Jump to content
Matthew Allard ACS

Why don’t we see more ENG/EFP form factor digital cinema cameras?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Matthew Allard ACS said:

You can't comment on something you have never used and had zero experience with. The End.

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Australian Image (Ray) said:

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.

No offense but you are sounding like one of those people who just likes to endlessly complain about everything on forums. If you really think this is some sort of old boys club then why are you here? 
 

Feel free to continue to insult me and this site. I have better things to do with my time than go back and forward with you. 
 

It takes a lot of time and effort to keep this site running in my spare time. I have no time for people who just want to endlessly complain about things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Australian Image (Ray) said:

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.

what !! you are now contradicting yourself .. my first post was not rude at all .. !! or any of them .. go back and look at it .. you have just taken criticism very personally .. you made a bold claim that was totally wrong .. you didn't couch it in terms of your opinion but as fact , based on ..drum roll.. crews you has seen in the street and on TV ... your is the attitude thats odd.. you just cant accept you were wrong and insist on fighting this losing battle ..  why are you on the forum if you cant take anything other than what you say .. all your posts are like this ..  

 

":The comments that I made at the beginning still stand and no one has yet provided any evidence to refute them."   this pretty much sums you up .. your comment was not correct , alot of actual professionals told you ,and even provided photographic evidence ..  need to look hard in the mirror mate ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see a distinct lack of responses to Ray which are other than "you're wrong".

Think we'd both like to see better explanations as to "why" he is wrong, so we can learn from that reasoning. 

Ray gave his side of the argument, explaining why he thinks ENG style cameras are not so popular now, where are the rebuttals? (other than highlighting that yes, ENG cameras can be used elsewhere, however Ray isn't wrong that the likes of say a Komodo could be more easily used for a greater diverse range of shooting styles than an ENG camera could be. Which would you rather put on a gimbal, or a car rig, or a drone, or squeeze into a tight shot for a PoV looking out of a fridge, etc?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speak for the market that I work in which is primarily Los Angeles but do shoot docs around the world. Apart from the cost reasons that I explained earlier, I truly believe the main reason we don’t see more cameras in this form factor is physical size. There is a whole generation of documentary operators that have never used a camera in that style.....many don’t use viewfinders....just onboard monitors...everyone wants small so the camera is more versatile. A camera like an FX9 can be made to be quite small for a gimbal and not much larger for a shoulder handheld configuration. That’s what the majority want. If there was a demand for larger form cameras there are plenty of manufacturers to make one. Sony make a very high quality 4k camera albeit a 2/3” sensor but it only really gets work on reality shows and news gathering. Personally I want a smaller camera setup to get it into tighter spaces and also so I don’t get as fatigued. I spent thirty years with EFP form factor cameras...I welcome the smaller rigs!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kris Denton said:

I can only speak for the market that I work in which is primarily Los Angeles but do shoot docs around the world. Apart from the cost reasons that I explained earlier, I truly believe the main reason we don’t see more cameras in this form factor is physical size. There is a whole generation of documentary operators that have never used a camera in that style.....many don’t use viewfinders....just onboard monitors...everyone wants small so the camera is more versatile. A camera like an FX9 can be made to be quite small for a gimbal and not much larger for a shoulder handheld configuration. That’s what the majority want. If there was a demand for larger form cameras there are plenty of manufacturers to make one. Sony make a very high quality 4k camera albeit a 2/3” sensor but it only really gets work on reality shows and news gathering. Personally I want a smaller camera setup to get it into tighter spaces and also so I don’t get as fatigued. I spent thirty years with EFP form factor cameras...I welcome the smaller rigs!

I guess I don't actually class a camera like the fx9 as a small camera .. its bigger than the f5/55 and very easily made into an "ENG" style camera .. its even has manual control of all 4 audio  channels on the camera body !!.. and can also be made ":smaller " its the sort of Goldilocks size really .. my point about the small box cameras and the fx6.. sure its all light weight and small , but for doc work you really need to be able to handhold on your shoulder ,there is just no two ways about .. holding those small cameras out in front of you at eye height is really going to kill you back (and career) very fast ,seems great for the first 5 minutes but then its not !.. which is why we have all those up the nose shots as its the only way to hold the damn thing for any length of time..  (every single fx6 promo video) ..so actually they are much harder to work with than a larger camera ,on anything but a tripod ,also they are much more unsteady handheld prone to jitters because you don't have the inertia off something heavier .. there is a point of diminishing returns .. its like.. oh look at this great really small light weight parachute , we don't  have to carry that big back pack around .. till you jump out of the plane and find its useless  🙂 .. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Peterson said:

I do see a distinct lack of responses to Ray which are other than "you're wrong".

Think we'd both like to see better explanations as to "why" he is wrong, so we can learn from that reasoning. 

Ray gave his side of the argument, explaining why he thinks ENG style cameras are not so popular now, where are the rebuttals? (other than highlighting that yes, ENG cameras can be used elsewhere, however Ray isn't wrong that the likes of say a Komodo could be more easily used for a greater diverse range of shooting styles than an ENG camera could be. Which would you rather put on a gimbal, or a car rig, or a drone, or squeeze into a tight shot for a PoV looking out of a fridge, etc?)

 

I think it was addressed in that Ray said ENG cameras were very restrictive, in that you could only use them on your shoulder and so could only ever shoot "one perspective"  .. which was a little strange having never used these cameras himself .. a few of us gave a very detailed explanation as to  why this was totally a "wrong" statement..  you didn't read that ..?  I also added that small cameras are not always convenient/easy to use, based solely on their small size and weight , as you have to hold them out in front of you for eye level shots, which kills your back , or shoot everything low, up peoples noses with sky as the background which invariably happens (as noted in another post ,all the fx6 promo videos ) ,and so the small size / weight ,thats sounds good is actually harder to work with than a larger camera  .. for gimbal , car mount etc ,you can use larger cameras you just need larger equipment .. if you need to use one handed / small gimbals ,tight areas ,you use another camera .. its always been thus .. all this has been said no ?.. but regardless Ray says he's not convinced and no one has "proved" him wrong ,a slightly combative and odd stance for someone purporting to be on the forum to learn..  I fear not being right is a concept Ray its not ready to entertain in any situation 

Thinking that one camera can be used for everything ,is just going to give you a camera thats a compromise in every situation ..    

Edited by Robin Probyn
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • New Posts

    • Yeah its an interview / general lighting style I like and learnt ,as an assistant , from a guy who has now been Oscar nominated .. Barry Ackroyd BSC..  less is more as he says .. Europe has embraced this more natural style alot earlier than the US.. I would often get some push back from US directors who wanted back lights, fill lights,  hair lights , eye lights and lights under the chin..  !!  everywhere .. and it seems when I look at the forums on line ,the US still is generally using so many lights for a simple HS shot .. but the more "natural" look has at last taken off as it seems every Netflix doc is now done like this ..  with the larger sensor ,I have fx9 and shoot FF , interviews F1.8 or 2.8 ish .. there is often no longer any need to light up the BG much either ..
    • Gotcha.  Yeah, the V1 PSU/Ballast set-up is super janky. You sound like a man after my own heart.  I've always been a "no-fill" guy.  I like shadows in the right places.  One of the long running, very popular doc series I used to shoot for was a single light on the subject.  No hair or edge and no fill.  Just the key.  But we lit the HELL out of the background.  I can just imagine if we were shooting that same series today, instead of ~20+ years ago.
    • Actually I helped Matt with the review, so I have seen it and set up the light etc ,and seen how it looks in an interview situation .. I didn't ever use the v1 but the separate ,velcro AC unit was definitely a turn off when I was looking at these type of lights .. so the all in one unit is a big plus ,and I see the new Falcon Eye 2x2 the AC is still separate .. and I guess having the rivets is some peace of mind of even if the velcro gets old you can still use the light .. and that it fits into this tiny box with all the accessories is the dream for me .. even with the big Astra box , I only ever use one light for interviews .. and no fill , in fact I always use neg fill now too.. this light / fx9 FF 6K mode / f1.8 Sony primes .. Im cooking with gas as far as minimum gear lugging and great looking interviews ..well IMHO anyway !... less is more !
    • Let us know how you like them.  I have two of the originals and I'm thinking it MAY almost be worth getting rid of(selling) them to be able to get two of the new ones, just for the new one-piece compact ballast/controller and new quick connect cables.
×
×
  • Create New...