Camera Stabiliser

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Hey guys. I got a question about camera stabiliser.

I remember watching this nature program on TV and it happened to show macro photography (or photomacrography). The guy on TV was using a superzoom camera but he has this stabiliser that attached to the bottom of the camera and held it against his shoulder or chest.

It looked quite convenient to use since he was able to reach places that might be awkward for tripod.

The closest thing I can find is this BushHawk but the one I saw on TV doesn't have the pistol grip, just the arm and the guy is holding his camera normally.

Have any of you seen or used something like this to reduce camera shake when you're outside?

g4lab · Post by **g4lab** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:24 pm

Google" Gyro Stabilized camera mounts." That may have been what he was using. They are very expensive but can be rented.

I have a friend who used to rent them till he managed to buy a couple of them on ebay.

The one he got was from Ken Labs. which is one of the well known brands that has been at it a long time.

I saw some DIY projects too. There are some tiny gyro sensors available now that could help eliminate the big heavy gyro reference. But such a thing also has the moxie to to direct stabilization.

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:43 pm

P_T,
There's a brief review of the BushHawk at the first link below and some other related information in the second link. The whole article attached to the second link makes for good reading; but the 'Brace Yourself' section is most relevant to your question.

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/bushhawk_review.htm

http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2007 ... nique.html

Craig

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:05 pm

Thanks so much guys!!

augusthouse wrote:http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2007 ... nique.html

Craig

This it it!! This is the one I saw being used on TV. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1269/128 ... d4.jpg?v=0

http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2007 ... rt-ii.html

This is gonna be my ultimate outdoor macro rig.

I'll contact Camera Warehouse tomorrow see if they can get me one. Thanks again Craig!!

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:06 am

I have to point out that any brace against your chest is going to be far removed from being a stabilizer, unless you give up breathing! I am sure you would find some improvement but it would mainly be a good way of taking most of the weight off your hands. Gyroscopes are a more likely solution for true stabilisation.

Harold

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:09 am

Harold Gough wrote:I have to point out that any brace against your chest is going to be far removed from being a stabilizer, unless you give up breathing! I am sure you would find some improvement but it would mainly be a good way of taking most of the weight off your hands. Gyroscopes are a more likely solution for true stabilisation.

Harold

Stabiliser is perhaps the wrong word to use and that gadget can be used on your shoulder as well (like a gun stock). I realised it doesn't substitute a good tripod, and I'm not looking for one either. If it can help me use an aperture one or two stops lower, I'm a happy camper.

Another thing is, perhaps I'm not searching properly but all the gyro mounts I found are chunky equipments for use on air/water/land vehicles.

I found a small DIY gyro mount but I don't think it's strong, sensitive and fast enough to stabilise micro shakes on a fairly heavy DSLR+lens and it seem to work only on one axis.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/18/diye ... -platform/

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:20 pm

I've read about the external gyrostablizers, but never used or even seen one for myself! I suspect they are not used nearly as much now that stabilized lenses and camera sensors are around. The stabilizers are an active device, and quite different from the stock devices like the Bushhawk. Personally, I'd be afraid to take a Bushhawk (or was it Brushhawk?!) on an airplane in this day and age, though it should be okay in checked luggage.

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:49 pm

Mike B in OKlahoma wrote: Personally, I'd be afraid to take a Bushhawk (or was it Brushhawk?!) on an airplane in this day and age, though it should be okay in checked luggage.

HAHAHA!! yeah!! I was thinking about what if I had used that when Pope Benedict was here in Sydney a few weeks ago just to freak the cops out but I figure it would've been more trouble for me than for them.

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:39 am

The stabilisers I have read about are usually the gyro stabilisers that screw to the camera tripod socket, or those Steadycam types the TV people use to follow people up and down stairs etc whilst filming.

http://www.ken-lab.com/

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/spee ... tabilizer/

I wonder though how a gyro stabiliser will work with a vibration reduction camera or lens, will their stabilisation methods "fight" each other?

The "gunstock" type of camera mount has been around for years in some form or another.

DaveW

salden · Post by **salden** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:31 am

There are some reviews on photo.net

http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00Kyw1

I suppose it depends on the individual. I have been thinking about one, but I am pretty good at handholding so I do not know if it will help or hurt.

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:35 am

I have a Kaiser device which I was sold as a pistol grip.

It has the pistol grip onto which the camera fits via a standard tripod screw but it also has and extendable (telescopic) arm going back to a shoulder brace, which has an adjustable strap to hold it on the shoulder. An important feature is the long cable realease which extends from the pistol grip and would cut out any movement from fingure pressure on the shutter release button.

I have used this device a couple of times, before I had all of my current range of lenses, but found it fiddly to attach the camera and to make the various adjustments. However, it could well make all the difference with long telephoto lenses and some hand-held macro. I may try it again before long.

Of course, the shoulder contributes much less movement from breathing than does the front of the chest.

Harold

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:44 am

I figure there has got to be a reason why rifles have a shoulder stock at the end and it has to be more than just aesthetic value.

Edit: I just remember it's also to handle the recoil. D'OH!

I'm not really sure how useful that BushHawk is for a lens like MP-E. At x1 magnification, it's a pretty d a m n short lens.

Actually, I would love to ask Dalantech's opinion since that's his novoflex shoulder pod rig I posted in my second post in this thread. If I remember correctly, he only shoots handheld using his shoulder pod and I must say his Flickr photos are very sharp.

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:38 pm

For accuracy, rifle championships find the contestant almost prone on their back with the rifle pointing over their feet towards the target. They also allow for wind speed (and air temperature?).

Harold