NorBro
Major Contributor
Yeah, but...you're living in the glory days. Back then that's what it was but things change. People, technology, business.
Operating 30-40lb cameras on your shoulder is just not how it should be.
Canon's Upcoming RF cinema camera rumored specs
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
Yeah, but...you're living in the glory days. Back then that's what it was but things change. People, technology, business.
Operating 30-40lb cameras on your shoulder is just not how it should be.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
It's only relative to stills cameras. The C70 kind of looks like a stills camera if you dont have the top handle on it or it's not otherwise rigged. Komodo doesn't look like a stills camera. You just don't want them to think you're shooting with a stills camera
ahalpert
Major Contributor
That's hilarious. It sounds like the client had precious little idea of who he was hiring and with what. Did he pick you guys up at a home depot parking lot or something?
Run&Gun
Veteran
But the thing that everyone forgets about, is just how easy it is, because the camera was designed from day one to be used on your shoulder and work with the lenses and batteries to balance out. You're not fighting it. It just sits there. I have yet to use a cine camera, including C300, F55, Amira, Varicam LT, etc. that sits as well on the shoulder as an "old" ENG camera.
Probably the heaviest "ENG" set-up I ever used was an F900 with 22x/23x Fuji EFP lens(it was literally as big as the camera body), A/B brick, wireless audio receiver and wireless video transmitter(the original F900 required a box to convert to SDI and needed a down-converter to feed the analog SD wireless transmitter, because it was pre-HD wireless). I do not know what it weighed, but it literally took my breath when it was on my shoulder and this was probably 15 years(meaning I was not only 15 years younger, but in better shape). My day-to-day Betacam and VariCam rigs were usually 25lbs+ and no problem to run around with all day. I did weigh out my tape VariCam at ~35lbs one time with MB, two wireless RX's, NanoFlash and some other stuff, but his was not normal.
Run&Gun
Veteran
We were actually just talking about size and weight, not whether it looked/looks professional.
G
Guest
Guest
There is a reason those ENG cameras keep coming up, and it isn’t nostalgia.
They were cameras that were built as a system.
Compared to today’s throw ideas at the wall and see what sticks.
Small is better, but i see so many people fatiguing their wrists and hunch over hurting their backs with 3-5lbs camera setups, because they aren’t ergonomic.
Light weight is better, but we’ve lost the system and ergonomics thinking.
digitalinnovations
Well-known member
No doubt! I have shoots where you burn an entire day doing a couple different interview setups / locations but then others where you’re all over the map grabbing B-Roll so in the edit you’ve got far less interview footage and hours of B-Roll to go through
I can’t (won’t) say which is worse to edit. Haha! This made me laugh because I think the exact same thing.
I know this won’t win me any friends but I think the worst thing about all the DSLR / mirrorless stuff hasn’t been the democratization of the camera itself...it’s the actual sizes of them. It’s allowed so many corners to be cut. Plus, now you have fly, flip, twist, throw...whatever...your camera all over the place...it’s expected. I mean, look at some these Trinity-type rigs and these poor operators having to whip around a full-size Alexa. And some would/will argue that it’s an artistic expression but I’m not 100% sure that it is/was or was it initially to make up for / distract from the other initial shortcomings of the image, etc.
Don’t some of us long for the days of just sitting on sticks and letting the shot breathe or simple moves to become en vogue again? Granted, the majority of films still operate this way but on the levels of production a lot of us work in (presumably), even if you show up with a “full size” camera and the kids before were running around doing kick flips with an iPhone...how’s that slow dolly creep lookin’ now
Obviously, I know that’s we all have our own style of production and that’s how we’re hired and set expectations but we all at some point or another feel that pressure and it’s difficult to explain to a normal person / client how it’s gets exponentially more difficult and expensive the larger the camera...and that includes even “basic” things like camera support, lighting (if you don’t want to operate at 256,000 ISO...we don’t need no stinking light levels). I mean, now that I’m starting to get older I can see the appeal for physically smaller / lighter camera packages but I still don’t do it because outside of the other compromises you’ve had to make, I had just grown to accustomed to things like NDs, XLRs, etc. so it’s just recently that these smaller cameras even offered those sorts of things but I still don’t see myself ever opting for anything smaller than the C500. Even then, I have to rig the thing out to do handheld the way I like.
G
Guest
Guest
Because the camera system wasn’t designed around s35. It was designed for smaller sensors that allow for 13x’s light weight zooms. The camera system becomes an all in one ready to go package. However, once you try running with s35 or ff35 lenses, the camera stops being a system. Of course you could balance it, but it definitely loses a lot of its advantages.
RF and E mount short flange s35 zoom and M43 zooms will be interesting to watch develop. I think m43 in an eng like body would have been great. Sadly, that never happened.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Well if that was it then the system had to end because larger sensors became more important...goes back to the world's changes I mentioned.
It's like...what do you do? They might make sense ergonomically for many people, but if the cameras can't adapt/change with the business then they'll be limited, which is what happened.
So you had to make a new design. And that's what happened.
It's like...what do you do? They might make sense ergonomically for many people, but if the cameras can't adapt/change with the business then they'll be limited, which is what happened.
So you had to make a new design. And that's what happened.
G
Guest
Guest
I don’t think it is “what do you do?”. The human body hasn’t changed all that much in the last 100 years.
And we still haven’t invented some internal eye implant camera. Haha.
So, using current say limitations, and tried and true concepts, one could make the camera small, but also design it so that the main body is a s35 zoom lens, and all the AKS attach to the zoom lens. Now you have a cood balance s35 system in the making. Throw a should mount centered under the lens and you have a nice run n gun ready for anything s35 system similar in theory to the ENG cameras but instead of the camera being the main part, the large heavy s35 zoom becomes the core piece.
When shoulder mounted, the control box positioned at the front of the lens is right were you need the controls. And if you want to go handheld, simply detach the control box and take the camera off the lens, and slap on a pancake lens. Since all the rigging is attached to the zoom lens, going light weight is much easier, rather than de-riggin the camera, the riggin is on the lens.
And we still haven’t invented some internal eye implant camera. Haha.
So, using current say limitations, and tried and true concepts, one could make the camera small, but also design it so that the main body is a s35 zoom lens, and all the AKS attach to the zoom lens. Now you have a cood balance s35 system in the making. Throw a should mount centered under the lens and you have a nice run n gun ready for anything s35 system similar in theory to the ENG cameras but instead of the camera being the main part, the large heavy s35 zoom becomes the core piece.
When shoulder mounted, the control box positioned at the front of the lens is right were you need the controls. And if you want to go handheld, simply detach the control box and take the camera off the lens, and slap on a pancake lens. Since all the rigging is attached to the zoom lens, going light weight is much easier, rather than de-riggin the camera, the riggin is on the lens.
rob norton
Veteran
I don’t think it is “what do you do?”. The human body hasn’t changed all that much in the last 100 years.
And we still haven’t invented some internal eye implant camera. Haha.
So, using current say limitations, and tried and true concepts, one could make the camera small, but also design it so that the main body is a s35 zoom lens, and all the AKS attach to the zoom lens. Now you have a cood balance s35 system in the making. Throw a should mount centered under the lens and you have a nice run n gun ready for anything s35 system similar in theory to the ENG cameras but instead of the camera being the main part, the large heavy s35 zoom becomes the core piece.
When shoulder mounted, the control box positioned at the front of the lens is right were you need the controls. And if you want to go handheld, simply detach the control box and take the camera off the lens, and slap on a pancake lens. Since all the rigging is attached to the zoom lens, going light weight is much easier, rather than de-riggin the camera, the riggin is on the lens.
Nice James.
Or control box is wireless, carried in your hand, strapped to chest etc. Instead of needing to keep a hand to stop the system from falling you just need a quick release mounted to your shoulder.
Of course we still need the eye implant or wearable EVF.
G
Guest
Guest
Ha! Yeah, that would be cool too. I am a little old school in that I still like hard line, reduces the freq pollution on set, and perhaps considering one less thing to battery power.
The chest piece sounds cool! I can see something like that. sort of like the ergo rig, or a "smart" and integrated ergo rig.
For now we'll just have to settle for a cheese plate on top of the zoom lens and an EVF mounted on it.
When they invent eye implant cameras, I may go back to painting and just roast coffee or something. =)
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I shot the Miller Lite AVP Pro Vollyball Tour in Mnahattan Beach for broadcast many years ago with my Sony BVP 70 with the BVV5 Beta SP back and the biggest Anton Bauer bricks at the time. Me, a tall, skinny guy of probably 165lbs at the time,
running through deep sand in the heat all day, with this monstrosity on my shoulder. I can't recall which lens I used but it was one of the beefier Fuji B4 long range zooms. The rig, in total weighed about 35lbs, I had a bunch
of other crap hanging off of it, XLR cable, reporters mic, etc.
I recall it was hot so I wore a white t-shirt. At the end of the day as I was putting my gear away, my sound mixer asked what on my shirt was all red. It was blood speeing through
my skin from the weight of the rig just bearing down on it all day. No cuts or abrasions, just deep brusing and then blood started seeping through the pores of my skin. Ahh, the good old days!
When cameras were cameras and men were men! ;-)
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Well sort of. I dont think the c300 is very big, especially without the top handle assembly. But no one here said it doesn't look like a video camera. People know that stills cameras can shoot video now, and also thay they're cheaper and compromised
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I really dislike the images I posted before of the operator holding the camera out in front in a non stable manner with the screen exposed to sun and reflections.
In 2008 only used to use my 5d on a huge rig making it as steady (and more cumbersome) than an eng camera - comparing my work to the only other people in the biz - my 2/3 operator bbc chum
Yesterday we shot some interview and b roll - the b operator had my nikon z6 and was free holding it with an 85 - his shaky footage would not have been acceptable in 2008.. but today seems fine (yes the camera has some sort of IS)
Times do change (maybe not for the better!)
In 2008 only used to use my 5d on a huge rig making it as steady (and more cumbersome) than an eng camera - comparing my work to the only other people in the biz - my 2/3 operator bbc chum
Yesterday we shot some interview and b roll - the b operator had my nikon z6 and was free holding it with an 85 - his shaky footage would not have been acceptable in 2008.. but today seems fine (yes the camera has some sort of IS)
Times do change (maybe not for the better!)
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don’t think it is “what do you do?”. The human body hasn’t changed all that much in the last 100 years.
And we still haven’t invented some internal eye implant camera. Haha.
So, using current say limitations, and tried and true concepts, one could make the camera small, but also design it so that the main body is a s35 zoom lens, and all the AKS attach to the zoom lens. Now you have a cood balance s35 system in the making. Throw a should mount centered under the lens and you have a nice run n gun ready for anything s35 system similar in theory to the ENG cameras but instead of the camera being the main part, the large heavy s35 zoom becomes the core piece.
When shoulder mounted, the control box positioned at the front of the lens is right were you need the controls. And if you want to go handheld, simply detach the control box and take the camera off the lens, and slap on a pancake lens. Since all the rigging is attached to the zoom lens, going light weight is much easier, rather than de-riggin the camera, the riggin is on the lens.
I think the reason ENG cameras have not simply become S35 might be because the lenses would be ungodly huge and you usually want more DOF anyway.
And conversely, a lot of stuff you shoot S35/FF doesn't need a big zoom lens. Even if I had a 5x, 10x, or 20x proper cine zoom, there are few occasions where I would personally choose to use them over lighter zooms with shorter ranges and possibly better rendering, or primes.
Doug Jensen says he rocks an S1H and a Z150 now and covers all his needs between the two. I've considered getting something like a Z150 but I don't have that much need for it and every situation I shoot that would benefit from the lens, I find that I would prefer a shallower DOF anyway.
But there are so many types of shooting with wildly different needs that it's impossible to generalize. I think that in a lot of sports and ENG you want more DOF.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
think the reason ENG cameras have not simply become S35 might be because the lenses would be ungodly huge and you usually want more DOF anyway.
I think the reason is cultural. Those doing the 50 1.2 pop videos have more social media traction than those doing the long takes at the medical components conference. And social media traction has gained traction over the last decade.
Lenses dont really have to be huge - a 24-105 (f4) engineered to be parfocal and not horrid would be no larger than an eng zoom, yes a 24-105 T1.4 would be. The F4 version would have the same or less DOF than the 1.8 2/3 eng lens.
I think an MFT ENG camera like a shrunk 2/3 camera (the box doesnt need space fora tape anymore) would be very good. WOuld anyone buy them? I dunno because I dont know if the medical conference market still exists (Yes poeple do it but the fees are rubbish so we scrape by on our ragged EX1 with a bit of GH4)
I think the reason is cultural. Those doing the 50 1.2 pop videos have more social media traction than those doing the long takes at the medical components conference. And social media traction has gained traction over the last decade.
Lenses dont really have to be huge - a 24-105 (f4) engineered to be parfocal and not horrid would be no larger than an eng zoom, yes a 24-105 T1.4 would be. The F4 version would have the same or less DOF than the 1.8 2/3 eng lens.
I think an MFT ENG camera like a shrunk 2/3 camera (the box doesnt need space fora tape anymore) would be very good. WOuld anyone buy them? I dunno because I dont know if the medical conference market still exists (Yes poeple do it but the fees are rubbish so we scrape by on our ragged EX1 with a bit of GH4)