Recommend Me a Glidecam

dunesquirrel

dunesquirrel

Member
Hello M&A, I have a t3i with the 18-55mm kit lens and a uv filter. Would the glidecam 2000 pro be a good choice? I've heard it has had some balancing issues with the t2i because of it lightness. Does this still exist with the t3i? Or would the hd1000 work better. I'm not sure I want to fork out the extra cash for the hd though. Suggestions?
 
a) you should get a wider lens if you're thinking of shooting follows with that.

b) 2000, because you will probably upgrade to a better bulkier lens from the kit lens. By getting the 1000 you're limiting your growth IMO (less room for add-ons).
 
well many people shoot with a 17-40 and seem to have a wide enough angle. Also ive heard that people have to attach extra weights to the top with the 2000 and t2i?
 
I'm not saying you can't shoot at 18mm, but it's not ideal. I felt the difference between 17 and 18 was HUGE. I shoot at 11mm because I didn't feel wide enough at 17mm.

Michael Clarke shoots with a 7d and 11-16 on a 4000, so a t2i with a 17-40 or 11-16 is perfectly fine on a 2000. but follows at 18mm will not be pretty...
 
hmmmm thanks a lot for the imput. I almost feel helpless/tied down because I don't have enough money for a new lens and glidecam. U are suggesting that the glidecam is useless without a wider lens. A wider lens is awesome but how am I supposed to support it for follows?
 
quoting because you must've skipped over this...

what do you mean by 'support a wider lens'? and Get the real deal glidecam, DIY's can save you lots of money but you won't get as good of stabilization.
 
u also said this which I can see hapenning. The last think I would want is to have a glidecam with a lens shooting at 18mm and to look back at the footage and see limbs cut off of the footage. u feel me?
 
I do, I've shot with the kit lens, the 17-40, and an 11-16. The only thing I find to be "wide enough" (at least for my desires) is the 11-16. Especially on jumps where it's not too easy to pan and tilt while on skis with a glidecam.

"will not be pretty" is not equal to "will not work". Get creative at 18mm and prove me wrong.
 
18mm is definitely doable. You said that you wanted wider for jumps but the problem with something wider than like 17mm you start to get too far way when you follow, so you either need to be right there or shooting longer with better glidecam sense.

For example, I have shot with my glide cam and no wide angle a bit. An hvx with no wide angle zoomed out is 32.5mm at 35mm equivalent or 20mmish on a 1.6 crop. For rails, it was simple, move back a little, the none wide shot looks very unique IMO. But, on jumps i had to do the same thing and move back a little and it was challenging but you get a tighter shot of the skier, which is nice. But, with my wide angle i had a 19.5mm 35mm equivalent or 12mmish on 1.6 crop. With this, rails were perfect but i found if i was too far away from a skier on a jump, the shot was pointless. Just something to think about with focal lengths and follow cams the widest isn't always the best. But, this shows that the tokina 11-16 is prime for follows and if the tamron 12-24 was a little bit better quality, that lens would be perfect for messing around with different glidecam shots.

But don't get down that you might not be able to afford a wider lens, 18mm should in theory work, you're just gonna have to practice.
 
thanks for the help man. advice from u two on this stuff is always a plus. I'm so down to practice too so im really excited to get one.
 
18mm will work fine with a Glidecam. The less wide your lens is, the more difficult it will be to attain smooth shots. However, if you practice enough, using longer focal lengths on a Glidecam an be very rewarding. I.E. your lens will work fine.

I use a Tokina 11-16 on mine, and I shoot at 16mm almost all the time. I've also used a 28mm with beautiful results. I've even seen people get great results using 70-200s (granted, they had a HD4000 and v-10, but still).

As for the weight issue, you can can technically use either the 1000 or 2000. With the 1000, your camera will be an optimal weight, but if you ever want to add a heavier lens or a mic, it will suddenly be too heavy. And believe me, you will eventually get a heavier lens.

With the 2000, it will be a bit too light without a heavier lens or some accessories. You can still mount weights on the top and it will work, but this is generally seen as a less-than-optimal workaround.

Basically, with a 2000 you will be future-proofing your kit. With a 1000, you will be restricted to the setup you have. If you don't plan on getting a nicer (heavier) lens or adding any accessories, get the 1000. If you do, get the 2000.
 
thanks everyone for the advice. Will I be given enough weights to do this with the 2000 pro or will i have to buy more? How will the camera sit if weights are beneath it?
 
My HD2000 came with a bunch of spare weights, so I can only assume the Pro does as well.

You can mount them in separate parts of the cheese plate as long as they are all equidistant from the camera's center of gravity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top