Jump to content

Australian Image (Ray)

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Australian Image (Ray) last won the day on January 13

Australian Image (Ray) had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I came here to gather knowledge. Asking questions, positing ideas, challenging views is how one gains knowledge. Simply accepting what doesn't sound right is not gaining knowledge, it's just succumbing to group think. I'm not trying to insult you, but neither are you trying to see my point of view. I have differing views and differing perspectives, but clearly that's not acceptable, so I bid you all adieu. 'So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish'
  2. You asked: 'Why don’t we see more ENG/EFP form factor digital cinema cameras?' Yet you're not prepared to discuss potential reasons put forward by readers. Maybe those reasons put forward are why you don't see digital cameras in such form-factors. But if you already know the answer to your question, why ask it? This has been like putting forward ideas at an Old Boy's Club, with the typical close-minded views that are all too common in Old Boy's Clubs. Is this forum an Old Boy's Club, where certain people just have to shut up and listen to their so-called elders? Then better to just let the Old Boys get old and retire while they reminisce about the good old days and their 'real' cameras and now broken bodies.
  3. Don't give up, just debate what I said in my first post. Don't get wrapped around the axles over my second post (even though it's mostly true in practical terms). Why don’t we see more ENG/EFP form factor digital cinema cameras? Because the market doesn't want them. Pick your reasons why the market doesn't want them, but if they were likely to be popular, they would be available. Even in this thread people ostensibly agree with what I have said, yet I seem to be the target of ongoing vitriol.
  4. I never said I'd used ENG cameras, my reference to stills cameras was in response to your assumption that I know nothing about how camera weight assists in stability. The physics apply in stills photography as they do in video. I'm not digging a hole, you are lobbing grenades, being obnoxious and making personal attacks. Had you responded in a more affable manner, debating my points, rather than calling me ignorant, I would have done so in return. But since you decided to go on the attack, I returned fire. You can continue the attacks and I will continue to return fire, make no mistake about that. I am not one to back down simply because one person insists that I do so. The comments that I made at the beginning still stand and no one has yet provided any evidence to refute them.
  5. I think you may be of the mind set where 'this is the way we've always done it' and therefore nothing else will be considered. The times they are a changing. It's not simply cost, but that's a major factor whether you're an independent or a company. Why is the RED Komodo so popular one may ponder? Cost, form-factor, size, weight, functionality, options available, accessories available etc. You appear to assume a lot from what I've said regarding my knowledge of camera gear. When it comes to stills photography, I've shot with every conceivable camera type from large format to very small point and shoot cameras. So I have a pretty good idea of what size and weight means when it comes to hand holding a camera and keeping things steady. My current run & gun rig weighs 4.1kg, something that many baulk at as being way too heavy, and I stick that on my Crane 3s which brings the total weight up to 8.3kg. My earlier rig weight 9.1kg on it's own. 4.1kg is just about right. Try placing your ENG camera from your shoulder onto a gimbal, then a slider or maybe a car rig. I think that you'll find the versatility I spoke of isn't so applicable to the photo I posted. And you are using that old argument from authority basis: I think that you are wrong. And why don’t we see more ENG/EFP form factor digital cinema cameras? Because the manufacturers are right. And in case you don't think I have any idea about cinema cameras etc, here's my latest and most favourite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC_boIGYPY8.
  6. You only fixated on my second comment about shoulder use, not my first comment that covered more important issues. If I'm empirically wrong, then 'Why don’t we see more ENG/EFP form factor digital cinema cameras?' I guess all the comments in the article itself, where they more or less reflect what I've noted, are empirically wrong as well. This photo already tells the vast majority of people that ENG cameras are not for them, for the reasons I stated: Yes, I'm well aware that you can do waist level shots, low level shots, over the head 'Hail Mary' shots etc with an ENG camera, but how many buy one with all of that in mind? Perhaps these people are also empirically wrong? And one should never dismiss an outside point of view; sometimes these can highlight the obvious that is often missed.
  7. Someone opened the box. I'm not a trained mechanic, nor a trained IT specialist, nor a trained chef, nor a trained metal worker, nor a trained carpenter (to list a few things). However, I've worked in all of those fields (for want of a better word) and have experience in cars, IT, cooking, metal working, carpentry. I'm a professionally trained photographer. I've worked in the news media. I'm now very interested in documentary video and so have looked into every nook and cranny available learning about the field. I think there's a vast difference between someone who has hands on skills in any profession/trade, or an amateur with intense interest, making comment on something closely or directly related to those skills, to someone who has never laid a hand or had any interest in such things. For example, are you one to deny some of the most surprising astronomical discoveries, made by amateur astronomers, because they weren't professionals in their field? You don't always have to be a trained professional in any field to make valid observational comment about aspects of that field. More often than not, experts become so narrow-minded, lost in a bubble, that they can no longer see beyond what they believe to be their world and their truths. Call me the small boy who cried out... "But the Emperor has no clothes!" I just wanted to add. I have a friend who is the general manager of a helicopter company and while he doesn't have a pilot license, he can tell you just about anything about 'the attributes or short comings of various models'.
  8. Experience comes for observation. It's what I've observed. When the only thing that you see and hear about ENG cameras is shoulder mount applications, what other deduction is one to make? I recently read this comment: In fact, the entire article is about shoulder mounting. If these cameras are so versatile in all manner of applications, why isn't this more broadly discussed? Not just in one article, but everywhere? Perhaps buyers and manufacturers are also of the opinion that ENG 'style' cameras are purely for shoulder mount applications, given that it's the only application that's ever discussed, and examples of other uses are hard to find. I shall now get back in my box, close the lid, and hope that 2021 is a better year than the last.
  9. It was an observation that I've made from what I've seen over many years in predominantly outdoor situations. That said, every discussion that I've seen/read about ENG cameras vs 'the others' revolves around the comfort, ease of use, whatever, of being able to hold it on one's the shoulder for long hours and be able to use the exceptional EVFs. ENG cameras are designed to be predominantly shoulder mounted, me thought. What is one to assume when you see, read and hear nothing different? How about some examples of the versatility of an ENG camera shown in the article, compared to the others? I've actually shown how versatile one of my run & gun rigs is when it comes to all manner of shooting options. I doubt very much that any ENG camera could compete. As a footnote, I just came back from a week's camping in our High Country. It's not 'high' in comparison to what to what you get in say NZ, Europe or the US, but the term arose from the English settlers as they explored the land. Anyway, I took my rig along, with a Crane 3s gimbal, and I'd love to see a typical ENG camera, as depicted in the article, on such trips.
  10. Fair enough. I haven't ever seen anyone using an ENG camera use it in any other position than the shoulder. Mind you, I've only ever seen them outdoors or on TV news.
  11. I should also have added that ENG cameras are really only for shoulder use, you get one and one perspective only, everything at eye level, unless you crouch. Other styles of cinema/video cameras allow greater variability with greater ease, up high, mid-level, low all in one smooth movement. The versatility and ease of movement leave an ENG camera well behind. Not saying it can't be done, but it's no where near as easy.
  12. The digital video market is huge and seemingly still growing while the stills side has plateaued or is in decline, thanks to mobile phones. To that end, I think people want more versatile video gear, an ENG style camera is more of a single use tool. Many want cameras that you can easily move from the shoulder to hand held, to gimbal, to tripod, to slider etc. I'm not sure that an ENG camera is suited to these sorts of options. They are after something versatile, a Jack of all trades so to speak. The price of ENG cameras is another factor, you're selling these to a diminishing market. You can't start off with an inexpensive body and a few components and start videoing, you need the whole enchilada from the very start. Not many can afford such luxuries. Plus, where people are tending to shoot ie the biggest market for video cameras, an ENG camera will stand out like a nudist at a tailors convention. There's absolutely no chance of being discrete.
  13. I have two Wireless GOs and have never had any cut-outs.
  14. But when you attach the battery adapter (sled as they call it), which is rarely noted in the advertising blurbs, the height increases appreciably and could affect its attachment ability. I also came across reviews where the owners recommended getting a second NP-F sled, as this was a weak point and could easily break. Compare that to the Zoom that can take AAs internally, NP-F batteries natively and use USB-C power.
  15. When I compared the measurements, I found that the Zoom F6 was more compact. While the MixPre3 is flatter, it's much wider and when you add the battery adapter, it becomes deeper and higher than the Zoom F6 (depending on battery size). MixPre3: 144 W x 36 H x 110 D mm (without battery) Zoom F6: 100 W x 50 H x 119.8 D mm (without battery or top plate) Then when you want to add XLR cables, it becomes significantly wider. Plus I didn't care for the microscopic touch screen, I'm much happier with the archaic four buttons.
  • Create New...