Okay it looks like the consensus here is you can't go cheap on stabilizers. I don't want to get into a situation where I'm eating up time trying to balance it. That's seems to be an big issue.

EDIT: the Hague also has a really lousy system of ordering for US based customers. You can't even find out the cost until you start filling out invoices. They take your credit card then tell you how much they just charged you? No thanks Hague.

Any experiences to share here with the Hague or Steadytracker?

http://cgi.ebay.com/WONDLAN-Pegasus-II-Hand-Held-Stabilizer-DV-Camcorder-/310318729642?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item48407009aa

http://cgi.ebay.com/WONDLAN-Ares-Hand-Held-Stabilizer-DV-Camcorder-DSLR-/270748984602?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f09e5a51a

Look at Glidecam HD-1000 also.

>Could you explain why the Manfrotto 585 doesn't work with the GH1?

Stay away from Manfrotto 585, It is not good.

@GOODEMPIRE

Could you explain why the Manfrotto 585 doesn't work with the GH1?

It's been proven that shaken video produces lower bitrate in GH13. But it seems a lot of work to do careful balancing on a steadicam each time. I mean... swiveling LCD could throw out of the balance. Can the continuous autofocus on 14-140 throw it out of the balance? How about a mix of a bit hardware and a bit software solution?

Freek'n nice camera moves man! You sure you don't have iMan connected up to your own self? :D

Seriously, all in one take (no cuts)... Awesome! A few clipped heads here and there but overall very professional - top notch!

You ROCK!!

BTW, a good set of macro rails might help with balancing without the need to turn any bolts. I use the Velbon rails myself - picked up a set for $20 at the used camera shop.

Yeah, it's better to have good footage to work with initially. But I'm an avid user of stabilizing software (albeit in eyeon's fusion) and it does a wonderful job! Results can be superb with a little practice and a 2k or 4k frame to work with! There are lots of times when steadycam type devices can't be used or just for removing tripod jitters and etc. So, don't discount the software solutions completely - many of them work better than you might initially think. :)

A lot of wisdom from dkitsov - I totally agree that it's better to get it right in the camera.

I think it's useful to understand how stabilization software works, because it gives a clue as to why software isn't always the answer. Simple software will work out the camera motion by tracking a few objects in the scene, then tilt, rotate and laterally move the picture to cancel out the camera motion; more sophisticated software builds up a map of the scene objects in 3D space, calculates the lens angle, and then warps bits of the picture to compensate for camera movement. 3D calculation gives better results in travelling camera shots, for example where the camera moves around a central object.

Whichever software you use, the more stabilization you choose, the more the software has to "move the image around" to cancel the camera movement, leaving occasional black edges around the frame, so it also has to zoom in to the processed image just enough to crop out the moving black edges. Because of that zooming, you lose resolution and also slightly negate the effect of the stabilization. There are other effects which look odd: for example, if there's a blurred frame in the middle of a sequence while the camera is moving, your eye will accept the blur because that's what happens when the camera moves. If that same sequence is stabilized, you will get a blurred frame in the middle of an otherwise stable sequence, which looks quite unnatural.

For all these reasons, as dkitsov says, it is always better to get stable footage while capturing if you can, for example with a stabilizer and with a wide lens angle, and use software stabilization only if you really need to.

It's not all bad. You can get away with software stabilization in short shots with a strong single visual point of interest, because that will temporarily distract you from the overall loss of detail in the stabilized shot. Instead of stabilizing, you can also try slowing down unstable footage, which can be very effective if it's appropriate to the video / subject (for example a handheld shot of a static object). There are at least 11 (eleven!) slowed shots in my Vimeo video in my earlier posting. Also, the tracking shot at the opening is actually a composite of four stills, which is then panned in the editing software.

Oh sure, let's fix it in post...
You must realize that Adobe's marketing makes certain things look way better than they really are. I have been playing with CS5.5 for the last week and you may trust me, that while the technology is short of a miracle it is very limited in it's application. Also it is painfully slow even on a fast computer.
You always want to get your footage as good as you can long before it hits the post. Do not get rid of your camera stabilization system.

5 hours!? It took me about 15 minutes to balance the GH2 on the flycam nano. Make sure you watch a video on youtube if you are having trouble.

I have the flycam nano, and I think it's great for the GH2. Much better than the Hague MMC, which I also have. I have had little trouble balancing it on the GH2. If you do the drop test, you want about 2.5 seconds. Best idea is to get an adaptor plate so you can just snap it in, and you're ready. Then, you don't have to balance every time.

I just got a blackbird. It works well with gh2 with 14-140 lens.

It is on the verge of being out of control with 20mm pancake. It's stable vertically but has side to side sway here and there. They are sending me a shorter tbar to try for the lighter setup.

It works well with my pan150. But god that's heavy.