C200: Shoulder Rig verses Gimbal??

D

dharty

Active member
Using a shoulder rig verses a gimbal? That is pretty open ended question, but the more I think about buying a gimbal the more I wonder how much I would still use a shoulder rig. The last gimbal I shot with was a Glidecam years ago, so I am wondering how the newer motorized gimbals are changing how you shoot?

I shoot short-form programs for museums with a 1-3 person crew that are used on web sites and for playback in exhibits. I typically take a documentary approach basing content on interviews and B-role where I tend not to direct the action too much (www.galenestudios.com). If I strip down my C200 and use a Canon 24mm 2.8 EF-S lens, the camera lens, battery, and a Zhiyun-Tech Crane 2 weigh a very manageable 6.8 lbs (about 8 lbs with the 2 handed grip). I also have a Rhino slider that I like but that doesn't offer the mobility of a gimbal.

Are you finding a manageable gimbal set up is replacing shooting on a shoulder rig? Any advice or suggestions?

Thanks,

Drew Harty
 
Not for me, I'm sick of gimbals and gimbal shots. I still use one, not with my C200, with my iPhone 8 Plus because it's small, light and unobtrusive and gimbals are good for moving through an environment or walk and talks. Other than those though, for shooting a subject and following them through a physical action, I prefer shoulder mounted, it looks more organic and "real" Gimbals look robotic to me, great for certain shots but generally, they make your footage look generic, robotic and all the same IMHO.
 
puredrifting said:
Not for me, I'm sick of gimbals and gimbal shots. I still use one, not with my C200, with my iPhone 8 Plus because it's small, light and unobtrusive and gimbals are good for moving through an environment or walk and talks. Other than those though, for shooting a subject and following them through a physical action, I prefer shoulder mounted, it looks more organic and "real" Gimbals look robotic to me, great for certain shots but generally, they make your footage look generic, robotic and all the same IMHO.
Click to expand...
I second every word you said! For me, if I need that moving, almost dolly-like shot, I use Glidecam. For everything else - handheld(shoulder mount or easy rig).
 
Two different tools, IMO. I'm with Pure, I'm kind of sick of electronic gimbals and the look they generate. They're kind of a 'one-trick pony', whereas you can do more with a good shoulder mount: more variety of shots, move faster, less limited to accessories you can use/put on the camera, etc. An electronic gimbal shot is usually wide, wide or wide with poor/weak framing and too much headroom. And a beat behind the action.

They have there place and uses, but if I could only spend money on a shoulder mount for a camera that needed it or an electronic gimbal, it's shoulder mount set-up all day long.
 
I'm a fan of shoulder mounted personally. I feel it really puts the viewer into the scene because a) the eyeline height is generally right, and b) the camera drifts and moves the way a persons POV does.

Gimbals are also a pain to work with in many situations. They require a lot of rigging and stripping of the camera when you are swapping back and forth from gimbal to anything else. These days I only want to shoot with a gimbal if it's with a 2nd camera.

They have their place, but to me they are for occasional use as a specialty shot - same as with cranes, sliders, etc.
 
dharty said:
Using a shoulder rig verses a gimbal? That is pretty open ended question, but the more I think about buying a gimbal the more I wonder how much I would still use a shoulder rig. The last gimbal I shot with was a Glidecam years ago, so I am wondering how the newer motorized gimbals are changing how you shoot?

I shoot short-form programs for museums with a 1-3 person crew that are used on web sites and for playback in exhibits. I typically take a documentary approach basing content on interviews and B-role where I tend not to direct the action too much (www.galenestudios.com). If I strip down my C200 and use a Canon 24mm 2.8 EF-S lens, the camera lens, battery, and a Zhiyun-Tech Crane 2 weigh a very manageable 6.8 lbs (about 8 lbs with the 2 handed grip). I also have a Rhino slider that I like but that doesn't offer the mobility of a gimbal.

Are you finding a manageable gimbal set up is replacing shooting on a shoulder rig? Any advice or suggestions?

Thanks,

Drew Harty
Click to expand...

They're two different looks plus it depends on the type of gimbal too - zhiyun crane vs. movi pro/easy rig or ready rig are two very different beasts.
 
I do a lot of work very similar to yours. First, lets identify all the main types of support for your C200:

Handheld (no shoulder rig)
Tripod
Monopod
Slider/Dolly
Gimbal
Steadicam/glidecam
Shoulder rig

Each of these has a different use and you need to decide what look you want in your videos and if the effort to achieve the look is possible given the shoot schedule.

I find that a gimbal is most useful for following/leading a subject or two as they move through a space or as a way to move closer to where something is happening. A Steadicam/glidecam can create very similar shots. A shoulder rig (or just going handheld) can mimic the movements, but will make very different shots because of their bumpy nature.

I find handheld and shoulder rig to be much more useful than a gimbal for intimate shots where you are close to the action, grabbing lots of different compositions, usually with minimal actual camera movement (through space) happening while rolling. A monopod provides a similar, though different, look and has a similar use in my mind.

A slider or dolly can create some similar looks to a gimbal, but usually they don't travel as far (especially a slider). They do, however, offer a lot more precision over the camera movement and composition, especially for side to side shots (truck left or right) on longer lenses.

These days, I find I use my C300MKII handheld much more often than on a shoulder rig because it is even more nimble. I use my Movi M15 on almost every shoot, but only for about 3-5% of the shots. Most of the rest is tripod, slider, and handheld.
 
I like gimbals and use them, at times i’d like to make more use of a gimbal, but gimbals, like steadicam occupy a niche on a shoot. Sometimes there is nothing like a gimbal move but my experience is that those times are more infrequent than I originally thought they would be .

I’ve shot a TON hand held over the years and a well balanced and configured hand held camera can do a lot. I was screening somefootage I shot 8 years ago on a remote island in the pacific, which was all hand held on dififcult terrain. I was amazed how well I managed with a simple rig over long periods of shooting. It couldn’t be done with a gimbal or gimbal ready rig combo. There’s just too much jungle in the way.
As lucky as we are to have all these amazing tools like gimbals at our disposal at such affordable prices, I think we still need to realize that they do have limited uses in a given shoot day.
 
I’ve never gotten to mess with a “real” gimbal, got to use an Osmo once. I was just on a shoot where I alternated between handheld and sticks with a c100. Looking at footage later I saw that any of my handheld moves where I moved my whole body to a new position (e.g. walked past a group, any dolly/slider type moves, arcs around objects or people, looked pretty bad. Way too shaky even with stabilizied lenses. If my feet stayed planted I could get very nice little pushes, drifts etc., anything where I could keep my arms mostly in toward my body and move my torso for cam movement.

What I’m getting at is seems like a gimbal would have made those dolly-past-a-group or arc shots etc. (anything where I had to move my feet) work. Disagree?
 
Thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies. There seems to be a consensus that a gimbal is great for a specific type of shooting and is not a substitute for other methods of supporting a camera. I like to carefully control framing and shoot wider and closer to a subject when possible. Sounds like from everyones' experience a small gimbal is not the best solution for that type of shooting nor a substitute for the precision movement a slider can create.

Thanks, Drew
 
Josh Bass said:
I’ve never gotten to mess with a “real” gimbal, got to use an Osmo once. I was just on a shoot where I alternated between handheld and sticks with a c100. Looking at footage later I saw that any of my handheld moves where I moved my whole body to a new position (e.g. walked past a group, any dolly/slider type moves, arcs around objects or people, looked pretty bad. Way too shaky even with stabilizied lenses. If my feet stayed planted I could get very nice little pushes, drifts etc., anything where I could keep my arms mostly in toward my body and move my torso for cam movement.

What I’m getting at is seems like a gimbal would have made those dolly-past-a-group or arc shots etc. (anything where I had to move my feet) work. Disagree?
Click to expand...

You still have to take care with the way that you move and walk, even with a gimbal. I see a lot of sports remotes using gimbals for bump shots now and I see a LOT of bad gimbal work. The "camera guy"(may be PA's or producers, who knows, now) obviously used poor technique and thought the gimbal would take care of all the bumps, etc., because while the shot was basically level and "sorta floaty", it bounced up and down(vertically/height change) dramatically with each footstep.
 
Here’s a spot I did on a volunteer basis for a local political candidate . C300 on Helix gimbal. Gimbal was the perfect tool, or it could have been a steadicam, not hand held or slider.
https://vimeo.com/245413374

Gimbals solve some problems but not all of them.
 
puredrifting said:
gimbals are good for moving through an environment or walk and talks. I prefer shoulder mounted, it looks more organic and "real" Gimbals look robotic to me, great for certain shots but generally, they make your footage look generic, robotic and all the same IMHO.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of variety with gimbal shots that can happen. I think the walking forward with a wide angle lens has become a cliche. But there is a lot more you can do. Arcing moves. Small Sideways moves with tilt. Telephoto shots where you slide left or right a foot or so. Crane shots, etc etc. some of these are impossible shoulder mounted. I tend to like to shoot mostly handheld and then grab a few gimbal shots for variety.
 
My go to lens for GImbal is my 24mm Canon 1.4, however I suggest trying a 35 or 50 and see where that takes you. I while back I was shooting some dancers rehearsing for a project, so a scene with Plenty of movement. I shot some wides then jumped to the 50 for some tighter framing and still manintain some distance because the movement was going to be unpredictable. I was skeptical about the 50 at first but it turned out to be a great choice.
Keep in mind though that the basis of the scene was moving bodies no talking something that a moving camera really complements. Mounting up a steadicam or a gimbal just to make an otherwise boring action (characters doing exposition) in front of camera some what more interesting is where things frequently go wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top