Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Epic next to a F65 at NAB

Mark Toia

Mark Toia

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Could be anywhere in the world today.
I forgot about this, when I was at NAB I dropped into the Angenieux box... and their was the EPIC and F65 side by side.
Was quite a sight to see two equal cameras (spec wise) side by side like that. That was when it really dawned on me as how small the Epic really is.
Also both cameras had the same monitor on them, pictures looked identical.
I must say though, that the view finder on the Sony was very average.. like a 10 year old digit beta cam thing?? .. with very large pixels inside of it.

Angenieux lens rock ! I love there ZOOMS..

red-f65_nab.jpg
 
Haha, oh the memories of that room. I somehow formed a mini REDuser meetup as we stood zooming in and out on the Epic, mentioning again and again how tiny the Epic is compared to the lens, and the f65.
 
God that F65 is huge!

I got so spoiled by Epic/Scarlet small size and the fact that I can carry a camera, 12 Redvolts (enough for 6 hours of continuous operation), 512GB of media, a monitor and a couple of lenses with me in an average photo backpack.
 
What's that wart on the end of the Angie zoom?

Oh...

Mike
 
Demetri Zuev said:
God that F65 is huge!
.
Click to expand...

I think you're looking at that the wrong way. The F65 is about the same size, or even a bit smaller, than almost every popular motion picture camera of the last 20 years. That makes it a familiar size and weight for a lot of cinematographers who have worked on film for years, and not that much different than the Alexa.

The "correct" statement, to me, would be "god, that Epic is tiny!".
 
1. The specs are in NO way the same.

2. Take a picture with the Epic in front next time and it will look HUGE too.

Cummon, REALLY?
 
The minute you go handheld it all becomes very clear - size matters!!!
 
from what i've heard from operators, they actually find the balance on the f65 for handheld very good. the center of gravity is excellent, i've seen it just hands free on the shoulder standing still with no need for counter balance. however, the fatigue does start a lot faster than compared to the epic.

generally the people I've talked to who complain about the size of the f65 are really nitty gritty shooters. grab shots fast. throw it on the shoulder quick get going types. and people who don't mind the f65 size tend to have their cameras on a fisher and crane all day.

but it really does make you appreciate how high tech the epic really is. being able to cram so much in such a small package. mute point for guys like me though, only time I ever touch the camera is to grab a mag or press a few buttons when the ac is too busy :)
 
If you are going to balance a camera on your shoulder as opposed to hold it out at arm's length, then the weight isn't so bad with any of these cameras -- a fully-loaded F65 + SR-R4 recorder, etc. is close to 20 lbs, which is maybe only five pounds more than an ENG news camera. As Mike says, what's amazing is how tiny the Epic is, the other cameras are more typical in size & weight. Of course, if I had to carry one in a backpack up a mountain, I can tell you which one I'd prefer... But on a movie set doing the occasional handheld sequence with a shoulder rig, the bigger cameras aren't so bad, especially compared to a 35mm camera with a 1000' mag on it, which is 5 lbs for the film alone.
 
Let's revisit that equation in a few months with the Dragon upgrade.

Something tells me the Epic won't be gaining 4 pounds in that process.

And if we're including a side handle in the equation, does the F65 @ 11lbs include the SR-R4 recorder (you know, so you can record 4K) or any power source?

One way or another, both are fantastic cameras... but an Epic can go some places an F65 cannot.
 
If you want to do some quick trolling against the F65 you could at least learn to spell Angenieux. I have checked both Epic and F65 and I would not say in any way that Epic is an ergonomic winner. And definitively not so regarding IQ.
 
I have my grammar police hat on today. And seeing as George has already pointed out the spelling of Angenieux, I'll take the rest.

Mark Toia said:
Was quite a site to see two equal cameras
Click to expand...
Sight.

Mark Toia said:
very large pixels in side of it.
Click to expand...
Inside.

Mark Toia said:
Argenuex lens rock ! I love there ZOOMS..
Click to expand...
Their.

Tom.Wong said:
mute point for guys like me though
Click to expand...
Moot.

Okay, move along, people, nothing to see here.

As for the cameras... the F65's image quality is not in doubt. But why such a big camera? If I want to shoot film I'll put up with a big camera. But if I'm shooting digital then why do I want the weight and size legacy? In the past, tradesmen liked bigger mobile phones because others could more easily notice that they could afford them. Now, nobody thinks that a big mobile phone is a good idea. Not even for fun.
 
Well, its easier to add weight than to remove it. The Epic is modular to the point, with the clutch, the gunner or any other third party rig, to be very ergonomic for shoulder style handheld. But at the same time, it can easily just go bare bones with the outrigger handle, top LCD, side handle and side SDD and be recording run and gun handheld at a very lightweight. I can mount the Epic with redvolts on my Glidecam 4000/ Smooth Shooter combo, which I certainly cannot with the F65, for example. Of course not with that angenieux lens, but with small lightweight lenses I can get away with it. And lets not forget 3D. Many High end productions Are going Epic because of that tiny form factor, which, when you count two bodies and two lenses for one handheld rig, counts a lot (One of the reasons The Amazing Spiderman went for it, reportedly)

And as for image quality, The Amazing Spiderman, Prometheus, The Muppets, Pirates 4, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc. etc. have proven the system more than enough, don't you think? Even if the Sony F65 has a better image (newer sensor technology, after all), the Epic has proven itself more than enough for the Biggest industry pictures out there. The next step has to be achieving IMAX quality pictures that convinces even Nolan. That is for the next generation of sensors, beyond the current Epic one and the F65 one!
 
Is the F65 really particularly bigger/heavier than the R1.... Did anyone here have a problem with that camera?

Epic is perfect for 3D (a master stroke by RED).... But in most situations, the F65's size wont make the slightest difference when choosing the best camera for the job.
 
George Chiper said:
If you want to do some quick trolling against the F65 you could at least learn to spell Angenieux. I have checked both Epic and F65 and I would not say in any way that Epic is an ergonomic winner. And definitively not so regarding IQ.
Click to expand...


hahahaha... Some of you guys make me laugh. :)
 
oh my... Yes I should look back at what I have just typed and check my spelling. That's what you get for typing on an iphone in an airport lounge half asleep.
Sorry Mr perfect.... and who are you. ? Thought as much.


Karim D. Ghantous said:
I have my grammar police hat on today. And seeing as George has already pointed out the spelling of Angenieux, I'll take the rest.


Sight.

Inside.

Their.

Moot.

Okay, move along, people, nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top