Jump to content

David Peterson

Basic Member
  • Posts

    416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by David Peterson

  1. Are they different lavs on each?

    Are there settings to adjust the gain on the wireless packs themselves?

    Still, Saramonic is waaaay below the minimum bottom threshold for even merely semi professional work, thus zero surprise if they've got inconsistent quality control going on with their products. 

  2. 12 minutes ago, Peter Olejnik said:

    It looks like Benro has reasonably priced tripods with 100mm. I'd be curious if anyone's ever used their fluid heads -- it'd be great if you can swap-out the sticks with a Flowtech. 

    You should be able to. 

    I've paired a Vivten fluid head with a 100mm bowl with cametv tripod legs. 

    • Like 1
  3. 25 minutes ago, Max Field said:

    My Manfrotto 526 head holds my Alexa and other ENG cameras pretty well. It doesn't feel bullet proof but it hasn't really caused me any problems when adjusting angle.

    Doesn't that prove the point in this thread? 

    It's a 100mm Fluid Head, not a 75mm head. 

  4. 37 minutes ago, Peter Olejnik said:

    I've filmed with an Sachtler FS8 using a Panasonic HPX3000, Fujinon lenses, and Anton batteries, it was a little bit of a pain to keep balanced at times, but overall it worked.  Other than balancing, I am not sure what else would be the issue -- perhaps stripping the fluid head overtime? 

    I quickly googled that Panasonic, from the specs it looks like it is a lot lighter than an ARRI Alexa Classic. (the bare bones 

    Thus have a think, if you found that lightweight camera to be "a bit of a pain", imagine how bad life would be with an even heavier build on the FS8 tripod? 

    I too strongly recommend you get at least a 100mm bowl tripod head. 

    You're going to find life is in general harder to shoot with an Alexa & a micro crew, vs using a HPX3000 & micro crew, thus why make your life even tougher by using a tripod which isn't up to the task?

  5. On 6/9/2010 at 6:44 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

    Even though they're dirt cheap for a Cine lens, you really get what you pay for. If you need a zoom I'd recommend hiring an older Angenieux every time.

      

    On 3/4/2010 at 6:41 PM, Josh Fritts said:

    I have used the 18mm-85mm a couple times, but never on any projects of substantial importance. It blooms terribly in the highlights or around bright objects. I would put your money toward an older Angineux zoom that has been taken care off. You will be much more pleased.

     

    Sorry for reviving an super ancient old thread, zombies!

    But didn't want to create a whole new thread just to ask further about people's thoughts of the RED zooms vs old Angenieux zooms of a comparable price?

    I thought the RED 18-85 was a monster, but next to the Angenieux 17-102 T2.9 it almost looks small! Hmmm
     

    1290008293_Angenieux17-102.jpg.25b7c736d5d03fcec08b9d4aea1aad55.jpg

    Of course we've also got new modern competition now with the OOOM 25-100mm T2.9!

    Or the DZOFILM Pictor 20-55mm T2.8, but the range of that is so small, now you're looking at two zooms. 
    Or the Tokina 25-75mm T2.9, but again, lacking a little on the wide and the tele end. 

     

  6. 7 hours ago, Mei Lewis said:

    I’m in the UK but I assumed electricity is mostly the same around the world. 

    Yes, but no. 

    The Laws of Physics remain true wherever you are in the galaxy!

    But:
    1) rules and regulations change significantly from country to country (or state to state, or even city to city in some instances)
    2) amps and voltages (& KHz too) varies around the world (for the average household), which may impact your calculations. 
    (for instance, most homes in the U.S. are wired with 15-amp 120-volt 60KHz outputs, while here in NZ they'd be 10A 230V 50KHz outlets)

  7. 12 hours ago, Tomasz Brodecki said:

    Those are apples and oranges, there are separate uses for small cameras (with their portability/low mass/usefulness in tight spaces) and large cameras (with complete control laid out on the body, multiple robust connectors, efficient cooling, displays, battery life etc.).

    Am talking about the context of a freelance camera op / DP (or small production house) which is buying their main #1 camera. I think such a person should always go for the likes of a FS7/C300mk2/FX6 over an a7Smk3/S1H, and cost really isn't a good excuse here. 

    Yes, having an additional secondary small B Cam is useful too. (but they could often get away with say a cheaper P4K/S5/G9/a6600/etc instead of an expensive a7Smk3/S1H)

      

    12 hours ago, Tomasz Brodecki said:

    Because they don't make a single product from the latter category above, so there is nothing to advance to and maintain compatibility, unlike what you can do with Sony (E) and Canon (EF) systems. And as for Z-mount lenses, you can't use them on cinema cameras (unlike F-mount lenses), because of the 16mm flange-focal-distance.

    I do agree, Nikon missed the boat here by not releasing their take on the C100mk1/C300mk1 way back all those years ago. That was a mistake by Nikon. 

    Maybe they will release a "Nikon C70" with Z Mount? Doubt it, won't hold my breath. But it would be the smart thing for them to do. 

  8. 5 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

    It seems to me that you’re talking about lost opportunity costs - whether you could have made more net income by not buying gear that you didn’t use? I think that’s more of a business strategy discussion, rather than a simple accounting discussion. 

    Yup, always considering the opportunity cost. I think it is a basic economics concept everyone should be aware of! (or maybe I'm just an economics nerd)
    Not just financial opportunity costs, such as the cost of buying a cup of coffee vs buying a newspaper, but also the opportunity costs of time: the opportunity cost of going to the beach vs going to the gym. (or the opportunity costs of posting to a forum vs writing up a year end newsletter... oops!)

    Which is why you need to always not just look at the costs/benefits of a purchase, but also the costs/benefits of not doing it. 

     

    4 hours ago, Bruce Greene said:

    I also invested in an early digital cinema camera system that was quite expensive and only returned about 25% in rentals. But owning the equipment taught me much about digital acquisition and helped me make a couple key relationships which enabled me to transition from operator to DP.

    Yes, that is what makes it so tricky to do the economic calculations for your next gear purchase!
    As sometimes you need to calculate the second or third order benefits of ownership. (first order benefits being the direct rentals you get from owning it)

    For instance I own far more sound gear than I "should" for my current stage I'm at, doesn't make "logical" sense (I'm a tech nerd so I'm definitely a sucker for buying more than I need). But on the flip side, it's opened doors to do for instance a tv series that I'd never have had the chance to otherwise because I was literally the production's only option! Was an opportunity for me to leap frog my career ahead by a few years, and gain a massive learning experience.  

    But then again, if I wasn't someone who lived extremely frugally , operating off the smell of an oily rag when it comes to my own personal expenses, then someone else in my shoes should never ever have invested this much into gear! As they'd be too heavily in debt to service those debt levels. (I'm almost debt free, aside from mostly some interest free student loans)

    Plus I am an extreme bargain hunter, thus if my sound gear takes five or even seven years plus to "pay itself off" then that is ok. I've got them at such fantastic prices secondhand, I'm not going to be losing heaps of value in just the next couple of years from depreciation that has to be recouped. Unlike if someone was say making a brand new Sony FX9 / RED Gemini / ARRI Mini LF / etc purchase, which depreciate in value very very fast. 

     

  9. On 12/17/2020 at 8:39 AM, Satsuki Murashige said:

    I disagree with this analysis - you pay off individual pieces of equipment based on their rental day rate. Assuming that you've factored that cost into your total day rate as an owner operator, the FS7 was paid off in the 33 days worked.

    If only a small percentage of the jobs needed the FS7, the you could have avoided buying it, and made pure profit on the rental of your paid off C300mk1, and only spent the money on renting the FS7 for those three days which you needed it. (which is a far lower cost/risk than buying outright an entire FS7)

    If you disagree with this assessment, what if it had been only one day out of the 33 that the an FS7 was needed? Or even zero days?

    There is a tipping point somewhere along there, which will vary from person to person and from one piece of equipment to another, and will depend on when in the life cycle you're buying in, and will depend on a dozen other factors too.

  10. On 12/22/2020 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Alexander Skwarna said:

    One thing I will ask is that any advice offered work with the stuff I have right now as I can't afford to add more gear.

    Although you can't immediately do this, you definitely should in the near term ditch that Zoom H4n and throw it out. As even today's semi pro field recorders are extremely good value for money, and would give you a huge leap forward in terms of functionality and quality. 

    I mean prosumer recorders such as: Zoom F8n/F8/F4/F6, or the MixPre series of field recorders. 

  11. 33 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

    and that switch over happened in less than 2 years .. I know.. I had both, a PMW500 and an f5.. first it was corporates all going s35 and within a year every single broadcast tv show except for sports / breaking news .. I had the PMW500 less than a year and it was a door stop ..

    However the jump to S35 was a big big improvement that even a causal viewer / producer / director could see. 

    But in the move from S35 to LF to beyond, those are much smaller leaps, relatively speaking compared to the leaps from small chipped ENG cameras to S35 cinema cameras. 

    This is also why the change over from 4K to 8K will happen much much slower  than the move from SD to HD, or HD to 4K. 

    Because we're hitting diminishing returns when it comes to leaps up in resolution. 

  12. There is a *HUUUUGE* shortage of production grade cinema lenses for FF35, it would be impossible for every film and tv series to swap over to that in 2021. 

    Like I said, S35 will remain an industry standard for both the short and medium term. Will take a while for FF35 to take over (if it ever does? Am a bit skeptical, I feel S35 is a sweet point for size / DoF. Going bigger & heavier than S35, as you're constrained by the laws of physics when it comes to the optics of lenses, brings a fair few downsides to productions. And S35 can already go very shallow for DoF, going too much further beyond that makes life difficult for the 1st AC and for the viewer when everything in the scene is out of focus. And if you're stopping down FF35 to match, then you're losing any of the low light benefits).

  13. On 12/17/2020 at 9:22 AM, Tomasz Brodecki said:

    I'll keep my eye out for that and, let me reiterate, I only recommend Nikon hardware to long-time Nikon owners, since as motion picture equipment, this product line is a dead end.

    Why??? Nikon is committed to Nikon Z Mount, they've got as good odds or better as anybody else for still being around for decades to come. And I feel that Nikon is one of the class leaders here when it comes to sub $2K mirrorless for filmmakers. And if you're a hybrid content creator, then Nikon is top notch for stills too. 

  14. On 12/17/2020 at 5:57 AM, Tomasz Brodecki said:

    α7s III is definitely the mirrorless camera to grab now if video is your main priority.

    However the a7s mk3 (and Panasonic S1H) is one of the most expensive mirrorless there are. 

    One of the main points of mirrorless is to save on costs. 

    At the price point of the a7Smk3/S1H you start to ask yourself, why not just go all in and get a cinema camera rather than a mirrorless? If you're a professional, the extra cost per shoot is extremely minimal after all. 

  15. On 12/22/2020 at 8:34 AM, M Joel W said:

    Thanks, Brian. Any recommendations? I see the Sigma fp is being touted as a directors finder but my needs are actually pretty primitive. I just want something small I can walk around with that shows framing.

    I came to this thread to say exactly this, mentioning a Sigma fp!
    It is already super ultra compact as a camera. 

    But if you don't care about mounting a lens on it, and just want the smallest possible, why not just use your phone with an app?

  16. On 12/11/2020 at 4:07 AM, Miguel Angel Calderon said:

    I don't know how fair is this thinking since I obviously use that camera outside of jobs/projects for tests, learning a bit more, just playing and having fun, etc.

    That's one way to look at it, that purely considering only the rental costs would be an underestimation. Because that doesn't fully capture the value you gain from owning one yourself, and thus knowing it inside and out. 

    But also a counter argument could be made that you're overvaluing the estimate because how many of those jobs could have been done with cheaper gear? (or even entirely without) But you just took along what you've got, even though it is fancier, because it is "what you have". 

    For instance, consider a person who upgraded from a C300mk1 to a Sony FS7, and in their first year did 33 days of work (@ 3%) with the FS7, does that mean they've "paid off" the FS7 in just one year? No, not at all, not if 30 of those 33 jobs could have still been done with their C300mk1!

×
×
  • Create New...