Shoulder mounts really do make a difference when you’re moving around on steep pitches or in tight attic spaces. I’ve run into the same issue with chest harnesses—especially when you’re already loaded up with a tool belt, moisture meter, and whatever else you need for the inspection. The last thing you want is to get tangled up or have to stop mid-climb to adjust your gear.
I get the appeal of gimbals for smooth footage, but honestly, in our line of work, practicality usually wins out over cinematic quality. I’ve tried a couple of gimbal setups, and while the stabilization is impressive, it’s just not worth the hassle when you’re crawling through insulation or squeezing past ductwork. The extra weight and bulk can be a real pain, and battery life is another headache—especially if you’re doing multiple inspections in a day.
Manual shoulder rigs aren’t perfect, but being able to quickly shift the camera or take it off entirely is a big plus. I’ve found that as long as I keep my movements steady and plan my shots, the footage is more than good enough for clients and reports. Plus, less gear means less stuff to clean after crawling through a dusty crawlspace.
One thing I will say—if you’re working in wide open areas or doing exterior drone shots, that’s where gimbals really shine. But for interior work or anything involving ladders and tight spaces, shoulder mounts just make more sense. It’s all about finding what fits your workflow and doesn’t slow you down.
You’re not alone in preferring function over flawless footage. At the end of the day, if your gear isn’t making your job easier—or at least not getting in the way—it’s probably time to rethink it.
Couldn’t agree more about shoulder mounts being the more practical choice, especially when you’ve already got a bunch of gear strapped on. I’ve tried the chest harness route and it was a mess—felt like I was constantly fighting to keep things from getting tangled up. The last thing you want is to be halfway through an attic and realize your camera’s snagged on something.
Gimbals are great for those wide, open shots, but for most of my home walkthroughs and crawlspace checks, they’re just not worth hauling around. The battery issue alone is enough to make me think twice. One time, mine died halfway through a pretty important inspection and I had to switch back to handheld anyway...not ideal.
Honestly, as long as the footage is clear enough for clients to see what’s going on, that’s good enough in my book. I’d rather have less hassle than perfect stabilization. If it slows you down or adds extra cleanup at the end of the day, it’s probably not the right tool for the job.
The last thing you want is to be halfway through an attic and realize your camera’s snagged on something.
Been there, done that—crawling around with a chest rig is just asking for trouble in tight spaces. I’ll admit, I love the smooth look of gimbal footage, but honestly, the extra weight and battery anxiety just aren’t worth it for most home projects. Shoulder mounts keep things simple and out of the way. If it ain’t broke...
crawling around with a chest rig is just asking for trouble in tight spaces
I hear you on that. When I’m documenting attic insulation or crawlspace repairs, I’ve found shoulder mounts way less hassle. Here’s my usual process: 1) check the space for snags, 2) keep the rig as compact as possible, and 3) always have a backup battery handy—just in case. Gimbals look great, but if you’re squeezing past ductwork, simple wins.
Gimbals look great, but if you’re squeezing past ductwork, simple wins.
That’s been my experience too. I tried a gimbal once for a crawlspace video—looked slick until I got wedged between a beam and some old plumbing. Ended up having to back out and switch to my old shoulder mount anyway. Maybe gimbals are better for open rooms or exteriors, but in tight spots, less gear really is more. Plus, less to clean after you’re done crawling through insulation dust...