Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Any gimbal needs to be balanced about all three axes of rotation, before you can expect smooth operation. I may be mistaken, but I believe, a battery grip is attached  via a screw to the tripod thread of the body. In return it provides its own tripod thread at the bottom of the battery grip. It sounds like you are using the "new" tripod thread at the botton of the battery grip to mount body + grip to the gimbal.  This lowers the center of gravity of the whole unit down from the optical axis, and by looking at at video tutorial of how to balance this particular gimbal it seems, like there is not enough adjustment room for complete balancing of Body+grip about the pitch axis. Your camera has become top-heavy by mounting a battery grip to its bottom.

I would try an external battery pack instead of a battery grip, to avoid putting constant load on the pitch-servo to maintain a level orientation of an otherwise unbalanced body-grip combination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Louthetrainer said:

I will need to try out an external batt. pack like suggested.

An utterly cheap way to try, if this theory holds any water would be, to attach the camera directly to the gimbal, without the grip. You would very quickly find out, if this gimbal lives up to its touted performance. The external battery pack would then just add the additional operation time to the whole combination, if you find that the gimbal itself is worth the effort and extra expense.

(I always try to keep financial risk low).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Hola, parece que estan agotados, saludos Felipe 
    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...