Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

GB603 Gimbal & GH4 Camera - Zoom function?

Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
417
Age
66
Location
MidWest - Iowa
Haven't been able to determine from a few threads on subject. When you mount the GB603 gimbal & GH4 camera on H920, does the GH4 provide the remote controlled zoom like the CGO4? I've examined the GH4 and didn't see any W-T lever so I wondered if GH4 was only performed directly on the lens and wouldn't provide zoom on the GB603 Gimbal.

The GB603 gimbal is only compatible with H920 & ST24 per Yuneec. I thought I noticed on the H920 Facebook forum, there was a UK flyer using it with a ST16/H920+ and a ST24/GB603 Gimbal & GH4 Camera. Anyone verify or doing this too?

There are 3 14-42mm zooms: 1, Yuneec, 2, Oly equivalent, and 3,Oly EZ. All motorized Zooms & AF.
If you mount the CGO4 14-42 Yuneec zoom, Oly Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm or the Oly Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm EZ (Pancake) they should all behave the same on the CGO4.

On a previous thread, discussions of fully extending the zoom induced vibrations. If the Oly 14-42 EZ pancake was used, the lens extension and extended weight isn't as great.

Does the GB603's LK58 video link hardware work about the same as the CGO4 video transmission, better or worse? With the LK58 mounting external on gimbal, wondered if transmission was improved.

Does the zoom work when GB603 / GH4 mounted to the Proaction Grip system?
 
Doug,

You're asking questions that only those that have used the camera will be able to answer. There are not many 920 owners reading this forum so your owner sample is small. I would copy your post and paste it in the Yuneec 920 Owners Group at Facebook for broader distribution.

Nice work with the lens research. Thanks! The pancake lens looks interesting. In my opinion the camera shake with the lens extended is not caused by a failure of the mechanical dampening system to correct for it, but inability of the electronic dampening system to correct for it. The gimbal actuators aren't fast enough to deal with it.
 
Pat, Regarding the Gimbal & camera shake; would stabilization be improved with less mass extended; Or you're indicating an inability to stabilize the 3x magnification? From what I've read (no personal flight experience) it seemed mechanical dampeners & electronic IS were both deficient at 3X and if extended weight and air turbulence on lens were both reduced would produce less shake and more within the 3X IS parameters. If it's more shake via the captured image overloading the IS, I'd agree reduced mass would be moot.

In my quick reviews, it does appear both the Oly's 14-42mm lenses are improved in both glass sharpness & IS.
 
The shake is only present when focal length is larger. Seabee and I have both noted the lens extends when the camera is turned on with most focal alterations occurring within the lens housing. With shorter focal lengths the image is stabilized very well.

BTW, the stock CGO-4 lens seems to me to provide best sharpness in manual focus mode. You can tightly focus on objects as little as 12”-16” away from the lens.
 
Lens IS was assumed present, after further reviewing on IS that appears not correct other than Gimbal stabilization. The CGO4 OEM lens or body within specs doesn’t list IS as a feature. Olympus bodies have IS internally and Oly Zuiko lenses do not have IS; Panasonic bodies (GH4, etc) do not have IS and utilize IS within lens. This indicates if GH4 is used with Oly lenses the combo lacks IS. In comparison, the Panasonic Lumix Vario PZ 14-42mm (pancake) has power zoom operational through remote and contains IS within the lens... this might be a better option. The Oly Zuiko 14-42 EZ pancake has power zoom and the Oly Zuiko lens indicated as the Yuneec equivalent does not have power zoom, but equivalent glass.
 
I was able to locate spec’s indicating the GH4 if equipped with a power zoom lens, does offer zoom control remotely. Although undetermined if Proaction & GB603 provide the circuit to utilize. If it’s the same Proaction that comes with CGO4 Gimbal, it does contain a zoom control.
 
Something I learned a long time ago, if your camera has IS you don’t want it running when used on a stabilized gimbal. They end up working against each other with a poor end result.
 
Until now, only exposed to gimbal fixed cameras and not having the option of mounting camera body with lens options, hadn’t given much thought.

Was pondering if that’s why CGO4 lacked IS and recommended lenses lacked as well. The camera shake has a better understanding.
 
Just following a “suggested” lead... :rolleyes:
Let’s see if it produces a result!

On a different note, communicated with a LiPo shop that stated they could easily make the Tutta H920 spec’ed Battery in matched size, mA & discharge. I’m waiting for the quote... shocker / no shocker... hmmm?
 
You have clearly been more aggressive in your efforts with that than I have been:). You’ll want to talk them into a higher C rating. That’s a big part of the Plus battery issues.

I suppose you might say I developed an “attitude” problem. As you know I’ve been posting the battery test results in three forums. The three or four people in this forum seem to be far more interested than those in a dedicated 920 forum where they complain regularly about batteries and flight time.
 
I concure on the C value, the Tutta is 15/30C rated. That would be the minimal with 25/50C preferrred... although as you pointed out earlier, higher C = Larger mass, what would you place as ideal? 15-20C, basically double OEM?

I’d agree on the enthusiasm on other sites low compared to the expressions of needing a working solution.

The dual 5kmA setup you’re testing is best so far... although I’d like to see a 12-15kmA solution, but that may not be obtainable under size constraints and desired higher C performance.

I haven’t taken a serious examination yet on battery chamber, so unkown; but was curious if feasible to slightly modify floor / roof by 6-12 mm with a alternate floor / ceiling tub and expanded door. That would permit a lot more workable options in the 12-15k range. The experiments might require a 3D printer designer which I lack.
 
Like you I would like to find a couple K more mA for battery capacity, although at this moment in time it's not critical. My best guess, and that's all it is is a guess, has 25C likely the best C rating for 920 batteries. For now that's difficult for me to quantify as the Yuneec batteries are of such low quality it's difficult to separate between internal resistance and C rating. What leads me to believe C rating is highly suspect is that battery issues did not surface until immediately after original 920's were returned from conversion to the 920+ version. If the batteries had been an issue there would be reports of early low battery warnings for the original 920. I have not found any.

Although the 920 has a very flexible upper plate the open space available above it is limited and uses the system's electrical board as a hard ceiling. The space under the battery bay is larger in dimension and could be utilized all the way down to the rigid gimbal mounting plate if desired. The only impediments are the cooling fans, which are likely not necessary with batteries of adequate C rating and a more open battery compartment, and the battery bay door, which is most certainly linked to a system warning indicator that is not mentioned in manufacturer provided publications. A new door could be designed and created using the "old fashioned" method of creating a plug for lay up purposes. I don't have a 3d printer either;)
 
One of the 2 custom LiPo shops indicated today they could “make” the batteries desired, as a Tri-set, Pair, or a Single. All made to fit H920 battery bay, 20-25C/ 40-50C Burst, and 12-20KmA. The next stage was the Engineer design & setup one time NRE cost estimated at $3000 to 8000. Well, that closed that option!

The 2nd custom shop is looking at existing cells in a configuration that can be used within the H920 battery bay. That option has no minimum quantity and no special cost unless they need to assemble in a unique configuration. This option still looks promising.
 
They have a history of going silent after a short spurt of exchanges, then starting up again a week or more later.
 
They have a history of going silent after a short spurt of exchanges, then starting up again a week or more later.
To clarify, this Tattu distributor sited above isn’t the manufacturer that’s indicated a receptive response if we Owners generate enough requests. That one is still in play. Although I’m a little amazed at the low volume of receptiveness... not based on practically zero responses as you’ve noticed on your battery tests; but the number of hits on the post is minimal. Assumed that would generate a small rally and hopeful that 920 Owners would flood their mailbox. From my communication with the Rep, I understood they were receptive since it was already a template design they could manufacture without major spin up costs! Just needed market justification for a batch run. Interesting how the battery has been the main discussion of 920 but minimal perceived excitement to correct. Interesting!!
 
Last edited:
Same observations as mine. Many like to complain but they disappear or change complaints when solutions are offered.
 

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
20,941
Messages
241,489
Members
27,247
Latest member
Kubetlegal