Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by independent

  1. I just think the easyrig doesn’t do enough and is often more trouble than its worth.

    Want steady shots with pans and tilts? Sticks.

    Four points of contact and a dynamic look? Shoulder mount.

    Redistribute weight and get smooth shots and movement? Steadicam.

    Sure, there are some (very specific) situations where they make some sense, and a few DPs and operators do like them. 

    But in my opinion, there are generally better, tried-and-true options. 

    Hell, Christopher Doyle shoots with a pillow, so whatever floats your horse in the shed. 

  2. 5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

    That's not the only reason easyrigs are used. 

    They're used to redistribute the weight of the camera rig from the shoulder/back to your hips. 

    They're also great for having fine control over height! You're not just stuck with whatever the height of your camera op's shoulder is. 

    Makes for a very good tool indeed if you're abnormal! (too tall / too short)


    Watch those doorways! 

    Yes easyrigs do take the weight off, but...that's essentially it. They don't do much to cut out jitter, shake, or vertical movement. I do hear good things about the Serene arm, but at that point, I'd go for steadicam. 

    If your setup isn't too heavy, and I'm always looking to go lighter as a single operator, I greatly prefer shoulder mount with built-in stabilization. Just more intuitive, greater control.

    But if you're way north of six feet tall...you should probably quit the camera department and do sound 😉


  3. I don't think the C300 crowd would really demand RAW or 6K (cumbersome workflow, storage requirements), those would be more for narrative, creative projects. That crowd would prefer efficient codecs to accommodate news gathering, live events, reality/docs, etc. I also think that's why IBIS would be key for them. Goodbye easy rigs! And the full frame would be important for light-gathering in uncontrolled environments and flexibility for focal lengths in tight locations.  




  4. 11 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    Yeah its gonna be weird. Seems like they can't release a C100 mk3 without dethroning the C300 MK2. The C300 MK2 is such a low bar. That camera should have had 4k 60p to begin with. A C200 mk2 seems like it would compete to much with the C500 MK2. 

    Canon should update the C200, which unlikely was a hit, with 10-bit codecs. And add IBIS and the RF mount. At around the same price (or maybe slightly cheaper). I think they would move some units. 

  5. However, there is a gap at $10K market, the C300 II, Sony FX9 for documentary, news gathering, etc. 

    I bet:

    • 4K full frame (supersampled 6K like the Sony FX9 ) with high frame rates at 10-bit codecs to protect the c500 II.
    • RF mount, which will push the pricey lenses while still being easily adaptable to EF.
    • IBIS they've been working on in the R5, which will keep it competitive with the FX9's gyro.


  6. Sure. I got mine from powerextra's distributor out of California. 


    I forgot to also mention an even easier option that doesn't require an added battery sled:

    If you're using a monitor that uses Sony NPF batteries (most do), Just insert this battery into your monitor, and use a DC to Weipu cable to your Blackmagic 6K. There's several cables there, but this was the cheapest one from B&H (happens to be from Tilta):






    I've found the best (cheap, light, etc.) solution is the Tilta Sony F970 battery plate. I mount it on the top right side of my SmallRig cage, above grip (buttons are still accessible).

    I use 6600mah "Powerextra multifunctional" batteries that are $20 each on eBay.  I bought four and I don't think I ever used a third on a shoot.

    These particular batteries are useful because they have a USB-out and DC-out, which can power a monitor.

    I also got great audio straight into the phantom powered mini-XLR and 3.5mm audio jacks. Curtis Judd has a video on it. I've used wireless receivers, shotgun mics, etc. all with clean results. Make sure your settings are right and you feed it a hot signal (the new Rode NTG5 is great: light weight and hot). That is a major plus, to not have to mess with a separate recorder or mixer. 

    If you have a relatively simple shoot, you can keep the package compact, light, and cheap.





  8. Sony was close with the A7III. All they need to do is add internal 4K 10-bit 422. And incrementally improve all the other features. Even if their next model A7IV or A7SIII doesn't offer 8K, it can compete on price ($2K). The Canon R5 might retail close to double that.

    All things being equal, image quality is close enough among camera brands of the same class. The difference is features. Internal quality codec, autofocus, IBIS, rolling shutter, articulating touchscreen all have to be good enough. 

    Unfortunately, right now, everybody has to pick his own poison. 

    For example, Panasonic S1H is an exceptional camera in many ways, but the $4K price, inferior autofocus, L-mount make it a nonstarter for me, and I'm guessing, for many others. 

    Whether it's R5 or the R6, Canon seems committed to offering a complete package, and other manufacturers will undoubtedly follow suit if they want to survive. 


  9. 23 minutes ago, Django said:

    Z6, EOS R, XT3, BMPC4K were all released in 2018. depending on what your needs were they were arguably better choices. 

    Sony didn't innovate much either with A73.. same resolutions, same codecs etc.. they mainly brought the price down which made it a huge success. We're still waiting in 2020 for a sign from Sony of the unicorn A7S3, but no dice. I think they waited too long and are in a rut now as they won't risk cannibalising FS/FX line.

    Of course, everybody has different priorities. But I specifically stated the A7 III was remarkable at the time for how complete the feature set was - including price. 

    The A7 III was successful for one innovation only: comprehensive features. Every camera will have its fans who prioritize or fetishize a feature. But the most successful will have the complete shooting package, because that's what the general market is looking for: utility.

    The R5, 8K marketing gimmick aside, will live or die on the same. 

  10. 29 minutes ago, nickname said:

    You are describing the next FF 6k pocket! 

    5" screen, internal prores, internal raw.

    Maybe too incremental. 8K is definitely next for Blackmagic.  Unlikely they'll be able to keep up with the competition in terms of autofocus and IBIS, but they should be able to put in an articulating screen and redesign the awkward body. It seems all roads are leading to a boxier body that is more rig-friendly. 

    They should still have their competitive advantage in recording formats, resolve, and price. 8K BRAW/Prores for under 4K, optimized to cut and color in Resolve. 

  11. For the record, I'd take either internal 10-bit 422 or RAW in this camera. I just hope Canon offers more than 8-bit internally. The external HDMI output is definitely a potential for handicapping, which I hope they avoid. Either way, these specs are approaching the C500 II and 1DX III's, and in certain ways surpassing the C300 II and C200's. And offering IBIS that none of those cameras have. So you have to figure something has to give.


  12. Regardless the point is that internal RAW seems more appropriate and likely for Canon’s R6 20MP sensor for full frame than 4K 10-bit 422. I’d be suppressed if they downscale from 5.5k to 4K and process it into 10-bit 422 in a small body for $2500.

    RAW is less demanding in a technical sense while appealing to independent creators. Price point and features-wise, this would appeal to $2K-$3K market. This also protects the professional lines. Precedence. 

  13. 11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

    Won't happen while the RED lawyers are alive

    The C200, C500 II, and the 1DX III would beg to differ!

    Canon's flavor of RAW (Cinema Raw light .CRM) is slipping through. I'm guessing they might be doing something similar to BRAW to get around the patent.

  14. Those specs would severely undermine the $9,000 C300 II.  

    RAW wouldn't be any less impractical than the RAW on the 20MP 1DX III. The less demanding RAW is more likely than 10-bit 422 on an estimated $2500 R6. Historically, it's the internal 10-bit 422 processing that has been at a premium - not RAW. Thus, the success of Atomos. Also, as far as I know, there are zero cameras that are:

    1. full-frame 
    2. DPAF or equivalent autofocus
    3. IBIS
    4. internal 4K 10-bit 422
    5. 16ms rolling shutter

    All of those will be unprecedentedly available in a $2500 R6?

  • Create New...