Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Steadicam vs. Glidecam

profile picture
kn0xville1g
Posts: 205 - Karma: 14
what do you videographers prefer? i am getting into cinematography a lot with my 7D and learning more and more each day. my parents/grandparents know i have been getting into it a lot with a few short edits and various pictures i have taken with it and with Christmas coming around the corner, lets not kid ourselves, we are all going to get something on that list...but being happy enough as it is with my ski gear from last season and not getting anything 'big' this year, i was hoping for some advice:

i have been looking into the glidecam 2000HD and the steadicam, but the steadicam is quite a bit more..are there any benefits to the steadicam for this price inflation or will the glidecam be just perfect. i plan on doing a bunch of editing/filming this season and a stabiizer such as the 2000HD would be perfect on the hill.

i only have 2 lenses for my SLR at the moment, one a 50mm prime and the other an 18-135mm. i was looking into the tokina 11-16mm (my grandmother is a photographer and has this but not sure if i would be able to 'have' it) i was also looking at the 17-40L by canon but i have read on here too that canon isnt the best glass. with having only a 50mm prime and the 18-135mm, i was thinking it would be nice to have a wider lens with minor zoom such as the 11-16 or 17-40. what do you guys think/recommend?

i would like to keep the price range down if possible but both those lenses run $500 - $750 so that is obviously what i consider to be the higher end of cost i would be wanting to ask for.

thanks.

(please dont mention anything about the christmas/spoiled aspect, we all know certain individuals that get a lottt more than that, let alone those kids that just got $500 of clothing from a particular clothing brand..)

cheers
Nov 19 2010 4:27PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
steadicams are just better than glidecams; glidecams are a knock off basically. but i have a glidecam hd 4000 which i use for my T2i (i bought the 4000 instead of the 2000 so i could use it with my HVX too) and I love it. Takes some practice, but it's great once you figure it out. Unless you're doing professional films, I don't really see the need for a glidecam.

and I would say get the 11-16mm, because they're both tokinas, so its not like the 17-40 is better glass than the 18-135 (i don't think).
Nov 19 2010 5:03PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
*steadicam
Nov 19 2010 5:04PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Not how it works. The quality of a lens is largely determined by its optical characteristics. So just because it's also a Tokina doesn't mean its going to produce the same quality of images as another completely different lens from the same brand. For example I love Canon's 100mm Macro, but I absolutely hate the rest of their lenses (aside from the 70-200 f/4s).

I own a Tokina 11-16 and love it. This is coming from a snob who only likes to use primes for anything under 80mm. I am still surprised by the sharpness, contrast, flares, and color rendition of this lens. I have also used the Canon 17-40L and was very disappointed. Cheap plastic housing, soft images. Not worth the money.
Nov 19 2010 6:34PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
not really what i was saying at all...

i've heard from multiple professional photographers and HDSLR filmers that tokina glass is worse than canon (most of the time). so i was saying the 17-40 has a more limited range than the 18-135mm and might also have wose optical quality (i've heard surprisingly good things about the 18-135), so he may as well buy the 11-16 since it's different at least.


Nov 19 2010 6:45PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
fuck, didn't see that the 17-40 was made by canon. although what you said still doesn't really make sense after what i said.

i still say 11-16
Nov 19 2010 6:48PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31049 - Karma: 29,195
I wouldn't call the 17-40's housing cheap, it feels pretty sturdy imo. I have owned both and wasn't a fan of the 11-16's colors, the 17-40's are much more vibrant. I also didn't like being limited to just a 6mm range and to an APS-C lens. I just happen to be lucky and own a tack sharp copy of a 17-40, i usually found it to be pretty soft before I bought mine.
Nov 19 2010 7:02PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
ha. If I had a nickel every time I heard some self-proclaimed "professional" say that the only two good lens brands are Canon and Nikon...the truth is that it's entirely preference. Just because someone has nice gear and spends too much time on the internet doesn't make them a professional, let alone mean they are absolutely right.

I've found the Tokina 11-16 to be more on par with Zeiss lenses than the Canon 17-40. Something about Canon lenses just have this nasty MS Paint look to them...but then again that's just not the look I'm going for.
Nov 19 2010 7:14PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
alright dude i don't really get why you're arguing when i'm recommending the 11-16 too. pretty unnecessary when you're just repeating my suggestion and not contributing much. i've used tokinas and canons and i like canon more for the most part.

and i would consider being repeatedly published in multiple magazines and doing photography for companies to be professional. don't assume i'm talking about somebody on a forum when i gave you absolutely no reason to think i was referring to a person like that.
Nov 19 2010 7:32PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
If that's the case then how am I arguing? I think we're on the same page here...
Nov 19 2010 7:40PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
well you're arguing other points i'm making/arguing against things i didn't actually say.

in terms of lens suggestion, yes, we're on the same page
Nov 19 2010 7:50PM
0 0
profile picture
jibbinc.
Posts: 3355 - Karma: 2,497
,,,,



back on topic here.

what about flycams? quite a bit cheaper.
Nov 20 2010 12:06AM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
a buddy of mine bought a flycam for his 7D. i saw an edit with it and it was seriuosly meh. but that definitely could have been user error, i have a hard time believing it could be much worse than a glidecam
Nov 20 2010 12:14AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841
Keep looking for deals. I just nabbed a glidecam 2000 pro for 200 shipped on eBay.
Nov 20 2010 12:19AM
0 0
profile picture
J-Evs
Posts: 6387 - Karma: 1,615
FUCKKK YOUUUU
that was you ahhahaha

i had it up on my comp.
go back like an hour later click buy it now.... GONE!
Nov 20 2010 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
[-mvee-]
Posts: 1713 - Karma: 10
i agree, the 17-40 is pretty damn solid, and has waterproof body (i think not positive). canon makes great lens.
Nov 20 2010 12:44PM
0 0
profile picture
canterbury
Posts: 2382 - Karma: 55
whaaaaat that's sick
Nov 20 2010 1:20PM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841
haha, lucky me i guess.

it was 200 because it was missing like four screws. I called up the company that makes it and they said i could just grab a couple screws from them.
Nov 20 2010 1:49PM
0 0
profile picture
J-Evs
Posts: 6387 - Karma: 1,615
fuck it.
just got one off bh for 285
Nov 21 2010 9:16PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)