Mikrokopter or Cinestar?

Discussion in 'Cinestar 8' started by Borja Casal, Mar 4, 2013.

  1. Borja Casal

    Borja Casal New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    1
    I´m thinking of getting a second Copter. I got a flight control board, power distribution board, GPS and navegator so I just need frame and motors and I already have a RTF CS8 but we are doing profesional work with it so a back up copter is much requiered.
    I work in Europe, so MK is very close to home. So i was wondering if its worth it going for the cinestar or I can use teh robotics I got from QC on a Mk Frame and motors.

    Thanx for your precious time.

    Borja Casal
    Paraphernalia films
     
  2. Janne Hoglund

    Janne Hoglund Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    23
    CS frame is a much better frame and well worth the value I think.
    Regards from Sweden.
    /Janne
     
  3. Emanuele Chiocchio

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    9
    Since you already use a Cinestar RTF, a frame from the latter seems to be the only logical step to me. Add a quick release system and you're able to immediately interchange the lifters too.

     
    Dan Walker likes this.
  4. Brad Meier

    Brad Meier Active Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    66
    The MK frame was not designed to support larger cameras. That is one reason why you see a few frame options out there. What size cameras are you flying? Anything over a CX760 will probably be too much for the MK frame.
     
  5. Ali Salih AK

    Ali Salih AK New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have MK's frame, but I didnt like it, because of payload, so I will change it as soon as possible with CS8
     
  6. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes Received:
    460
    Payload is a function of motors, props and batteries. Put MT2814 motor, APC 14x4.7 and 4S on an SJ8 and the performance would be the same. That's why you see folks on this forum running MT3515 and 15/16 inch props and lifting Reds. I remember seeing a video of Tabb test flying 30 lbs. On a CS6. HERE

    Also see the posting from Tabb about new motor/prop combinations that are coming soon. Larger frames are already available and showing up at QC. 450, 500, 550mm booms, take your choice.
     
  7. Nathan Reim

    Nathan Reim Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    4
    if you crash a mk frame you WILL bend at least one boom, cinestar frame is tough. saves you cash in the long run
     
  8. Hi Borja - These guys are great to deal with http://www.quadrocopter.com/CineStar-8-Frame-Kit-500mm-Booms_p_846.html
    Contact Brandon brandon@quadrocopter.com and mention my name as I am just preparing my Cine 8HL order now
    The standard Tiger combo is MN4012 with 15x5's, but I received a tip off in one of our Cin8 HL forums that the Tiger U5 400 and 16x4.5 combo is much smoother - you can also use the 15x5's with the U5 - see this to get great info http://forum.freeflysystems.com/ind...-ideal-cinestar-8-hl-package.3677/#post-41340
    By the way these guys have a frame but are not authorised Freefly agents so be careful http://www.mjmulticopter.com/produc...d=277&osCsid=a60c32d660afbbdff08b331e24abbc9e .
    Its well work you taking a look at the 3D Robotics gear as an alternate to MK - the technology is very advanced and the free software is amazing http://3drobotics.com/ check out the Pixhawk. I am going to kit up my Cine 8HL with 3DR and am amazed how much cheaper the full rig will be.
    Tale care!!
    Barry
     
    Leopoldo Tamargo likes this.
  9. mark Berry

    mark Berry New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    2
    I started with an MK electronics and frame then built my own custom frame when my payload increased. I have also been testing 3D robotics for a year now it is very solid and much cheaper, as Barry said. I do still love my MK, it will be difficult to cross over. You can't beat MK BLs.
     
  10. Sam Slape

    Sam Slape Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    8
    Barry and Mark, what's your conclusion on the Pixhawk? On paper it seems to be an excellent system, however I'm not sure of its real world performance.

    Anyone else used Pixhawk FC?
     
  11. Hi Sam

    I am still kitting up my Cine X8 rig which I will purchase mid June with the 3DR gear. I was so grateful that a very experienced pilot pointed me in the 3DR direction over MK explaining this: A private company would look at a new issue to solve and put their 2/3 tech guys on to it and 6mths later the public gets the benefit. An open source company posts a problem and 20/30 geeks get excited to solve it and its probably solved the next day for everyone to benefit from - plus look at how that impacts costs and the amazing prices on 3DR gear.

    Whilst tried and tested (MK) is important, I was blown away by the superb android free software options for 3DR and the forum which Chris started which is huge http://diydrones.com/forum/categories/3dr-radios/listForCategory
    This is a great video about Chris if you have not seen it

    I look forward to hearing how you go Sam
    With kind regards
    Barry
     
  12. Ozkan Erden

    Ozkan Erden Distributor

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    131
    Pixhawk is not as stable as MK for aerial filming. It still has some bugs, some of them are fatal. I suggest you to follow diydrones.com blog section for the developments. The gap is getting smaller between Pixhawk/APM and MK but for heavy lift prime systems, MK flies smoother and more stable. For fixed wing aircraft, they are perfect though.
     

Share This Page