You can't really "infringe" on anything glidecam (except perhaps the name). Glidecam is just another Steadicam knock-off, just a more well known one.


The fact is that "Steadicam" is a registerd trademark of The Tiffen Company. These guys using to sell/refer to their product it is technically illigal.

- Mikko

I can understand that - calling something Steadycam would infringe copyright even if it is spelt with the Y not an I, but someone else's design, be it Glidecam, Flycam, to the $14 DIY from China; build something, change something...improvement over concept, affordability for those who cannot afford to buy Garrett Brown's genuine article. You will get what you pay for.

Improvement over concept is a negative thing?

Your making the assumption that these guys are working to improve the concept and not to just sell a product to make money.

That would be an incorrect assumption.


- Mikko

I agree with Mikko; these guy's are just knocking something out for the hell of it, whether it works well or not - they say "balance is perfect" so far it really isn't but I'm still playing.

And, no - improvement over concept is the whole point of design and is in no way a negative thing, sorry if I sounded a bit "change is bad" but improvement over concept is completely different from take someones idea, fiddle with the aesthetics and call it your own.

Well, my "U-Flycam" pretty much sucks. It seems to suffer more on the execution than the idea. Two of the biggest problems"

1/ The removable plate that attaches to the camera is low quality flexible plastic. When you screw it tight it deforms and the camera points off a slight angle, making any kind of balancing pretty much impossible.

2/ The gimbal seems to be deformed as well and if you stand perfectly still with the setup, the camera seems to want to spin to the side to find the lowpoint on whatever ball joint they used.

The actual design doesn't look that bad and if they used a bit better parts, it probably actually would be servicable.

I've been playing with a mate's Flycam 5000 and it's a pain to set up - the 8 screws you have to play with to adjust are fiddly. You have to remember to lock and unlock on a diagonal so you don't bump the adjustment - fine changes are difficult.

I'll be using the rig on Saturday to film a rugby league match (that's like grid iron without any padding or rules) so fingers crossed.

After playing with it a couple of times now I can see the value in the Merlin

Ya gets what ya pays for.

No not always. I love my Spiderbrace and that was dirt cheap. The Tiffen Steadystick is another low priced gem. Cheap doesn't always mean bad.

I as well have the flycam and really don't care for all the screws you have to tighten after mounting the camera to the plate. Would be nice to have a quick release in case you would have to switch over to a tripod.

Just buy the dual fine tuned adjustable plates from manfrotto and you'll be set.

Regarding products from CineCity - I would order with caution.

I bought the 'U Fly Steadycam' which came to around 45 including shipping from India. It arrvied within 3 days which was good. After setting up the thing, I could not get the weights to balance correctly on the rig and equal the weight of my FX1 - therefore it was useless. Furthermore (and here's the worst part), the plate and holder for the FX1 on the rig is plastic, and my FX1 FELL OUT of the rig. Thankfully only a couple of feet from a soft landing. I was refunded 100%, but would be weary of ordering products from them again.

Guess it comes down to the old saying 'you get what you pay for'.

Hey Paul

I got given a Flycam 5000 today! Let's get together and compare. I will email you also

no probs - I've now got a merlin & arm/vest

You might be able to try adjustable trim weights under the camera itself something like this ( only partially successful attempt at airborne stabilisation ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaKc6i3i9-0