Is the CION ever going to ship?

steve phillipps said:
I think it's good that you raise this issue, and I'm a conservationist myself and very opposed to animal cruelty. However, in the case of leather I would think it's the case that the animal is actually being killed for the beef and the leather is a by-product. So in fact if you were not to use the leather it would be a crime as an animal has been killed and part of it has been wasted. Just my opinion.

Steve
Click to expand...

Using such "byproducts" only perpetuates the killing of animals by encouraging the extra profit from the extra animal parts.

So, why does AJA have to have an animal killed to make their camera?
 
Did anyone ever shoot 2000 iso film in daylight? No a slower stock was chosen

High iso vid camera cant really compared to film - too much ND in front is never good use

My experience of the Cion related BMC4k is that lack of internal ND is not a problem.

S
 
h-munster said:
Using such "byproducts" only perpetuates the killing of animals by encouraging the extra profit from the extra animal parts.

So, why does AJA have to have an animal killed to make their camera?
Click to expand...

The Cion is going to have zero impact on beef consumption by society and again the animal was not killed for the camera. Not using all the byproducts of an animal is a waste of its life. If we did not eat cows they would cease to exist but that is a discussion for another thread.
 
RatLabProductions said:
The Cion is going to have zero impact on beef consumption by society...
Click to expand...

Not sure what beef consumption has to do with the issue.



RatLabProductions said:
... and again the animal was not killed for the camera.
Click to expand...

I suppose that the animal was probably killed for a few things other than the profits of the slaughterhouse, including for use by outfits like AJA, who want to put its skin on the Cion.

Regardless, it is a fact that an animal has to be killed to make an Cion camera.



RatLabProductions said:
Not using all the byproducts of an animal is a waste of its life.
Click to expand...

How do you arrive at the conclusion that an animal's life is wasted if we don't use his or her "byproducts? If after your pet dies we do not use his or her bones, skin, meat or cartilage is his or her life wasted? If after you die we do not use your byproducts, is your life wasted?

In addition, I would like to point out that there are plenty of other cinema cameras that do not use parts of a dead animal, including the Arri Alexa, the Sony F65 and F55, the Blackmagic Ursa and Production Camera, etc.

So, I ask again, why does an animal have to be killed to make a Cion camera?
 
h-munster, you are being a troll. Your opinion is clear. You don't have to keep reposting. If you would like to discuss this, please start your own thread.

By the way, why don't you be consistent and daily ask everyone, did you eat meat today?
 
Ok h-munster if you have decided to hi jack this thread for the purpose of promoting your dietary choices, I will will not participate. I find this behavior offensive and Dvxuser is NOT the forum for this discussion. You made your point once. Surprisingly Jon responded to your concern. Hugh gave his in the field assesment of the pad. I think the shoulder pad has been covered. And maybe the rest of us should also agree the shoulder pad has been covered. And maybe Jon can address the technical issues that we all have for AJA about the Cion.
If there is someone moderating this please do MODERATE.
 
combatentropy said:
h-munster, you are being a troll. Your opinion is clear. You don't have to keep reposting.
Click to expand...

If you actually go back in the thread, you will see that I am merely responding directly to new points that have been posted. In each case I have dealt with the new point of the particular poster.

In addition, I am not sure if my point is clear. I detect a certain design/marketing mentality behind the feature in question (and behind other features) on the Cion, and I merely want a straightforward answer to a straitforward question.


combatentropy said:
By the way, why don't you be consistent and daily ask everyone, did you eat meat today?
Click to expand...

No need for the personal attack.
 
h-munster, If you had politely asked AJA if they had optional materials for the shoulder pad, then nobody would have raised an eyebrow.
But by blurting out bullying, polemic statements such as- "...why does AJA have to have an animal killed to make their camera?" Then you are airing your Political/Social views. They have no place here.
If AJA wanted to wrap the entire camera in baby seal fur and ship it in an endangered-species wood crate, that is entirely their prerogative. If you don't agree with how they conduct business, then you simply don't buy their products. Or, if it really bothers you, then write them a letter with your concerns, but please do it in private.

We just wanna discuss cameras and film making when we visit this forum, not try to solve the world's 'problems'.
 
BrianMurphy said:
Ok h-munster if you have decided to hi jack this thread for the purpose of promoting your dietary choices,
Click to expand...

I am not trying to hijack the thread -- I merely rebut new points by others.

In regards to your new point about me promoting my dietary choices, I will rebut with the kind request to please link any post in which I have mentioned my anything about my diet. I'll give you $100 if you can find such a post.



BrianMurphy said:
You made your point once. Surprisingly Jon responded to your concern.
Click to expand...

He responded by saying that there was an option from the default, but he did not directly answer the question as to why this particular design decision was made and why it remains.

I would like to know the honest answer to that question(s).



BrianMurphy said:
Hugh gave his in the field assesment of the pad.
Click to expand...

To which I gave a valid rebuttal -- when has slippage on a shoulder mounted camera been a problem that required a special material?



BrianMurphy said:
I think the shoulder pad has been covered.
Click to expand...

Fine, but the question that I ask has still not been directly addressed.
 
Leather is far more durable and longer lasting than any man made material.
I have a leather jacket purchased in 1991. Still going strong. None of any synthetic apparel I've purchased has lasted nearly that long.
I have a pair of Timberland leather boots purchased in 1994, still funtional (though my feet have outgrown them). Lasted many a year
as my chosen boots for my motorcycle, going through rain, snow, mud, sand, salt water...
Unlike synthetic material, when leather finally reaches it's end of life, it won't pollute the ground when it breaks down.

AJA doesnt' owe anyone an explanation about it's design desicions.
 
Last edited:
TFilipiak said:
h-munster, If you had politely asked AJA if they had optional materials for the shoulder pad, then nobody would have raised an eyebrow.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask about whether or not they had optional materials, because that was not my question.


TFilipiak said:
But by blurting out bullying, polemic statements such as- "...why does AJA have to have an animal killed to make their camera?"
Click to expand...

THAT is my question!

I am sorry if it sounds polemic or "bullying," but I am trying to get a direct and honest answer to that simple question from the folks at AJA.


TFilipiak said:
Then you are airing your Political/Social views.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am implying a "social" view, but I wouldn't say it is "political."

However, there is also the matter of AJA's design/marketing mentality behind the decision to go ahead with such materials, which could have design implications on other parts of the camera.


TFilipiak said:
If AJA wanted to wrap the entire camera in baby seal fur and ship it in an endangered-species wood crate, that is entirely their prerogative. If you don't agree with how they conduct business, then you simply don't buy their products.
Click to expand...

Fine.

However, a representative from AJA was posting here, so I was merely taking the opportunity to ask a direct question.

Furthermore, if folks do not want me to rebut their points, why not just leave the question open and let the rep from AJA answer (or not answer) the question?


TFilipiak said:
We just wanna discuss cameras and film making when we visit this forum, not try to solve the world's 'problems'.
Click to expand...

Me, too. Plus, I would like an answer to my question.
 
zeke said:
Leather is far more durable and longer lasting than any man made material.
I have a leather jacket purchased in 1991. Still going strong. None of any synthetic apparel I've purchased has lasted nearly that long.
I have a pair of Timberline leather boots purchased in 1994, still funtional (though my feet have outgrown them). Lasted many a year
as my chosen boots for my motorcycle, going through rain, snow, mud, sand, salt water...
Unlike synthetic material, when leather finally reaches it's end of life, it won't pollute the ground when it breaks down.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a direct answer (although I disagree).



zeke said:
AJA doesnt' owe anyone an explanation about it's design desicions.
Click to expand...

They certainly don't have to answer such questions, but the questions can be asked, nevertheless.
 
h-munster said:
They certainly don't have to answer such questions, but the questions can be asked, nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Oh come on, it's like asking you if you killed a horse for your avatar image.
What you asked was not a question, it was a vegan agitprop provocation, and we all know that.

h-munster said:
.. and I merely want a straightforward answer to a straitforward question.

.
Click to expand...

The answer obviously is NO - there you have it, now let's call it a day and go back to cameras.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top