Qwikdraw Lens Changing System

Quincy T

This is just about the coolest innovation I've seen:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1022605159/quikdraw-an-innovative-lens-holster?ref=live

Nikolai

Quincy T wrote: »

This is just about the coolest innovation I've seen:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1022605159/quikdraw-an-innovative-lens-holster?ref=live

Very cool, at least when you're in a non-dusty non-raining environment... Probably great for indoor weddings/parties.
However, I cannot imagine using it in slot canyons of AZ, rains on Boston, or dry lakes of Mojave...

puzzledpaul

For some scenarios, possibly ... wonder how it'd fare when kneeling / crouching / lying ...and as for even small(ish) telephotos (eg 300 f4) ...
As for being low down and close to water ...

pp

babowc

Interesting idea..

How would your hip fare to sizely/heavy lenses in a wedding setting? The 24-70 2.8and 70-200 2.8 in particular.
I can't imagine have an almost foot-long lens on my hip, along with other lenses.

I assume it'd have no problems with any lens below 85mm.

Quincy T

Seymore wrote: »

I'll add... it seems there is no lock on the "Qwikdraw", to keep the lens from twisting off. This would be main gripe/concern. Wonder how a $1000+ lens would fare being dropped from waist level?

If you read the bit carefully, it indicates that a turn of anymore than 5 degrees will keep the lens in place.

I don't know if there's a lock, I guess. I'd imagine the amount of torque required to remove the lens from your side is more than your likely to experience in the settings that you would use the Quikdraw in. Settings like Nikolai pointed out.

Nikolai

If there is no lock it's a stillborn baby. cry

Matthew Saville

Wow, that's ridiculous... Lenses completely exposed, possibly no locking function, and enormous risk of flat-out dropping a lens on concrete, un-capped and just begging for hundreds of dollars in damage.

My Spider holster (which I love) is already at the threshold of "risking damage for the sake of easy access and relieving shoulder / neck pain"... This is past that threshold, for me. It's also well past the threshold of dorkiness, for my taste.

Nothing beats the Spider Holster and a Waist Shooter from Undfind... :-)


=Matt=

David_S85

What Matt said. First thing I noticed in the video is that he just turned the lens a little bit. No lock? Pffft. That would worry me enough right there. I use a hand grip to hold my camera as I walk around and I'm freaked when something on my rig just brushes against a rivet on my blue jeans. Having a four figure lens(es) exposed in free space like that? Too risky. I have to admit though, that the idea, while I think may be flawed, is a novel one.

Quincy T

I guess we'll see what happens if he reaches his required amount of funds.

Qarik

I think it would defeinteiyl be useful for smaller primes

puzzledpaul

Whilst I've no interest in this because of what I usually use and the way I use it, my take on the info / vid is that the lens is held in the rig by the same mount with similar locking as it's mounted on the cam body.

At the point of mounting / dismounting the lens in the QD (lens axis horizontal) the lens isn't locked into the QD housing - but as soon as the mounted lens (in the QD housing) rotates thro 5 deg on its way to hanging down, it's locked - presumably using a similar system (pin) as provided by a cam body.

For one-handed operation this makes sense (to me), since it means that the hand (un)mounting the lens in the QD receptacle only has to do a twist action ... rather than a press unlock + twist action.

pp

Quincy T

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Wow, that's ridiculous... Lenses completely exposed, possibly no locking function, and enormous risk of flat-out dropping a lens on concrete, un-capped and just begging for hundreds of dollars in damage.

My Spider holster (which I love) is already at the threshold of "risking damage for the sake of easy access and relieving shoulder / neck pain"... This is past that threshold, for me. It's also well past the threshold of dorkiness, for my taste.

Nothing beats the Spider Holster and a Waist Shooter from Undfind... :-)


=Matt=

Okay. I just learned about the Spider Holster, and that is awesome. Now I just need $235...

Matthew Saville

Quincy T wrote: »

Okay. I just learned about the Spider Holster, and that is awesome. Now I just need $235...

Start with $49, for the black widow. They say it's only for lighter cameras, but as long as you've got a hefty belt I've safely mounted a D700 and 24-70 / 70-200 on it. Then if you like the system and want to get the pro holster belt, you can slap the black widow on the other side of the belt for double-camera action!

=Matt=

Quincy T

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Start with $49, for the black widow. They say it's only for lighter cameras, but as long as you've got a hefty belt I've safely mounted a D700 and 24-70 / 70-200 on it. Then if you like the system and want to get the pro holster belt, you can slap the black widow on the other side of the belt for double-camera action!

=Matt=

I'll have to give it a try Matt! Thanks for the tip.

Wayupthere

With your pledge you will be supporting the following efforts:

• Tooling and hard molds are needed for a production run.

Yep, that what 99.999999999% of new inventors want to do..make a mold and cast them
Then all of their investment is in the mold..no money left to do a decent run of parts..so off to china to have it cast "economically".
Parts have inclusions at just the wrong place..lens hits concrete at just over the speed of light..photog hits the internet at just over the speed of light..complete with close up pictures of the broken lens and holster..inventor hides in shame.:hide
But at least he will have a new mold to keep him company. :giggle

Ok just watched the vid..hes an engineer :help
Plus just don't like the basic idea of all that weight hanging on your belt/waist.
My pants would hit the ground in the first 10 minutes..nobody wants that..nobody :lol
Gary

puzzledpaul

Looks like he got sufficent backers.
Updated info / vid, btw

pp

David_S85

Ahhh, the trampoline test. I was hoping for a tucked somersault or two for a more thorough and vigorous evaluation.

rwells

I looked at the site and videos. There is a locking mechanism that will not allow the lens to come off unless it's in "state 1", which is the up position.

That concern aside, personally, I don't want to advertise to a potential thief that I have 6k+ in lenses (that he can now easily see - no guess work on his part), that can be his if he hits me in the head while I'm busy shooting.

puzzledpaul

David_S85 wrote: »

Ahhh, the trampoline test. I was hoping for a tucked somersault or two for a more thorough and vigorous evaluation.

Yes, that would've certainly been a more realistic test ... considering the hoops it seems us (w/life) shooters have to jump thro' sometimes in order to get a half reasonable pic.

Even more interesting if a 500/4 or similar'd been dangling.

Be curious to read about real-life experiences with this gear sometime further downstream.

pp

NikonsandVstroms

babowc wrote: »

Interesting idea..

How would your hip fare to sizely/heavy lenses in a wedding setting? The 24-70 2.8and 70-200 2.8 in particular.
I can't imagine have an almost foot-long lens on my hip, along with other lenses.

I assume it'd have no problems with any lens below 85mm.

Suspenders

puzzledpaul

Personally, I see little difference -from most aspects mentioned ... exposed lenses / hanging weight / potential theft / locking mech pov ... between this system and 'arrangements' that ppl already use - for easy access situations.

Lenses are presumably exposed on neck /waist hung rigs ...or do ppl leave lens caps on / hide rigs beneath clothes until needed?

Weight of a couple of complete rigs (esp pro bodies) can't be too different from this setup - and anyone using more than 2 lenses with 2 bodies has to keep the extras somewhere.

See little difference from a theft pov between someone with 2 rigs and this - assuming a sensible no of lenses on the QD ... as opposed to the ott video scenario. I'd assume anyone with a decent dslr combo + backpack is considered 'fair game' anyway.
I'd also hope that common sense - re when to use - would come into play?

Locking mech - what's the conceptual difference between a lens hanging from a body on a neck stap etc ... and a lens hanging from a dummy mount that incorporates similar locking?

pp

Wil Davis

Click! Bang! Crash! Tinkle! Tinkle!
…interesting idea, and well presented! I liked the trampoline video, although the rattle (which I took to be the lenses hitting together) was slightly disheartening!

- Wil

Zerodog

Maybe I just don't change lenses enough? I like 2 or 3 bodies with different setups. No lens changes. Lots of events I shoot it is just too dirty to even remove a lens.

rpcrowe

I use a pair of cameras
My two 1.6x cameras and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses are all that I need. No lens swapping, no dust, no missed shots, no damage to lenses and insurance policy that I won't miss a photo opportunity due to a camera that fails...

I carry them either on an OPTECH Dual Harness or with the camera + 17-55mm on a neoprene strap and the camera with 70-200mm in a holster case...

I have a third camera for specialized jobs but usually the 17-55mm + 70-200mm focal ranges are all I ever need...

David_S85

I'm just waiting for a Canon 10-500 f/4 L lens so I won't have to carry any other anything.