A classic gimmick come on ad, where you can not easily tell how it works or if it works, and are expected to trust the hype. It takes a little exploring on their web site to discover that it has a cord that can extend so that you can put your foot on it and pull up and steady the camera that way. The combination of pulling up, and the cord exiting this device a few inches below the camera body, combine to give some stabilization of the camera. You can make something similar if you want to experiment with the concept, using a 1/4 inch eyebolt and some cord and a washer or something tied on the end. But it is not something I would want to use.
Lens IS is much more usefull if you do not have a tripod available, and if you also use good hand holding technique you can do quite well in low light conditions. So save for IS if you don't have an IS lens yet. Even the low end IS lenses work fairly well, and IS is ready in less than a second, compared to trying to deploy a cord and step on it.
Actually, it works and it an old trick. People have screwed rings onto the tripod mount and dropped a string with a loop on the end - foot through the loop and pull tight.
It does stabilise your shot quite nicely - have a go yourself.
You don't need to buy this product to get the same effect : 10c of hardware and some string will be fine.
These were pretty popular as Imaging USA this year so I picked one up (at $25) it was a bargain. It does work quite well. Very nice for ~2sec. exposures at normal focal lengths. Nice for video too. While it won't replace my tripod for certain work, it is a good tool to have in the bag for those certain situations when traveling light is important.
The geometry and physics speak for themselves. It's worse than having your camera on a monopod with the ballhead and the leg section clamps fully loose - much worse. I think if anything it might work on a mental level though. If you believe you're going to be steadier you will be. You'll worry about it less and be less conscious of your ability to shake.
Someone told me something 60 years ago when I was a young man, They said: "if you're carrying water up a flight of stairs for example, you're MUCH more likely to spill it if you watch the water and try very hard to hold it steady." I dunno why but that stuck in my head and I've been testing that theory for about 60 years straight - every time I carry water.
Bifurcator wrote:
I'm with those saying it's a total gimmick.
The geometry and physics speak for themselves. It's worse than having your camera on a monopod with the ballhead and the leg section clamps fully loose - much worse. I think if anything it might work on a mental level though. If you believe you're going to be steadier you will be. You'll worry about it less and be less conscious of your ability to shake.
Someone told me something 60 years ago when I was a young man, They said: "if you're carrying water up a flight of stairs for example, you're MUCH more likely to spill it if you watch the water and try very hard to hold it steady." I dunno why but that stuck in my head and I've been testing that theory for about 60 years straight - every time I carry water.
What about when people hang a weighted bag from the hook on their tripod? Isn't this the same concept, scaled down. Perhaps it is scaled down so much that it's just not going to have any positive benefits - especially handholding.
The second part of the device, the steel wire, I think should have some positives to it. Wouldn't it help control/reduce/eliminate the vertical component of camera shake (like an upside down monopod)?
Like bluebird wrote, this does work. I think Manfrotto makes something similar.
It doesn't add mass. You pull up. It's the same as using a monopod, (in reverse) except of course it can't hold the lens, so it's slightly harder to use. You make all your adjustments, then pull up slightly with your left hand, while tripping the shutter with your right.
Slightly difficult if you use a MF lens, but still workable.
I use a home-made one (esp when hiking) - just a strong cord at the right length, with a hook for my 5D and a washer at the bottom. If I need to point up for a bird, I bend my knees. It makes a HUGE difference.
I also made a hook for my belt, but rarely use it.
When hiking, my 5D & 300/4 (non IS) go into a Thinktank holster on my leg, and the cord has a piece of wood with velcro, near the bottom. I just pop that onto the holster and keep hiking.
I used to carry a monopod on my other hip, for emergencies when there's no time to pull out the tripod, but now I don't feel the need. I sure don't miss that extra weight.
Don't be so quick to knock something as a gimmick until you've actually tried it.
Bifurcator wrote:
I'm with those saying it's a total gimmick.
Josh S wrote:
What about when people hang a weighted bag from the hook on their tripod? Isn't this the same concept, scaled down.
No, not at all. Think about it. One is using weight for the stabilization of a 3 rigid legged device. The other attempts to use isometric muscular tension as a sort of "stop" - or as the Trench Monkey puts it fake "mass". Not the same things at all as I see it.
The second part of the device, the steel wire, I think should have some positives to it. Wouldn't it help control/reduce/eliminate the vertical component of camera shake (like an upside down monopod)?
Maybe a tiny bit. But less than just planting your elbows in your chest or using your shoulder I would imagine. Thus IMO, it deserves the title of "gimmick". Besides, with modern IS systems in just about ALL P&S cameras it's not needed at all anyway - no matter WHO sells it. Just learn how to hold a camera correctly and then as TrenchMonkey suggests, you can save your money.
Maybe a tiny bit. But less than just planting your elbows in your chest or using your shoulder I would imagine. Thus IMO, it deserves the title of "gimmick". Besides, with modern IS systems in just about ALL P&S cameras it's not needed at all anyway - no matter WHO sells it. Just learn how to hold a camera correctly and then as TrenchMonkey suggests, you can save your money.
That bit has merrit. There have been other things on the market that you attatch to the camera and stand on . If your are pulling against it then your less likely to have any more movement in that direction. But you can get the same effect by attatching a length of string to a tripod mount screw.
I think a better invention would be a Hat-Pod. Just bolt the camera on a Z-Bracket off the brim of a hard-hat. Wala! No shake at all unless you have a twitch or something.
First time I have ever seen this looks like an interesting gimmick. I have read here that a person carries a small light weight rope or string and instead of attaching it to a camera he loops it on his foot and for-arm then applies the tension. I have even heard of other using their belt but this guy seems a nice neat little package and easy to store
Of course if the camera had an optical viewfinder it would be much steadier without a string. 
No need searching for an eye bolt, either.
Just bolt the camera on a Z-Bracket off the brim of a hard-hat. Wala! No shake at all unless you have a twitch or something. 