Canon will be announcing a new Cinema EOS camera ahead of NAB in April

[Kisaha]

5 hours ago, currensheldon said:

Yes, but in most fast-paced environments or observational documentary, an 11-20 is not a good range. And 36-105mm f4 equivalent isn't really either. And you often don't have a chance to change lenses. That's what is frustrating with Super35 on most cinema cameras. For set-up shoots, music videos, narrative ,etc - no big deal. But for fast-paced stuff, the lens options are pretty frustrating.

Fuji is the only maker with a great range, but they don't make a dedicated video camera. Sony's range is OK (better with the 16-55mm f2.8, but NO stabilization?!), but not a fan of Sony's image. 

Oh well. 

What you say, doesn't make any sense.

There are amazing S35 cinema and/or documentary lenses.

They didn't start making movies and documentaries a couple weeks ago, you know.

You are reffering mostly to photo lenses, which is the wrong way thinking about it, really,

but if you want to use photo lenses to shoot video, stop complaining and choose among hundrends of options like the rest of the world.

If you want to go dead cheap and still shopping for cine zooms, there are the 2 Fujinon lenses 18-55 and 50-15- T2.9 and the 18-80/70-200 CNE Canon lenses, as well the Sony 18-110mm

[IronFilm]

On 2/29/2020 at 11:21 AM, barefoot_dp said:

Sticks don't give you the freedom of movement. It's a totally different look and feel.

Shoulder mount doesn't give you enough height variation.

Steadycam is for specific shots and not good for run-n-gun.

There's a lot more than "some (very specific)" situations where they work. They're usually the go-to default tool for DP's getting the handheld look. I don't think I've done a single shoot on Arri or Red where the DP didn't use an Easyrig. You might not be a fan of them, and that's ok, but that doesn't mean that they aren't one of the most widely used tools on film sets worldwide.

https://www.local695.com/magazine/using-an-exoskeleton/

That article was a good read, and repeats my point, that Easyrigs are very very commonly seen on film sets. 

[zerocool22]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

https://www.local695.com/magazine/using-an-exoskeleton/

That article was a good read, and repeats my point, that Easyrigs are very very commonly seen on film sets. 

true even alexa mini's are HEAVY. So a easyrig is handy but for these smaller cinema camera's with photography lenses it is a overkill. It also limits your height while shooting or at least the ones I used (for shooting a low angle and high angle fast for event kinda shootings). 

[TomTheDP]

Was just working on a doc for one of the big 3 motor companies in Detroit. The most utilized setup was two easy rigs shooting from hip height. Working with two Alexa minis. From my experience they’ve been very common place on set. I would think they are rarely used for traditional Hollywood narrative films or high end commercials.

[TomTheDP]

1 hour ago, zerocool22 said:

true even alexa mini's are HEAVY. So a easyrig is handy but for these smaller cinema camera's with photography lenses it is a overkill. It also limits your height while shooting or at least the ones I used (for shooting a low angle and high angle fast for event kinda shootings). 

It really helps if it’s a long day of shooting. 

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

true even alexa mini's are HEAVY. So a easyrig is handy but for these smaller cinema camera's with photography lenses it is a overkill. It also limits your height while shooting or at least the ones I used (for shooting a low angle and high angle fast for event kinda shootings). 

But even say a lightweight Fuji X-T3 / P4K / GH5 / etc, once you add a mattebox, SmallHD 702, timecode box, wireless transmitter, and a v lock to run it all, then you're up in weight to a few kilos. Yes, much much lighter than an ARRI rig, but still, worth using an easyrig for.

[kye]

I love it when people claim to speak on behalf of an entire world-wide industry, but let's introduce some science...

Here is the table of required sample size to give a certain margin of error.  

Ignore the blue box, someone else put that there.  We want to look at the bottom left corner - to get a 95% confidence we're within 5% of what we say, we need to have 384 samples.

So, for those saying easyrigs are common, please provide photographic evidence of 384 films using an easyrig.  For those saying they're not common, please provide a time-lapse video for 384 productions showing the DoP over the full shoot schedule not using an easyrig.

I look forward to your responses.

On a separate note, I'm thinking of buying a new Canon cinema camera to replace my GH5 for my families home videos which I shoot handheld and I was wondering if it will have IBIS or if I will need to buy an easyrig.  Thanks.

[IronFilm]

Nope, you're wrong. 

I am NOT saying that "I am 95% confident that 20% of filming world wide with budgets over $25K use easyrigs". 

Am just merely saying that easyrigs "are common" on professional sets, that's a very loose statement with a wiiiide error margin. 

Would you require the same level of high standard of proof if I was to say "it is common for drop in ND filters to be used on professional shoots"? I'd hope not! And that we can instead all agree it is true.