What gear you dreamed of, bought an never used again?

[Josh Bass]

I bought a lot of dumb stuff when I was younger cause I thought I needed it to be a complete “filmmaker”, or something. But two that come to mind are the SP7/Mediapro shoulder brace for the old Canon XL series cams. This thing was huge. As big as the cam itself, supposed to balance it out for handheld work. Even had compartments where they recommended putting batteries or other things as counterweights. Used it maybe a couple times than never again.

Another was a CAvision matte box/rods/handgrips system. I did use the rods/grips for handheld sometimes but the box/filters never got used once.

I am better and not buying stupid stuff but have not quite put it behind me completely. Anyone want a SmallHD 502 kit? Seriously.

 

[Guest]

Was the problem in Volt? I love mine.

Mount one of those adapters and expand the range of devices you can use on it.

View attachment 135543

That’s cool. I can see the uses for it, i just never used it after the initial test. Now that I have a newer phone, i may want to try it out again.

The achiles heel of any cellphone add on is that they are either less inuitive than the cellphone’s native features, or you have to carry additional things. The Volt is rather bulky for a cellphone accessory. But you have me wanting to break it out again. Haha.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I think I’d sooner get an Osmo Pocket. But that would probably be something I’d use once and never again as well.

Some narrow escapes:
I did resist the urge to buy a converted 300mm T2 because I knew I’d rarely use it and could just rent. When it was first introduced I considered buying a Chameleon dolly, and boy am I glad I didn’t waste the money. There are several of those almost purchases, including when the Soviet Union collapsed and I was offered two complete sets of the knockoff Moviecam Compact cameras with complete set of primes, zoom, matte box, filters, follow focuses, cases, etc., all “new in the box” for around $15K. I guess these days the glass may have been worth something. The idea was to get two sets of everything so that you could use one as parts for the other, British sports car style. I did decide to get the Russian tripod set because it was just so cheap and could support my job.

I invested in a Mini-Worrall geared head after I lost an Operator gig on a Gwyneth Paltrow movie because I didn’t have enough experience on the wheels and there was going to be a lot of crane work (remote heads all on wheels at the time). I only pulled it out on a job once or twice but it was worth it because I used it at home to practice and learn the wheels well. Eventually sold it to a friend.

 

[laverdir]

That’s cool. I can see the uses for it, i just never used it after the initial test. Now that I have a newer phone, i may want to try it out again.

The achiles heel of any cellphone add on is that they are either less inuitive than the cellphone’s native features, or you have to carry additional things. The Volt is rather bulky for a cellphone accessory. But you have me wanting to break it out again. Haha.

Don't forget to update firmware.

Quite a few improvements in there.

 

[roxics]

Outside of a tripod or monopod I seem to be terrible with any kind of camera support gear.
Years ago I bought one of those cheap flycam nano steadicam-like rigs but I could never get the thing balanced right. I'd break it out every so often to fiddle with it for 30 minutes or so and just could never get it. I never used it on a shoot because I knew I would never had time to spend 30 minutes or more getting it balanced and even then I'd probably do something dumb like readjust the lens or LCD screen without thinking about it and throw off the whole balance. Luckily it wasn't a lot of money. But it has scared me off from even getting a gimbal to this day.

The other two were a slider and jib. Both were cheap Amazon buys for an old company I used to work for where you had to pry every penny out their hands of to get anything new. So even spending $100 on a slider was excessive to them. Sadly both ended up being bad buys. Especially the jib that would buckle left or right and shake every time you went up or down with it. I don't think I ever used a single shot I got with it.

The slider was better, but it was just a slider with a rubber stopper and wasn't smooth its entire run. It wasn't cranked or motorized and it turns out I'm not great at keeping a constant steady motion with my hands. The best results I got with it were a few seconds at a time on in-studio product shots after 20+ takes. So it wasn't a complete loss, but I had much bigger dreams for it out on location shoots getting all kinds of great b-cam slider shots during interviews and stuff. Which never really worked out. If I were to get one for myself today, I think I would have to spend some cash and get a motorized version or at least some mechanical model that is geared to get a smooth steady shot without me having to have the hands of a surgeon.

 

[mcbob]

Starting out, I bought an HVX200 well before I really had the work to justify it. I could only afford a few P2 cards and kept having to take time to offload instead of shoot. HDV sucks, but would’ve served me better at that stage... I wound up doing a lot of work with a cheap HV30 when I should’ve just bought one camera that fit my needs. Decades later, I’m still overly cautious about any camera system that uses expensive proprietary media.

I suppose this doesn’t really fit the topic, because I used the snot out of the HVX later... but at the time, wasn’t the best purchase

 

[DBP]

EZ-Box grid and soft box for the aputure 672s. Setting up once made me realize I'll never use it again. Maybe the grid, but the softbox is practically useless, and a total pain to set up.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Outside of a tripod or monopod I seem to be terrible with any kind of camera support gear.
Years ago I bought one of those cheap flycam nano steadicam-like rigs but I could never get the thing balanced right. I'd break it out every so often to fiddle with it for 30 minutes or so and just could never get it. I never used it on a shoot because I knew I would never had time to spend 30 minutes or more getting it balanced and even then I'd probably do something dumb like readjust the lens or LCD screen without thinking about it and throw off the whole balance. Luckily it wasn't a lot of money. But it has scared me off from even getting a gimbal to this day.

The other two were a slider and jib. Both were cheap Amazon buys for an old company I used to work for where you had to pry every penny out their hands of to get anything new. So even spending $100 on a slider was excessive to them. Sadly both ended up being bad buys. Especially the jib that would buckle left or right and shake every time you went up or down with it. I don't think I ever used a single shot I got with it.

The slider was better, but it was just a slider with a rubber stopper and wasn't smooth its entire run. It wasn't cranked or motorized and it turns out I'm not great at keeping a constant steady motion with my hands. The best results I got with it were a few seconds at a time on in-studio product shots after 20+ takes. So it wasn't a complete loss, but I had much bigger dreams for it out on location shoots getting all kinds of great b-cam slider shots during interviews and stuff. Which never really worked out. If I were to get one for myself today, I think I would have to spend some cash and get a motorized version or at least some mechanical model that is geared to get a smooth steady shot without me having to have the hands of a surgeon.

My job was probably the best purchase I ever made. I bought it before I even owned a camera. It was the original Porta-Jib, the first lightweight jib arm that could really do much and the first one that you could put on regular sticks and use anywhere. Not only did I get a ton of use out of it, but I also rented it out all the time to others. I could do it without fear because it was fairly indestructible, and if someone did damage it the issue was obvious and easily addressed. That thing made me a ton of money.

 

[morgan_moore]

without me having to have the hands of a surgeon.

The problem with much small camera movement kit is that it lacks mass and therefore inertia and is therefore virtually impossible for anyone to move smoothly - dont beat yourself up.

On the other hand you have to develop operator skill - blaming a slider for having rubber stops - you should be slowing the move to a gentle stop before you hit the end stops!

Im well aware of the skills of operating but Ive never been able to slide our old (and a useless buy) small slider. Now we have a Dana style, with lots of mass, doing a move is way more possible even up to maybe 80mm

 

[JPNola]

For me it was a prime lens set. I spent a year assembling a set of cinevised Contax primes but I've rarely used them and I'm still on some zoom lens 95+% of the time. Every once in a while I'll use the 85mm for a sit-down interview but as soon as you go to a prime the producer says "can you tighten up just a bit" and then you are having to move the entire camera / tripod forward and wrangling video and audio cables to make the move and having to move the producer's chair as well. Then after you make the move of the camera the producer says "yeah, on second thought, go back to where you were".

 

[Guest]

My job was probably the best purchase I ever made. I bought it before I even owned a camera. It was the original Porta-Jib, the first lightweight jib arm that could really do much and the first one that you could put on regular sticks and use anywhere. Not only did I get a ton of use out of it, but I also rented it out all the time to others. I could do it without fear because it was fairly indestructible, and if someone did damage it the issue was obvious and easily addressed. That thing made me a ton of money.

Totally agree. Often times it is the accesories that make money, since everyone buys a camera and a lens, but things like jibs and even dana dollies go neglected till they are needed, and then often rented.

 

[morgan_moore]

For me it was a prime lens set. I spent a year assembling a set of cinevised Contax primes but I've rarely used them and I'm still on some zoom lens 95+% of the time. Every once in a while I'll use the 85mm for a sit-down interview but as soon as you go to a prime the producer says "can you tighten up just a bit" and then you are having to move the entire camera / tripod forward and wrangling video and audio cables to make the move and having to move the producer's chair as well. Then after you make the move of the camera the producer says "yeah, on second thought, go back to where you were".

Interesting. Contax lenses are nice.. not fundamental rubbish.. they do their job properly.. but not the job you want.

I wonder if the producer realises that moving closer on a prime changes the perspective of the shot.. it doesnt just 'tighten it up'.. hence often deciding that the move of camera didnt work.
If a producer director asks to tighten up you shoul select a longer prime.. not move the camera.

I dont adhere to the concepts of primes being 'cinematic' as why would you not want the ability to shoot on a 91mm rather than an 85 if you want to - while primes have advantages in mass cost and Tstop there is nothing specifically magic about them.

I like my nikkor 35-70 exactly because it just gives one that little bit of wiggle room without moving the camera (and it cost $100 unlike a cine zoom)

 

[JPNola]

The slider was better, but it was just a slider with a rubber stopper and wasn't smooth its entire run. It wasn't cranked or motorized and it turns out I'm not great at keeping a constant steady motion with my hands.

I haven't used one, but that's why the Duzi slider has a flywheel. Looks pretty cool.

 

[JPNola]

If a producer director asks to tighten up you shoul select a longer prime.. not move the camera.

I dont adhere to the concepts of primes being 'cinematic' as why would you not want the ability to shoot on a 91mm rather than an 85 if you want to - while primes have advantages in mass cost and Tstop there is nothing specifically magic about them.

So you're on the 50mm and the producer says they want a tighter framing. You switch to the 85mm and the producer says "whoa, not that tight". What do you do then? You move the camera.

I agree that there is nothing specifically magic about primes EXCEPT for superspeed primes. Things definitely become more "magical" at a f/1.0 as compared to a f/2.8. I'm currently on a feature that has some f/1.0 Panavision primes ( we also have a lens that was used on The Wizard of Oz). The trend over the past few years and often still today is to shoot interviews with the background really out of focus. Now, I'm already hearing the responses saying they hate when the background is crazily out of focus and more like a wider lens with the background only moderately soft. But often the producer and / or the DP want to put the background crazily out of focus because the only available background sucks. I was doing interviews for a period film, the subject in period costume. But the space we were provided was a meeting room that wasn't a period set. We didn't want an actor in period costume in front of a modern background. So I had to throw the background so out of focus that it wasn't recognizable as modern. No f/2.8 zoom would get the background as out of focus as the f/1.2 prime.

When you get into a niche super-super speed like the f/0.95 Canon dream lens, things certainly get "magical" compared to any zoom. Not a very practical lens, but magical for sure:

 

[morgan_moore]

So you're on the 50mm and the producer says they want a tighter framing. You switch to the 85mm and the producer says "whoa, not that tight". What do you do then? You move the camera.

I agree that there is nothing specifically magic about primes EXCEPT for superspeed primes.

Ultimately its a relationship thing. One of my first big gigs I was probably selected on the basis of a bunch of interviews at shot at 70/1.4 (I was 'early with that look)
'producer' in preproduction.. "we love your look" - happy
'producer on set "punch in on that now" -me "er im on a prime" - producer.. not happy

That was a relationship fail, not a technical one.

As I said I feel my 35-70 is a good compromise.. ideally Id have a more costly cine zoom.

If the producer director is finicky on framing and still wants T2 then there are solutions (Ubangi slider in 2 axes? https://www.cinema5d.com/panther-u-bangi-slider-xy-a-high-end-two-axis-beast-of-a-slider/) that allow small readjustments (at the cost of a loony tunes heavy and costly support rig)

My point was that primes are not magical in that adding a restriction in lens length does not magically do things to improve ones cinematography. A T1.4 zoom would (apart from being huge) be just as appealing to me as a set of primes

 

[Run&Gun]

I wish all sliders had a flywheel system. There have been times, even on my big CamTram system with 35lbs+ of camera on it that we’ve put shot bags on the carriage to “mass it up” to slow it down.

 

[Run&Gun]

It used to crack me up in the days when primes where getting popular for sit-downs and they would ask for them and then when we’re getting ready to roll tell you to vary the shot up during the interview. Me: “We’re shooting on primes”. Producer: “Oh”.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Back in the day I would sometimes do sit down interviews on primes but use a small slider on the Z-axis to get closer/farther from the subject. I would angle it slightly as the closer you get to the subject the tighter to the eyeline axis you want to be. The effect is as if you were leaning in closer to your subject at an important moment. It’s far more intimate than changing focal length. The negative (besides equipment bulk and needing to adjust focus) is that the subject can sense you moving closer. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Run&Gun]

Back in the day I would sometimes do sit down interviews on primes but use a small slider on the Z-axis to get closer/farther from the subject. I would angle it slightly as the closer you get to the subject the tighter to the eyeline axis you want to be. The effect is as if you were leaning in closer to your subject at an important moment. It’s far more intimate than changing focal length. The negative (besides equipment bulk and needing to adjust focus) is that the subject can sense you moving closer. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

After I bought my first set of primes, I did the same thing with a 4’ slider for a set of interviews, but it was a PITA set-up wise(plus chasing focus) and I’ve never duplicated it again(for interviews).

 

[Mitch Gross]

Four feet is a long way to go. 18”-24” can make a huge difference and it’s about as far as I could stretch my body without actually walking with the camera.