The Modosteady

[Greg mgm]

THANKS!

[jag32266]

Hey Greg,

Had some time so I went to your link to watch the review. I was impressed with numbers 1 & 3 of the walk down the hall. In fact # 2 wasn't 'real' bad either but my 1st reaction was the number 1 looked real close to professional. But then, #3 looked extremely good considering the make shift nature of the device.
And I do understand the weight on the bottom of the monopod- but did you really see that much of a difference w/o the weight? Just curious.
I do feel that most of the gained effect actually comes from the more natural grip you can now use instead of going thru the wristband itself- or at least for me. Butm my model cam has a flip out viewfinder and I wasn't sure if the model you use in the review had one?

Great put together of the review- very helpful!!

all the best,
jay

[Clayton]

Great review Greg.

[Chuck Engels]

This is too good to leave in the Water Cooler, moved to the Tools forum
Great job Greg

[Greg mgm]

I appreciate the comments. Jay- the difference with + without the weight is night and day.... especially when you make turns to the right or left. Without the weight, if you turn/ swing the camera, it tilts...with the weight it stays level. Also, walking with the weight makes for a steadier shot. I did tests with heavier and lighter weights and the 1 1/4 lb plate seems to work best. I definitely agree with your comment about gripping the camera with a handle...it feels more natural (to me at least) And yes my camera has a flip out screen.....DOH! I should have had it out in the review!!

[jens_s]

Thats a very nicely done review, however I'm a bit amazed that nobody spotted that Greg's review is fundamentally flawed.

When using the ModoSteady as a stabilizer, it works pretty much like a SteadiCam Merlin and similar devices. The handle needs to be loose, not tightened as Greg shows. When the handle is loose, the camera balances on top of the handle. The counterweight makes sure that the camera doesn't tip over. Balancing the camera correctly is the essential part of making the stabilizer work. If you do it correctly, it works wonders, because it doesnt matter how much you shake your hand, the camera stays upright, and doesn't wobble along with your hand.
If you tighten the ball and handle, you transmit every shake from your hand into the camera, and the steadying function will be almost nonexistant.

It's fine that people share their experience with a wide audience, and I encourage everybody to do so, but when you have fundamentally misunderstood the most important part of a product, and proceeds to show people that it doesn't work as advertised, you are doing us all a disservice. The least you could do is to read the manual before you proceed to demonstrate how the product works.

Kind Regards
Jens

[Paul LS]

Interesting to see a re-run with it loose. And come on now... you ever reads the manual... unless as a last resort...

[Doreen L.]

Thank you Jens for pointing this out.

We're a very friendly forum here with members with good intentions and always give people the benefit of the doubt. Greg may or may not have missed something and it would be better to make a suggestion rather than assume he didn't read the instructions. Heck, I've been reading a lot of instructions lately and not getting it 'right'. That's one of the reasons we have this great forum. Welcome aboard.

[mark hansen]

I find the extra mass helps with steadying, so it would help with the handle tight. It may be better with the handle loose, but the extra mass will help.

Not being a physics person, but I think that's what's going on with the $15 steadycam.

[Gooder]

Thank you Jens for pointing this out.

We're a very friendly forum here with members with good intentions and always give people the benefit of the doubt. Greg may or may not have missed something and it would be better to make a suggestion rather than assume he didn't read the instructions. Heck, I've been reading a lot of instructions lately and not getting it 'right'. That's one of the reasons we have this great forum. Welcome aboard.

Well said Doreen!

Also, jens_s had some good information in the post!

It's interesting to see how these devices work and for that kind of cost, interesting.

Let us all play in a nice way otherwise father Christmas may not turn up with our Stocking fillers

Cheers,
Lee

[Briantho]

I find the extra mass helps with steadying, so it would help with the handle tight. It may be better with the handle loose, but the extra mass will help.

Not being a physics person, but I think that's what's going on with the $15 steadycam.

I can't be bothered to see the video again although I found it most enlightening and I much appreciate the effort taken.

Allowing the camera to remain stable irrespective of what your hand/wrist do (within reason) would seem to me to be the whole point of this device. Otherwise, I think, you might as well be holding the camera in your hand, no?

[jens_s]

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my previous posting. To clarify (justify) my rant about manual reading: The instructions for the ModoSteady are extremely short and precise, and it clearly says to loosen the knob for the handle. Nothing to misunderstand here.

The ModoSteady is a fine device for its price. It's nowhere near a SteadiCam Merlin, but you can achieve fine results with a bit of practise and the right settings. The problem with the device is that there is too much friction in the ball, allowing a little bit of jitter to reach the camera. The counterweight system could have been a little more refined. I found that with three plates, the weight was too light, and with four it was too heavy. A few small coins solved that problem.
Otherwise I think its a fine product.
I will post a test video in a few days.

[Briantho]

...I will post a test video in a few days.

Great! - the more real life experience the better I do a number of amateur dramatic shows/musicals a year and I 'invented' a dolly made out of two strapped together suitcase carriers (with a piece of wood between to hold them apart), I cushioned the wheels and there's an old tripod lashed to the whole thing. I use it in dress rehearsals as the chorus belts things out but some sort of steadycam could be an interesting alternative and less likely to make me trip up.

[altrace]

Nice review, Greg. I also like Jens thought that maybe the gimble was tightened so that it wouldn't allow the stabilizer to float. I've built one of the T-bone stabilizers with all kinds of different size pipes and it works ok. It's a challenge to cancel the side to side movement but I keep trying different configurations. I'm convinced that you have to practice with all the types of stabilizers to get them to work just the way you want. I'm doing real estate videos and gliding is very important in that venue. I'm hoping the Modosteady will work as it's such a neat package and a great price!
Here's a link done with the $14 stabilizer. http://www.hometoursonline.net/main/lis ... id=GA66802

If you're considering doing real estate videos contact me and I'll put you onto a way to post as many videos as you want quite reasonably! And it's not YouTube.

[jeffterm]

First off: Good review. I liked the whole walk through and actually seeing the manipulation of the device. This approach does wonders over 1. a written review, or 2. a review where all they do is show it in the final positions.

Reviews-if you keep making them - I'll keep watching them.

I find it humorous that as our cameras are made smaller and smaller, we get to create gear that adds weight and size to get the stability we desire.
I am a machine designer/builder by profession (its the 'profession' that pays my bills anyway) so I have sketched and drafted up a couple of these little jobs trying to stabilize/lift/mount my camera in all sorts of places. I can attest that the free floating nature of the gimbal or ball joint and the correct balance for the camera is everything to keep the camera stable.

I too use the inverted-monopod approach, and have done some starwars deathstar videos through flowerbeds and the like. It's fun, but completely away from the post at hand.