions to the director with the camera in his hands the whole time. It's only 8 lbs or whatever but it will add up over time (the meter is always running)!

Another thing about handholding a bare camera is that there is a tendency to hold it at a comfortable level instead of the "correct" height for the shot. Which is up to the person shooting, but it should be a deliberate framing decision, not one made out of comfort. When the Movi etc first came out, everyone held them with the camera at chest level so you saw a lot of ceiling in those early years. Pet peeve of mine. In my Steadicam era I was very focused on getting the lens at the right height and had an array of different length armposts on my dock to help with this. But I've seen a lot of operators just walk through a shot with the rig at the float point of the arm. Lazy.
 
Im a huge fan of the spit venice.. for my body rig or car mounts fridge cam or whatever.

You are competley correct that lens height is critically importat part of the composition choice.

To me shoulder mount has often put the lens at eye height. And it is often sensible to view stuff from eye height.

Often being tall I will have to hold shots with a knee bend.. pain!

I shot a doc with a 6'5 presenter and Im 6'4 - I was selected to operate from his POV (over his shoulder) while the other operator was shorter and shot up to him from the POV of the crowd.

Ive got short 'camera trainees' to operate for some shots for me.. typically giving the POV of a short person.

Nutmeg was a kids film that I mainly shouldered.. from an apple box.

I have thought about getting a drummer stool or somthing with more adjustment than an apple box (is it a butt creeper!)
 
morgan_moore said:
I have thought about getting a drummer stool or somthing with more adjustment than an apple box (is it a butt creeper!)
Click to expand...
Butt dolly, as we call them here. Yes, very helpful tool. You could surely build one yourself, clever ones use speedrail for the risers so you can change them out for different needs. The tricky bit is finding the right casters that don't bind up when changing directions.

Handheld shooting with the ability to change your lens height--hmmm, someone should make such a thing! ;)

This challenge (especially with my 5'7" frame) is what prompted me 15 years ago to design what became the ZeeGee. I wish I had photos of my early attempts--there was one thing like a little crane that perched on the shoulder with the camera floating in front of you in an articulating cradle, counterweights at the back...it was exciting to put together but too many axes of movement and too wild. Then I went simpler, with a solid carbon fiber platform that went over the shoulder after mounting into a Steadicam vest socket block. Essentially what later emerged as the Ergorig. After a few prototypes I wandered away from that because I had lost the goal of being able to alter lens height. It was the success of the Ergorig (and minor annoyance that I hadn't bothered to bring it to market myself) that inspired me to dust off the ZeeGee prototype and get it out there as a product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top