Magiqcam
 

Hi,
I'm considering this stabilizer. Anyone here tried it? Are there
any other lower-cost steadicams that I should consider?
Thanks.
Dave

I don't think anyone actually tried it yet...

LA Production People: Is This True Regarding Magiqcam?
 

Hi,
On another forum, a poster by the name of Ron Charles says
he has owned the Magiqcam. He went on to add: "DO A GOOGLE
SEARCH ON MAGIQCAM AND YOU WILL SEE DOZENS OF EXPERIENCED LA BASED PRO STEADICAM OPERATORS THAT USE THESE AS THERE FIELD BACKUPS OR EVEN PRIMARY UNITS!!!!!."
I didn't really see any references to this in google, although
I didn't search real deep. Anyway, I'd like to hear comment from
anyone familiar with the LA "business" scene on the use of the Magiqcam by pro operators.
Dave

Since you couldn't find this with your google search, go back to that other forum and ask this fellow for a link or two. Then post the links here for us poor slobs to read about it. (I've never heard about it, and I'm in Vancouver.)

Hmmm. Never mind. I just did a google search with the word Magiqcam. And like magic, all sorts of Magiqcam links appeared. The 4th link was about someone selling one. Ahhh, it's late---back to work duplicating tapes. :)

Dave,

The main problem with this statement is the phrase "pro Steadicam operators". Someone who uses a stabilizer for a wedding video and gets paid for the video is thus a pro...

If one is to assume a category of Steadicam operators who live in LA, are in the camera union, and do broadcast or theatrical aka features for wage (that's sort of what is implied), I will go out on a limb as a member of that group and say that I don't know of any that use this rig as their primary or secondary units. That's not limited to Magiqcam though, I don't know any that use Glidecams or Hollywood Lites either, but they may be out there.

I have seen the Magiqcam unit, although not under load. I will be performing a more in depth evaluation of it within a few weeks. I will post back my thoughts on it at the appropriate time.

Hi Frank,
I did request a link a day ago. No response so far. I do know
this fellow is an active poster so I imagine he will see my request.
I'll let you know the progress.

Dave

Charles,
I was hoping you'd see this post regarding the pros using this
unit. I think it's great you're gonna test the Magiqcam under load.
I'm sure you know well that alot of us out here who can't afford
"the real deal" are hoping this is close enough for our purposes.
I'm needing to make a decision soon so I'm looking forward to your thoughts with anticipation.
The only other owner who replied said it was "well built" and
that it "worked as well as any in the price range". Don't know
how to take this as it's the only rig in this price range that I know of.
Ever tried out the Glidecam V-8?
Thanks again,

Dave

Dave, perhaps hold off a possible purchase until Charles looks the thing over again and gives us a mini-review. How much are they asking for this thing?

What camera do you plan on using with it?

I haven't tested it myself but someone on my french boards had one and recently sold it.
He was fairly happy with it but seemingly had to do a lot of custimizing and tweaking to get it to work with an XL1. Among other things, he changed the springs and added wheel bearings wich the Magiqcam didn't have. With all this work, the Magiqcam was apparently able to handle an XL1 with less than 5kg load total.
It seems the arm is better adapted to short cams like the PD150 or DVX100.

It will be very interesting to hear what Charles has to say about it. You can probably assume that you get what you pay for... but with some tweaking and customizing...

Hi Frank & Steven-Marc,
They make two models. One is rated at 1-5 lbs for $1450.
The other has a beefier arm and is rated at 4-15 lbs for $1650.
You can see the demo of the unit @
www.magiqcam.com/demopage.html. Some people say they
aren't impressed with the demo but I thought it was pretty good.
There's no way you could do what they did on the demo hand held.
You two should check it out. Let me know your opinions.
By the way, the arms are two-section (rather than one-) for good range.
Dave

Charles....
 

I would very much be interested in what you find out about this rig.

Awhile back, I got into it with the owner of Magiqcam on another site, and he told me I was out of line in my unfavorable remarks aobut his gear. He went to tell me that professional camera operators in Los Angeles were using his gear, so I asked for names. He gave me two names. Number one was listed in the Cinematographers Guild as a camera assistant. Not an operator. Number two was not listed in the guild book, but he insisted that the fellow worked at Sony Pictures. I contacted this chap and turns out he works in web development at Sony. Hardly a professional camera operator.

In regards to what is wrong with the demo, the operator does not seem to be able to keep the horizon level. The camera is floating all over the place. And the movement is pretty basic stuff.

Maybe he has a decent product, but his business practices are very suspect. You would be wise to wait for Charles review.

Wayne Orr, SOC

Thanks Wayne. I missed that one about getting into "with the owner of Magiqcam on another site." By the way, that's a lot of money for a stabilizer.

I'd also wait for Charles' review. I do miss Wayne's opinions though, I'm more of a no-bs kinda guy as well and don't like sugar coating or being too political when a product or service isn't what it's cracked up to be. I have nothing to say about the Magiqcam specifically, a review by an experienced op will be a great help. I'd wait.

Stay tuned folks. I have an appointment at the end of the week.

As far as the price, Frank, I believe the Magiqcam is very competitively priced for a dual articulated arm stabilizer. About half the price of the Steadicam Mini, which has only a single sprung arm section.

Wayne, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the term "professional camera operator" is a somewhat subjective description. Anyone who makes a buck operating a camera is a "professional", whether they are shooting weddings or porn or legal depositions. You and I obviously work in a different league than that, but let's keep in mind what the intended market for these products are. Plus, I'm sure you know that there are probably dozens of camera assistants in the Guild book who are out there shooting low budget or corporate work as an operator or DP, but make their bread and butter AC'ing on union shows.

I do agree with you about the demo though. It's not particularly impressive.

Thanks Charles---I had no idea these are so much money. I'll stay tuned for your review.

Everything's relative, bubby. Back in the late 80's, the manufacturer of the Steadicam brought out the first rig designed for the video market, the EFP...it shocked the Steadicam community at the time, because instead of costing $65K like the standard rig, it "only" cost $40K or something like that!

It bends my mind a little bit still that these days, one can achieve within 90% of the effect of a full-size rig for 5% of the cost. Not to mention how good this teeny, inexpensive cameras are these days...and don't get me started on how much I love Final Cut Pro, etc.! If this stuff had been around when I was Alex K.'s age!

Well, OK. I had a lengthy meeting today with John Gardner, the man behind the Magiqcam. We looked at some improvements he has made in his current production model over an earlier version owned by a friend of mine, and discussed some further improvements.

First of all, I should make the following disclaimer: I am not connected in any way with Magiqcam, and this review does not imply a specific endorsement of their products, nor does it indicate a preference of their products over other manufacturers. On a pure performance level, I have not evaluated it directly against these rigs, so I cannot make direct comparisons. I also can't speak to issues relating to business practices, customer service or marketing techniques; I'm just here to discuss the rig itself.

Based on the progress of the Magiqcam from its early incarnation, and on the implementation of some upgrades and tweaks in the very near future, I believe that it is indeed a viable camera stabilizer and certainly a good value for its price point.

There are a suprising number of stabilizers aimed at the DV market today. To call one a "knockoff' of another is beside the point; they all stem from the original Steadicam design in one form or another. The Magiqcam, despite its name, doesn't really have any new tricks up its sleeve; it's simply a solidly built variation on currently available DV-scaled body-mounted stabilizers.

A brief rundown on components:

The vest is comfortable, with a good grade of nylon that should breath well. I wore the rig for an hour straight and felt at home in it.

The arm is a fairly standard configuration for this class of stabilizer. It is a dual section arm, which means more boom range and can support more weight than most single-section arms. It is fairly good at vertical isolation. I'm not an expert on all the brands and models out there (I don't know if anyone can keep up) but it gave the performance I expected, with a minimal amount of friction. It includes a bearing at the bottom of the gimbal mount, which adds an additional pivot point. I am used to this feature from my PRO arm, but some may find it strange.

The sled integrates a Bogen quick-release into the top, which has obvious advantages for those who have compatible fluid heads; moving the camera from stabilizer to tripod would be a very quick manuever. Side-to-side adjustment is incorporated into the base of the platform. The top and bottom of the post telescope to aid in balancing. While I prefer a migrating gimbal, this method will do the trick and add some flexibility in the length of the rig. The monitor and battery mounts at the base of the sled can rotate around the center post, if needed (I don't recommend this for most types of shooting, however). Currently, the design calls for the owner to bring their own monitor and battery system to the table, but that may change in the future.

The gimbal works well overall. The pan bearing in particular is a good performer, as it absolutely must be to produce good shots. I noted an issue with the tilt bearing, which John promises will be addressed as soon as possible.

To sum up: for the asking price, this rig can provide at least as many and in certain aspects more features than some of the more established brands on the market.

Thanks Charles....
 

appreciate it.

I second Dean.
Thanks, Charles.
Dave