Ken-Lab GS-6 Gyroscopic Stabilizer



Anyone here have any experiences using a Gyro Stabilizer for the sort of casual non-professional aerial photography done by BCP folks ?

I did a quick BCP search here and did not see anything on this. Some of the images and videos submitted by folks like Hammer, Crzyivan13, ZZZ, Bigrenna, and many others are simply stunning.

I went to an AOPA Training Night Seminar last night at the AOPA Hangar in Frederick, MD titled “ Aviation Photography “ . It was given by Chris Rose, an AOPA Staff Photographer. Great seminar. He’s quite the shutterbug. He talked about everything from using drones, to taping the focus rings on lenses so the focus will not drift, to special needs in really low temperature photography. He has done a lot of work in Alaska, and this is very evident in his presentation. Again, it was a fabulous seminar; catch it if you can should the opportunity come around. Here are a few pics from talk.







Anyway, one item Chris brought up was the use of a Gyro Stabilizer. It is a cool, but a very expensive accessory. I also know Image Stabilization has come a long way, as has the speed of the image sensors permitting much faster shutter speeds.

It is almost 2017, and I am just wondering if these things are in fact slowly becoming obsolete. I was also wondering if there are any other gyro stabilizers that are cheaper and maybe “good enough” for the type of casual photography we might do. Some folks even home-brew their own stabilizers.

I have never used one. I also doubt I’ll ever be submitting any images to the National Geographic magazine. Maybe in low light aerial photography or for required long exposures it still has a use, or ? Maybe for video, but not so much for still photography? I’m not the photo gear-head I used to be, yet I am still curious what the BCP photography crowd has to say about these gadgets.

Here are a few helpful Links:

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/stabilizer/
http://punkoryan.com/2013/06/09/building-a-diy-spinning-gyro-stabilizer-for-aerial-video
http://makezine.com/2012/03/12/how-to-low-cost-gyroscopic-camera-stabilizer/
http://photoshipone.com/camera-gyro/

Videos:

3-axis gimbals are the way to go. Basically AHRS vs vacuum gyro.

I've never used one, but I've coveted them for about 35 years. I've wanted them for binoculars as much as for photography.

A friend of mine has a few of them...he reports that they work fantastically under some circumstances and poorly under others. The fact that they still cost what they cost is testament to how effective they can be when used properly.

Like a lot of things in photography, they are the only way to accomplish a very small fraction of the medium. If you need it you need it, but it's not for every day shooting, even from an airplane.

I keep hoping I'll find one in a junk shop or garage sale. Everyone selling them on ebay seems to know what they're worth...

I have not used one or seen the need, perhaps I don't know what I am missing but the video mentions "film" and looks to be 15 years old. Stabilized lenses and cameras have come a long way since then. 1/250 of a second gives a good prop disc, so not sure why you would need to go slower. Higher ASA (hows that for remembering film) now on the cameras (ISO) are extremely flexible. So good now that you can set the shutter and aperture and let the camera pick the ISO.. Now the AOPA gentleman is probably getting to take pictures of the latest Gulfstream and wants to get absolutely everything in his favor. You could look at renting one, I bet that BarrowLenses.com would have it. That is a really cool (and cheap) way to test new gear. Sometimes a different piece of gear really gets new ideas going with awesome results. The abilities of the newer gear can make for some awesome sharp pictures by themselves.

There I have done it. I have become the poster that ignores the original question that was asked.

If you want to see some spectacular aviation photography look at this site: http://www.leonardocorrealuna.com/
Leo is a master of depth of field and show shutter speeds for panning.

Further drift: a thread of cool aviation photo web sites would be awesome. Perhaps it is already done?

If you're Chris Rose or Mike Fizer, paid professionals, who are taking aerial photos for magazine covers and industry advertisements that often occupy full page formats, image stabilization is pretty important. Maybe essential.

Look at how many of the warbird calendar photos are acquired: The tail gun turret is removed from a B-25, so that the photographer literally sits out in the open behind the bomber, with multi million dollar warbirds tucked up tight, virtually in his face. Imagine the wind blast back there..... Or hanging out the cargo door of a B-58 Bonanza, photographing a multi million dollar G-V Gulfstream....

With that much money involved just in acquiring those photos, near perfection is undoubtedly essential.

One of the articles I wrote for Pilot Magazine involved aerial applicators. AOPA sent Mike Fizer to NW Minnesota for the photos, and I flew him around some, but also observed him photographing these airplanes and pilots at work. It was fascinating. During that shoot, he did not use a stabilizer, though all his lenses were IS Canon lenses. The photos were simply stunning.

Then, of course, there's always post production tweaking as well, with digital images.....

MTV

Haven't used one for photography, but they are awfully fun for video...

Here are 23 photos that Tyson Rininger took of me in the Aero Commander that I fly over Lake Powell in July of 2015. He was using a gyro for over an hour. He said that he'd never be able to get the quality without it even though its heavy as hell. I'd say he's a pretty good photographer, check out his website, he's done some incredible work.

http://tvrphoto.photoshelter.com/galler ... GqgyLJjH80

@ Hafast:

Wow. What an amazing portfolio in your link. The compositions lighting control are just stunning.

Okay, so if I see a Gyro Stabilizer for sale for $250, I am convinced; I’ll buy it. . As was said by someone earlier, these gadgets are waaaaay expensive so my chances of that happening are practically nil.

On the video front, here are two examples of aerial videos that I am sure just have used stabilizers as well. These two are great to watch. I was often wondering…wow ..how did they fly that. Wow..look how sharp and stable all these shots are and how smooth.

Potomac By Air


Chesapeake by Air

Gyro stabilizers are not only expensive.....they're massively HEAVY. Plug one of those suckers on a Canon EOS 7D or bigger and you may max out the gross weight of the photo ship....

MTV

DJI-- the drone manufacturers have just released a mount for cell phones. It is fully stabilized, for movie and stills.
Super light, amazingly steady and high tech. Under 300 bucks. They will be very common by this time next year.

Gimbal stabilization is excellent for everything where you don't need to hold your eye to the viewfinder or grip the camera body to use the controls. That's why they're great for video. The gyro stabilizers referenced in this thread are great for stabilizing a gripped camera.

I wouldn't grip a camera for stability anyway... just fire the shutter with a remote...

flightlogic wrote:I wouldn't grip a camera for stability anyway... just fire the shutter with a remote...

How do you run the autofocus? Or quickly change exposure? Or track a moving aircraft in formation and stay on target?

I have a DJI Osmo, and it works well. But for action still photography it's just not the same.

Nice to hear from you btw; been a while.

$240 3-axis gyro stabilizer for go-pro. Probably won't hold up to airplane speeds unless encased, but they work well for Drones and RC:

http://www.helipal.com/handheld-gopro-s ... -axis.html

soyAnarchisto wrote:$240 3-axis gyro stabilizer for go-pro. Probably won't hold up to airplane speeds unless encased

That's the one I have. I love it.

As you predict, maxes out at about 30-40MPH.

But can you imagine trying to get this shot without one?

@ RW2 y SoyAnarchisto

Perfecto. This is exactly what I was looking for actually. For casual use this is perfect for a small Garmin VIRB ULTRA videocam. I currently use a small pocket Canon S110 camera, and this gadget will be able to handle that as well. I am looking at inside the cockpit stuff, not strapping it somewhere on the outside.

.... also RW2...how long does the unit run on average duty cycle on a set of fresh lithiums? maybe a day's ride eh ..

Thanks for posting.

Denali wrote:.... also RW2...how long does the unit run on average duty cycle on a set of fresh lithiums? maybe a day's ride eh ..

Thanks for posting.

Quite a long time. 3-4 hours? I bought three sets of spares, but very rarely use even one.

Either the Russians hacked my account or I had a fever.

This is camera equipment and yes you need it! Then let me barrow it. Images can't be too sharp and looking at the ones in that link, to get the depth of field they had they must be working with some slow shutter speeds. They are probably working with full frame hi megapixel DSLR's too.

It would be fun to work with, but as MTV says is must have some mass to be able to function, that could get old.

Sorry for my erroneous input. I would love to hear a use report as well
Joe

There's a common misconception that a high shutter speed eliminates the need for a stable camera platform. An unstable platform degrades the image at ANY shutter speed...it's just more pronounced at slower shutter speeds.

And while digital photography allows much higher ISO's than film ever did, it still comes at a price. As ISO goes up, image quality goes down. Photographers aren't competing against what the best of the best used to do with film...they're competing against what the best of the best are doing with digital. Find a way to increase stability and then shoot at lower ISO and you'll get a superior image.

Digital stabilization is great, but it only does so much. Regardless of the shutter speed or the internal stabilization, image quality will degrade in direct proportion to how much movement there is of the camera body. The greater the lens magnification, the more the degradation.

In air-to-air photography, the camera body has to be isolated from the airframe...putting it on a tripod and using a remote release won't work at all.

I'd LOVE to have a gyro stabilizer, but I certainly don't need one. All of my airplane shots are through plexiglass, so there's a very real ceiling to the quality I can achieve, stabilizer or not. But if you have the ability to shoot out an open door or window and want the best image quality possible, a gyro stabilizer will give you results you simply cannot get any other way.

In the link that I posted above, the photographer was seated backwards in a Baron with the cargo doors removed. As Hammer said, shooting through plexiglass doesn't cut it for the guy getting paid the big bucks.