View Full Version : New Revoluionary Fluid Base Monopod from Bogen


Michael Liebergot
May 12th, 2006, 12:52 PM
I just saw this on the Bogen site.

It's a revolutionary new monopod that has and fluid base for 360 panning, a pan/tilt, and substantial 3 footed retractable base.

The legs seem uch improved from previous versions.

http://www.bogenimaging.us/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=14&itemid=3236

Danny Natovich
May 19th, 2006, 04:22 AM
Nice find, If it only could be with safe self standing...

BTW - Your DvRigPro. balance bracket and the acc. insetrs are in the mail.

Danny.

Michael Liebergot
May 19th, 2006, 07:00 AM
Nice find, If it only could be with safe self standing...

BTW - Your DvRigPro. balance bracket and the acc. insetrs are in the mail.

Danny.
Well the feet look better than the current 3-footed monopod that I have from Bogen. On my current one, the feet have too much flex, these look more substantial.

BTW, thanks for the help on my DVRig Danny. Can't wait to try these out. Toobad ai wont have it in time for a shoot I have this Saturday. But I'll try it out for another shoot I have on Wed.

Peter Chung
November 11th, 2006, 11:59 AM
So this monopod with legs is not safe free standing? Does the camera tend to fall over or what?

Thanks!

Alan Galbraith
November 16th, 2006, 02:53 PM
the monopod is not freestanding... well it kind of is...

I put an HVX200 on it, and with the pod fully collapsed it is stable enough to let go of the camera and it will not fall over. But I wouldnt walk away from it. Its usable as a table top "tripod" for say a lock down interview shot, as long as you are sitting right next to it should it start to fall.

the key is... at teh very bottom of the monopod the leg attatches to the feet with a ball and socket. Whiel it is fairly tight and doesnt let the feet "wobble" its not firm enough to hold alot of weight steady when the leg is fully extended (lots of leverage).

This does allow for some cool moves though. You can do a great and VERY steady dutch tilt with it, and even some "fake" crane moves (picture leaning the camera foward and then pulling back and tilting up, ala if you bent over at the waist and looked into the engine compartment of a car, then stepped back and brought your eyes up to take in the whole front of the car).

All in all, I LOVE my monopod and now rarely carry a tripod with me when in the field.

on set is a different beast, and I still use a tripod.

Peter Chung
November 16th, 2006, 03:14 PM
the monopod is not freestanding... well it kind of is...

I put an HVX200 on it, and with the pod fully collapsed it is stable enough to let go of the camera and it will not fall over. But I wouldnt walk away from it. Its usable as a table top "tripod" for say a lock down interview shot, as long as you are sitting right next to it should it start to fall.

the key is... at teh very bottom of the monopod the leg attatches to the feet with a ball and socket. Whiel it is fairly tight and doesnt let the feet "wobble" its not firm enough to hold alot of weight steady when the leg is fully extended (lots of leverage).

This does allow for some cool moves though. You can do a great and VERY steady dutch tilt with it, and even some "fake" crane moves (picture leaning the camera foward and then pulling back and tilting up, ala if you bent over at the waist and looked into the engine compartment of a car, then stepped back and brought your eyes up to take in the whole front of the car).

All in all, I LOVE my monopod and now rarely carry a tripod with me when in the field.

on set is a different beast, and I still use a tripod.

Alan,

Thanks for sharing your experience. It makes more sense now. Perhaps if the camera could be balanced over the monopod, it would have less of a tendency to tip over since the center of mass would be directly over the monopod pole...

Alan Galbraith
November 16th, 2006, 03:26 PM
yes, with the camera directly over the feet is the ONLY way the camera will balance.

and this may be affected by accesories you have on your camera. A box stock HVX with one P2 balances just fine with the leg fully colapsed.

I HIGHLY reccomend this monopod to anyone.

The fluid base works like a charm. Pans are nice and smooth.

The tilt of the stock head is friction only, so its not THAT great, but you can tilt the whole unit on the base to simulate a camera tilt.

Also the head of the unit it removable via screwing it off of the 1/4-20 stud (will have to check the size when I get home, but it looked like 1/4-20) attatching it to the monopod. One could easily attatch a fluid head to the monopod and have a REAL slick operation.

I have also used it as an overhead extension to get the camera above the crowd, and to fake some crane moves. Pick the whole rig up, rest the feet on your belt buckle and bingo, with the leg extended your camera is now 5 feet above your head. You still have fluid pans because the fluid cartridge is in the base near the feet. Just twist the leg and you get noce smooth pans. Now, with the camera tilted down, you can fake a crane move by doing a "dip the flag" move with the pole (ala, lowerin the colors in a parade, color guard style). Looks great.

Again, great piece of gear. Well worth the $

Chris Li
December 11th, 2006, 08:26 AM
I was considering this monopod for HVX/Z1 camera use, but Bogen rates the pod for less than 5 lbs ! Are you saying it's ok if pod is not fully raised or left unattended?

chris

Chris Li
December 11th, 2006, 08:50 AM
best in-depth review of flowpod in Dec. issue


http://www.videomaker.com/article/12672/

Meryem Ersoz
December 11th, 2006, 09:12 AM
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/MeryemErsozHV10intheDesert/HV10intheDesert.mov

how can it be the best review if it doesn't have footage??

all of these shots are taken with an HV10 mounted on a 560B except for the dolly shots from the moving car....

i've used mine with an FX-1, and what happens is that you don't have access to the complete range of motion. there's a point where your pans and tilts stick. if you get familiar with that point, however, you can still add a lot of motion to your shots and have a great deal of mobility with this gadget. the FX-1 weighs 4.5 lbs. i don't know what the added weight of the Z1 would do...the FX-1 seems to push the limits of the unit as it is. but there's still plenty of moves which can be achieved.

i've used mine standing still unattended with the HV10 but would not do so with the FX-1 under any circumstances.

John Reilly
December 11th, 2006, 10:06 AM
I was highly disappointed with the payload capacity limitation after seeing the unit skillfully demonstrated by the salesman at my local video store...

My FX-1 is "naked" at 4.8lbs.....add the battery, wide angle lens and my Rode Stereo Video Mic and I'm way out of the ballpark.

The article referenced in the above post confirms the payload capacity of 4.4lbs, noting that exceeding this limit 'could damage the pod'.

I can only hope Bogen comes out with the "Big Brother" soon!

Chris Li
December 11th, 2006, 10:26 AM
how can it be the best review if it doesn't have footage??


Great footage, Meryem!

Alan Galbraith
December 11th, 2006, 10:35 AM
Dont wait for a big brother...

My fully loaded HVX with FS-100, Frezzi light, NP1, extra mount for shotgun mic... does just fine.

you CANNOT extend the monpod and walk away from it. it WILL NOT stand on its own with a larger camera on it. a small little palm camera perhaps, but even at that, you're asking for trouble.

you can sometimes balance the camera with the monopod collapsed, but I would not walk away from it.

if you need to do this, use a tripod. The monopod has a different purpose.

Even loaded down with a heavy camera and lots of gear I get smooth pans, no worries.

I'll see if I can take some pics later.

Meryem Ersoz
December 11th, 2006, 10:35 AM
thank you, chris....

i, too, would love to see them release a beefier version of this monopod...bogen/manfrotto, are you listening??

Alan Galbraith
December 11th, 2006, 11:11 AM
I was highly disappointed with the payload capacity limitation after seeing the unit skillfully demonstrated by the salesman at my local video store...

My FX-1 is "naked" at 4.8lbs.....add the battery, wide angle lens and my Rode Stereo Video Mic and I'm way out of the ballpark.

The article referenced in the above post confirms the payload capacity of 4.4lbs, noting that exceeding this limit 'could damage the pod'.

I can only hope Bogen comes out with the "Big Brother" soon!

no worries on weight... look at my rig (as noted in previous post), it weighs more than your and does just fine on the monopod.

this unit will work just great for anything up to a full sized, shoulder carried ENG style camera.

As a matter of fact, I can try it out with my DV5000 and see if it will "support" the weight without collapsing. That might be pushing it a little. but for anything short of that size/weight camera, its going to do just fine.

Alan Galbraith
December 11th, 2006, 11:11 AM
I was highly disappointed with the payload capacity limitation after seeing the unit skillfully demonstrated by the salesman at my local video store...

My FX-1 is "naked" at 4.8lbs.....add the battery, wide angle lens and my Rode Stereo Video Mic and I'm way out of the ballpark.

The article referenced in the above post confirms the payload capacity of 4.4lbs, noting that exceeding this limit 'could damage the pod'.

I can only hope Bogen comes out with the "Big Brother" soon!

no worries on weight... look at my rig (as noted in previous post), it weighs more than your and does just fine on the monopod.

this unit will work just great for anything up to a full sized, shoulder carried ENG style camera.

As a matter of fact, I can try it out with my DV5000 and see if it will "support" the weight without collapsing. That might be pushing it a little. but for anything short of that size/weight camera, its going to do just fine.

Meryem Ersoz
December 11th, 2006, 12:32 PM
i think it will work fine for heavier cameras, even substantially heavier than the FX-1, if all you want to do is stabilize shots. i'd be interested in seeing footage of what happens if you add motion, however. i would hazard a guess that i lose about 40% of the available range of motion when i have worked with a stripped down FX-1 due to the stickiness created by the added weight. this is still very useful--some motion is better than none. but a more heavy-duty version would be better for a heavier camera. i'd buy one in a minute. for lighter camcorders, like the HV10, this is the nearly perfect piece of stabilizing equipment for maximum mobility.

Alan Galbraith
December 11th, 2006, 01:51 PM
i think it will work fine for heavier cameras, even substantially heavier than the FX-1, if all you want to do is stabilize shots. i'd be interested in seeing footage of what happens if you add motion, however. i would hazard a guess that i lose about 40% of the available range of motion when i have worked with a stripped down FX-1 due to the stickiness created by the added weight. this is still very useful--some motion is better than none. but a more heavy-duty version would be better for a heavier camera. i'd buy one in a minute. for lighter camcorders, like the HV10, this is the nearly perfect piece of stabilizing equipment for maximum mobility.

Are you sure we are talking about the same piece of equipment?

I loose no range of mobility with it, no matter what wieght the camera is. I've had no issues with stickiness. the fluid pan base works the same with light and heavy cameras, and the dutch tilt works the same.

you might look into tightning or loosening the allen screws around the ball socket at the foot and see if that makes a difference. Or perhaps using some white lithium grease on the ball socket.

I've done 360 pans, and dutch tilts from/to both sides of the stops with my rig on it with no problems.

Meryem Ersoz
December 11th, 2006, 02:39 PM
i'm just relaying my experiences here and showing a bit of footage....

bogen's specs for the 560B list the maximum load capacity at 4.4 lbs. my FX-1 at 4.8 lbs. seems to push the limits of mine--at least when i compare the performance with a 15.5 ounce HV10. your mileage may vary.

Brian Martens
February 23rd, 2007, 01:26 PM
I know the 560B's intended functionality is not as a steadicam, but can anyone who owns one share their experience using it in a mobile environment. In short, between monopod shots does the 560B help at all in moving shots.

As a wedding videographer at first I was leaning towards a Merlin, then the fatigue issue convinced me a monopod type solution might be a smarter choice. So now I'm thinking of a FlowPod or the 560B and the 560B definitely has some good points on its side. I'm just wondering if the 560B offers some steadicam type benefits since the weight below the camera would act as a counterbalance.

Peter Greis
February 24th, 2007, 03:43 PM
Brian:

I have both the Flowpod and just recently purchased the 560B. Why? The flowpod is a pretty heavy beast and works well with my VX2000 (both as a monopod and stabilizer), but I wanted something smaller for my Sony HVR-A1 that was lighter and easier to carry around. The 560B works nicely and I also use it with my still cameras.

That said, I can't really answer your question about whether the 560B would work as a substitute for mobile shots. I haven't tried that yet. I have used the Flowpod with the HVR-A1 as well with good results, although your arms get tired quickly.

Alan Galbraith
February 24th, 2007, 04:53 PM
as far as using the 560B as a motion stabilizer...

sorta....

picture this, with the camera on top of the monopod and the camera parallel to the ground... now tilt the camera skyward so that it is at the limit of its tilt travel. Now you can grab ahold of the monpod about half way down to the ground and tilt the whole rig so that the carema is level again. It gives the camera a "tail" that you can use to steady your movement... some. Not a ton, and its no substitue for a steadicam or flowpod... but you can get some smoothER motion shots with it. The whole idea, ala the fig rig, is to get the little motions of your hands further away from the camera on a lever with the camera at the fulcrum where the motions will be much smaller. You will still have one hand on the camera and one on the 560B, but it helps some.

Brian Martens
February 24th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Brian:

I have both the Flowpod and just recently purchased the 560B.

When you get a little experience with the 560B I'd be interested to see if it helps as a stabilizer to some degree. Basically I'm thinking Flowpod or 560B for my wedding video business. I'm using a PD170 and I'd like to have the flexibility to go from mobile to using a monopod to save my arms/back/wrists/etc. (you know the drill). The Flowpod will function as a monopod obviously, and I'm sure it will be better as a steadicam device. The 560B looks like it will be better in the monopod arena, the fold out feet would add some real stability to shots, and if it did a decent job as a camera stabilizer when I'm moving then I'd be tempted to go with it.

Having both could you make a recommendation for someone who will only have the money to purchase one or the other?

Peter Jefferson
February 27th, 2007, 12:59 AM
jsut got my 560, and cannot fault it.. swivel base makes a HUGE diffrence to pans and crane like dutch tilts

The head also screws off so ive mounted my still cameras 322RC2 head so i can have a short handle with ball level. This isnt needed though, but i thought id see how it fares with shooting stills as well as it works a treat.
I also mounted my BeBob Zoe Lanc and as tight a fit as it is, also works a treat. Basically i now hold the 560 with my right hand, and thumb rests on lanc. My left hand comes up to control focus.
The 560 is about 6ft high once fully extended, and i definately WOULD NOT leave the unit unattended acting is a makeshift tripod.

by the way, i was using a fully loaded DVX100a - (5600mah fat battery)(mics, wireless reciever, satchler reporter75 on cam light - this was to test.. usualy i wouldnt have all this stuff on all at once.. ) and a fully loaded Canon 5d with 580ex, battery grip, tested with 24-105L IS as well as a 100-400 L IS and also worked a treat with these top heavy loads