New Ronin SC

DJI just announced a new Gimbal:

https://store.dji.com/product/ronin-sc? ... &vid=82221

Lighter an smaller...I hope it works with the Pocket 4K. Fingers crossed.

Looks great. Finger's crossed.

Interesting. New very compact focus motor and control wheel included in package.

So it's rated to 2kg,
so in theory a BMPCC4K body, internal battery/card and smallish lens should be ok?

So I've measured

- BMPCC4K with LP-E6 battery and CF card
- in SmallRig full cage
- with Viltro adapter
- and 11-16m. Tokina
Weight 1.9kgs

Anticipating
- bare BMPCC4K with LP-E6 battery and CF card
- with Panasonic Leica 8-18mm
Should be about 1.15kgs

Issue maybe the width of the BMPCC4K camera body??

Good of you, Wes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can it balance the wide body of the BMPCC4k though as this is already marginal on the Ronin-S.

Balance is going to be key.
Personally I would remove a cage, but then you might need something with extra threaded holes to attach your BMPCC4K on the gimbal (off centre), and then the weight is going to be centred forward and left of the usual DSLR when mounted on the Ronin SC.

Yeah got email advertising from a shop of this SC yesterday.
The gimbal cradle space looks very tiny, specially at the back. For just the pcc4k with extra weights perhaps, but only with a tiny lense. Ronin SC doesnt have back cradle arm adjustment (left to right), you can only move the camera so I have some doubts. Pocket 4k being left side heavy makes it a bit harder to balance on any handheld gimbal, with the massive grip on the right of the camera making it harder to fit.

And no mention in the compatibility list.
https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/Ronin_S ... ist_en.pdf

Can it balance the wide body of the BMPCC4k though as this is already marginal on the Ronin-S.

Looks like it kinda works with the bmpcc4k.

Ricardo Marty

Well, according to the Make Art Now review, yiu can rig a Pocket 4K with a small counter weight, while not ideal, it works. The big plus to me is the phone control and auto tracking yiu can set up — nice.
Most high end mirrorless cameras are on the list, including the Nikon Z6/7. This works for me!
Cheers

Unfortunately, there's no way to tell from that video how well the BMPCC 4K is actually balanced -- or how well the rig will do, with less than perfect balance, which is likely with the introduction of a counterweight.

It's also astonishing how few gimbal youtubbers are willing to expose their technique. You can watch hours of this stuff, and get absolutely no idea how well any given gimbal works, much less how one compares to another.

So I have discovered John.
Cheers

It's not the width, it's the length of the BMPCC 4K body and the fact that the camera is much heavier on the left side (from the gimbal operating position), relatively to the mounting point.

So unless you want to mount it upside down, it requires some kind of mounting device -- cage, cheese plate -- to even attach to the gimbal, which in turn adds more weight in the wrong place.

Then you start adding counterweights, because otherwise, the camera immediately flops to the side, given its length and weight distribution..... But adding weight way off the center of gravity means you probably won't be able to balance the unit on more than one axis.

In a word, it's harder than you think, if you want to do it right.

You don't find it strange that your "solution" has eluded not only users, but manufacturers who plainly state that their gimbals are not compatible (fit and balance) with the BMPCC 4K, thanks to the issues I described?

But if you say it works well --fit, balance and operation --without actually trying it, great. That answers all doubts.

Maybe it's my lack of imagination, but even assuming, improbably, that you can mount and balance the BMPCC 4K on this "ancient" gimbal "as is" (and "perfect balance" is a very tall order -- you do realize balance must be in all positions, not simply the horizontal?), what good will that do users of other gimbals, including the one under discussion? Or are you proposing, despite all evidence, and the manufacturers' own admissions, that you've solved the matter for all gimbals and all cameras?

Anyway, I give up on this one. Good luck with your footage.

It’s a saying “use the right tool for the job”. Ironically tools normally change and get better over time. So the right tool in the 70’s is maybe not in 2019. Dose that mean it’s useless... nope, not in my mind. But that 70’ tool may requiring you to spend more time to complete the work. It can also have something to do with the quality like precision. I think that’s the key part of these gimbals.

It’s probable to use the ronin sc on the pocket4k, but it may require you to do more retakes because of unexpected jitters and tilts. Just because of limitations in the hardware. If you don’t shot paid actors and Golden moments (like weddings) that I guess it’s fine to take that risk. But like a bad saw blade you may chip or damage that list you are putting up. I would keep that in mind.

It’s a saying “use the right tool for the job”. Ironically tools normally change and get better over time. So the right tool in the 70’s is maybe not in 2019. Dose that mean it’s useless... nope, not in my mind. But that 70’ tool may requiring you to spend more time to complete the work. It can also have something to do with the quality like precision. I think that’s the key part of these gimbals.

It’s probable to use the ronin sc on the pocket4k, but it may require you to do more retakes because of unexpected jitters and tilts. Just because of limitations in the hardware. If you don’t shot paid actors and Golden moments (like weddings) that I guess it’s fine to take that risk. But like a bad saw blade you may chip or damage that list you are putting up. I would keep that in mind.

The original Pocket had a similar issue, although not quite as bad as the new Pocket 4K.
Simply mounted on my Zhiyun Crane the camera flopped to the front left. With a lens attached, all the weight was centred front left on the gimbal plate. I counterweighted the back right of the plate and it balanced fine.
The actual weight of the Pocket with battery and wide lens attached was way below the tolerance of the Crane gimbal, and so when counter weighted I had zero issues balancing the camera on all axis and never experienced micro jitters, unexpected tilts, or other issues. It was a 100% good solution.
So having said that, the Pocket 4K is even bigger, heavier and even more biased to the front left.
So I haven't tried to balance it on my Zhiyun Crane yet.

The Ronin-S doesn't have the same arm layout and hence the problem with the roll adjustment. This design does however enable the user to see the rear screen in all orientations which was a problem with earlier gimbals. I use mine without a cage and have an arca swiss clamp on the rail so I can push the camera over as far as it will go to help with the roll balance. If the SC is physically smaller than the S but has the same basic design I assume it can't achieve static balance with the BMPCC4k.

Have you tried flipping the arms around? I can't see any reason why it can't be placed in the reverse manner. I've looked at all the gimbals that have the angled arm and can't see any issue.

When I got my A2000, I thought that the only way to use it was as shown in every video/website, until I flipped it around (because of the E-M1 design) and found that it worked fine. The controls can be adjusted in the app to work in whichever way you have the gimbal laid out.

I'm not sure it's possible to do it on the S otherwise either I would have done this when I first got it or it would be a well known solution amongst users. Even if it's possible to flip it the cable to the external battery and SSD would foul the arm. The S can easily handle the weight of bigger cameras than the BMPCC4k but none of the cinema cameras nor the bigger DSLR's are as wide.

Exactly what do you take me for? I may have come down in the last shower, but I've dried off since then

I take you for a beginning video shooter, which is what you said you were, in another thread.

Your youtube appears to show you mounted the camera. And it is true that with some gimbals, the motor position can be switched. With most gimbals, this won't work well (if at all), even if you can still manage to monitor the footage.

The camera as you show it is unbalanced. You will not get acceptable results with this rig as it stands. Whether balance could be improved with adjustment is an open question. I'm skeptical, because it looks like the motors are overwhelmed by the unequal weight distribution of the camera.

You can't flip the orientation on the S as you hit the rotation stop as the pitch axis motor only has a 270deg range.

Indeed there is ~270 degrees limit on the camera platform arm (pitch axis) atleast on "some" handheld camera gimbals (zhiyun inlcluded). I suppose it's there to prevent the camera from spinning upside down and the lens hitting the gimbal arms. Same time it makes rotating the pitch axis to left side impossible. Using motors to keep the camera in balance chews up batteries pretty fast, and might not provide the smoothes recordings.

And by rotating the pitch axis motor from right to left side (roll axis), you need to rotate pitch axis 180 degrees. If there is stops in the pitch axis, then the normal operation position will end up in the locked out area. So the camera will be stopped ~60 degrees before the normal upright position, at least this happens with my crane 3 lab.

...hmm there has been couple updates on zhiyun control app on ios, since I last tested. Perhaps now the focus target selection actually works on whole screen on ipad pro 11" like it used to, need to test someday.

Lets try again... Crane 3 Lab.

The tilt arm rotation has a stop in it (excluding 90 degrees), it rotates only 270 degrees. By rotating the roll axis to move the tilt motor to left side, you also move the exluded portion. Because you need to rotate the tilt axis aswell 180 degrees, or the camera attachment point would be upside down on the very top of the rotation. With the crane 3 lab, the pictures you included, this means the tilt arm will not go down more than what the picture is showing if the tilt motor was on the left side. As the excluded 90 degrees now is located at the bottom part of the rotation, ~320-70 degrees (0/360 rotation point in the bottom when the gimbal is on a stand)

Normally when the tilt arm motor is on the right side the excluded 90 degrees is located in the upper back part of the rotation ~95-185 degrees. So the camera lense can't hit the gimbal arms. Yes I am holding crane 3 lab right now in my lab. The roll and yawn axis rotate 360 degrees freely as there is space for most lenses to rotate around (yawn/pan axis).

Manufacturer specs...

Crane 3 Lab

Tilt Mechanical Range：
Max： + 180 °
Standard： 273 °
Min： -93 °

Roll Mechanical Range：
Standard： 360 °
Unlimited rotation

Pan axis movement angle range:
Standard： 360 °
Unlimited rotation

Ronin SC

Mechanical Endpoint Range
Pan axis control: 360 Degree continuous rotation
Tilt axis control: -95 Degree to +220 Degree
Roll axis control: -202.5 Degree to +112.5 Degree

Ronin S

Mechanical Endpoint Range
Pan axis: 360° continuous rotation
Tilt axis: +185° to -95°
Roll axis: 360° continuous rotation

Well tilt motor on the left side works if you only do low angle shots, raise it above waistline and issues... but crane 3 lab balances fine with the tilt motor on the right side, heavy sigma 18-35, focus servo and zoom servo. Only with a heavy variable nd I need to add more weight on the camera attachment plate.

Has anyone with an angled gimbal such as the Ronin S actually tried this? Until an actual owner demonstrates that it can't be done, everything is just supposition.

Yes (hence my post previously)

The evidence appears to be accruing that it can be done, but there may be some limitations. Whether those limitations are debilitating may depend on how the user wants to use the gimbal. But I still haven't seen any visual evidence that it can't be done.

The obvious limitation being you have to use the gimbal upside down - no thanks esp as I can balance it the way it's made to be used.

Moza AirCross

IMG_0228_.jpg (49.97 KiB) Viewed 15012 times

Moza Aircross

IMG_0226_.jpg (77.92 KiB) Viewed 15012 times

This is balanced on Moza AirCross and works without any limitation.

Mechanical Endpoint Range
Yaw Axis: ±360° continuously
Tilt Axis: -175°~+135°
Roll Axis: ±360° continuously

Despite what they indicates in the specification. In fact, all axes can rotate 360 degrees.

Now I have quick access to battery and memory cards as bonus.

I repeat - the tilt motor has a restricted 270 deg rotation range which when flipped 180 means the blocked off portion is smack in the middle if the normal operating range. There is no need to flip a Ronin S as you can balance a BMPCC4k in it's normal range but as I said it's very close to the static roll balance adjustment range. If the SC is (presumably) smaller this will be a problem if it has a similar 270 rotation limit on the pitch axis. I guess this will be confirmed when owners report back. I've nothing more to add to this thread.

I didn't see any Blackmagic Design cameras on the compatibility list, but I'm wondering whether this would work with either the original Pocket or the Micro Cinema Camera, which are the two cameras I have. Any thoughts?

The original BMPCC will probably work, but would likely require either a release or riser plate to raise it, or weights added to the top. The cam's center of gravity, unmodified, was a challenge on other similar gimbals, all of which seem to be designed for the typical DSLR.

You still probably won't get perfect balance. But close enough.

Thanks, John.

I would think the Micro camera would be easy to setup with the camera in a cage.
Cheers

I would think the Micro camera would be easy to setup with the camera in a cage.
Cheers

That would be good -- I'm mainly using the Micro these days anyway and it's in a cage.

Well, if you get one before I do, give it a test, and let me know. If I get one first, I will post the results also. I would be getting a SC for the Nikon Z6, but I have a Micro camera also that would be nice to use on the SC.
Cheers

Well, if you get one before I do, give it a test, and let me know.

Will do. My main concern with the Micro is controlling focus; I'd likely have to use manual-only lenses. Something weird is going on when I use lenses with focus-by-wire and IS, like the Pany 12-35 zoom, on the Micro: I get focus dialed in but as soon as I hit the record button (either on the camera or a remote) it goes completely out of focus and I have to start over. Someone else here on the forum reported the same problem last week -- also with a Panasonic lens with autofocus and IS.

Brad, which remote are you using? The Ronin SC comes with a focus Servo for manual focusing lenses, that should solve this. I have not had this issue with my PNny Leica MFT lenses on the Micro.
Cheers.

With the BMPCC (original pocket) I achieved a perfect balance on Crane 2, using a counter weight and a very small light lens on the camera (Olympus 17mm m4/3rds). Any longish lens showed micro-jitters.
The whole shebang was well below the gimbal's weight limits, but as has been said by me and others, the problem is, both the body and lens sit way forward and left on the gimbal plate, meaning that all your balancing effort is to counter act the forward and left side fall of the body on the gimbal.

With the BMPCC (original pocket) I achieved a perfect balance on Crane 2, using a counter weight and a very small light lens on the camera (Olympus 17mm m4/3rds). Any longish lens showed micro-jitters.

I also use Crane 2 with original pocket and very often longish and heavy lenses and I don't have the problem. Do you have the latest firmware 1.77?

To my point of view, DJI's Ronin-SC is almost outperforming its own Ronin-S. It's half-size and almost half weight of Ronin-S, plus it's having the latest Tracking System and fantastic Force Mobile functions. Should be the best-selling gimbal in the market for the rest of this year.

Brad, which remote are you using? The Ronin SC comes with a focus Servo for manual focusing lenses, that should solve this. I have not had this issue with my PNny Leica MFT lenses on the Micro.
Cheers.

A good to know about the focus servo for manual lenses. I use the One Little Remote on the Micro; maybe it's just some of the Pany lenses that have the focus problem, but at this point I only use manual lenses on the Micro.

I wish the phrase "perfect balance" was used with more caution. Unless it means that with the motors off the camera will hold any and all positions without drift, then balance is not perfect, which may have consequences for performance, even if the gimbal works reasonably well in some positions.

Youtube is full of guys in reverse baseball caps balancing gimbals which aren't actually balanced. They may work anyway, under some conditions, but how about truth in advertising?

Hello everybody, I’m new here. I’ve got a bmpcc4k and I’m looking for a gimbal. I’m interested in the new Ronin SC, specially for his functions and his portability. Anyone who tested it with the Blackmagic Pocket 4K? Thank you very much

Yes, the original Pocket will hold any position with motors off. That's how you balance it. So yes, it isn't properly balanced if it won't hold any position without the help of motors.
haven't tried it with the Pocket 4K yet - which is bigger and heavier than the OG Pocket.

I also use Crane 2 with original pocket and very often longish and heavy lenses and I don't have the problem. Do you have the latest firmware 1.77?

Sorry - Crane Plus.
I have some very light but long lenses, like the Leica M 28mm f2.8.
You can see the end of the lens is more likely to wobble very slightly even on a balanced gimbal. With the Olympus 17mm or SLR Magic 10mm I had no issues.

Yes, the original Pocket will hold any position with motors off.

If you say so, but this claim has never once held up with the BMPCC, probably because a) most cameras won't balance "perfectly", and b) gimbals aren't designed for the BMPCC form-factor.

Yes, the original Pocket will hold any position with motors off.

If you say so, but this claim has never once held up with the BMPCC, probably because a) most cameras won't balance "perfectly", and b) gimbals aren't designed for the BMPCC form-factor.

Yes I do say so.
BMPCC or BMPCC4K? I was talking about the former. I haven't tried with the latter.
Although Blackmagic cameras (official) posted a BMPCC4K balanced on a Ronin Gimbal on their Instagram account yesterday.

for anyone still wondering, I have the Ronin SC and the BMPCC4K. I bought a counterweight system (small-rig clamp and 100g weight), and although it doesn't pan down as much as it would with a recommended camera, the gimbal works in every other way. I was having some issues at first with balancing the camera on the gimbal, hence why I purchased the counterweight system (recommended from MakeArtNow (RONIN-SC vs RONIN-S..... WHY THIS IS A NO BRAINER. 2:25 for reference). I'm sure other gimbals would work better, but for the price and features involved, it, the ronin sc does the job better than expected.