« Random Excellence: Giles Duley's Greek Statue Self-Portrait | Main | Fuji Announces 'Sweet Spot' X-E1 »

Saturday, 08 September 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Three red dots instead of one!

Weird that Red seems to be going back to rating using ASA instead of ISO.

On a related tangent (?) I wonder why cine digital cameras haven't started using 3 chip, which was common in video.


"...what? Just B&W images?"

A couple of decades past a workmate of my wife wanted a casual family portrait, the parents and two young kids. They specifically wanted B&W so I loaded up my C-220 with TX.
Shot a roll, 12 exposures, 5X5 proofs and they selected one for a 16X16 enlargement for the wall.

A week or so later I ran into the mom who related the funny story of her mother's reaction to the picture. She said her mother was concerned that her daughter and son in law were having money problems since they could only afford a B&W photo, and not color. She said even after she assured her mom that the family were doing fine and that she really wanted B&W her mom was still not sure she was telling the truth.

Go figure.

I'm sorta surprised that Fuji didn't release a B&W "retro look" camera. They have their own drummer and always have made unique cameras.

They make their sensors and have a history of using different technology than others. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

I'd by one if it was a B&W X-E1 (not X-Pro1) and the price was about

As nice as it would be to see, say, a Fuji X-Pro1-M, I doubt this will come any time soon. Well, actually, if any it will be Fuji probably.

For the rest? They all love colour and rather do the "decolouring" (as someone put it to me once) in post. "Just in case" they ever need the colour image.

I think we now have at least one generation of new photographers for whom B&W and really was an option, both technologically and stylistic. Or as someone else put it to me once: "I don't get why you still shoot B&W, it looks old and antiquated, unless someone comes up with something new for B&W I stick with colour." (or something to that effect).

If one notices this costs as much as a decent car, the rate of price depreciation on it would be frightening, unless one thinks it's going to be a "classic" or a museum piece in a few years.

hmmmm... there is no end to what we buy for our camera hobbies!

"If one notices this costs as much as a decent car..."

I'd say much more than "decent." The most expensive car I've ever owned cost $17,000 less than this camera does. And several were very decent cars indeed.

Depends on your perspective I guess.


I'm betting on Ricoh-Pentax... but that's just wishful thinking on the part of a GXR owner.

Sigma, on the other hand, may want to diversify into yet another niche market. They're not shy about asking (high) prices for limited runs.

"For the rest? They all love colour and rather do the "decolouring" (as someone put it to me once) in post. 'Just in case' they ever need the colour image."

Don't forget, that when you convert from color to b&w in post, you have a lot more options via the channel mixer. With a purely b&w camera you'd have to start using filters again.

$42,000 is so cheap in the world of feature film production that there isn't any real difference between paying for this and getting it for free.

And everybody rents this stuff anyway.

On the other hand for a hobbyist/artist price might be an issue, but still $42,000 would represent a smallish fraction of what you would spend to use this.

It's interesting that the tools to make movies of a technical quality that surpases what state of the art movie theaters can exhibit (you want expensive, go price a 6k projector) are falling into the well heeled dilatant price range.

BTW someone mentioned the aliasing filter. Moire that is unnoticeable in a still image will wrench your eyes from their sockets in video. That seems to be a weak point in DSLR video.

RE: the cost vs a decent car. There are cine camera lens shades that cost more than I have *ever* paid for a car and that includes a Maserati and a Porsche (not that either was decent in any conventional sense) as well as a pretty decent Volvo. New car prices are are of course not within the realm of decency.

Who needs this silly artifact? Most assuredly not Giles Duley (see previous post, FHS).

I guess I just don't share the desire for a "black & white only" digital camera. With B&W film, one of the great joys is being able to switch between different films; not just films with different sensitivities but with different responses to the various wavelengths of light across the visible spectrum. With a digital sensor those options are gone: the spectral response you buy with the camera is the one you've got forever. (And I don't see the blunt instrument of colored filters making up for this.)

Dear Folks,

Ummm, you all do understand this is a CINEMA camera, right?

I mean, you can use it for single frame photography -- they'll do 1 frame/sec if you want -- but that's not the primary customer base for the Epic. It's a motion picture camera that happens to be good enough to use as a high-end still camera.

Price 35-70mm professional motion picture film gear and then we can talk about whether this is "overpriced." (Stan, your camera is very nice, but it can't play in this league.)

pax / Ctein

All the Reds are motion picture cameras, aren't they? There were some rumors a couple of years ago that they were working on a DSLR, but I don't think anything ever came of it.

But they do use Reds for still shoots in the fashion world, methinks.


Ctein, the Red cameras are marketed as DSMC, meaning Digital Still and Motion Camera. So they are intended to shoot stills, although certainly not targeted at the normal photographer. Considering their website, the target market seems to be fashion photography.

Ctein- No, no where close; it just doesn't look like a carburetor is all.

Back in film days, for a while, I carried two Nikons, one with color film, and the other B&W. Trying to decide which to use was sometimes a problem, nearly as bad as the need to lens swap on the go. I would someimes see two or three images in color and B&W from one negative. Finally, I got smart, exposed everything on slide film and did internegatives in my darkroom when I wanted B&W. Using filters, I could change balance. A steep learning curve, but worth it. Now, with Pshop and channels, I have the same capability only better, more controlled and quicker. I haven't used 35mm film in at least 4 years and don't miss it at all. Ain't progress grand??

As far as my income- and german-deprived self is concerned, the best feature of this camera is that trailing "e" at the end of its name. Gives me an excuse for when I confuse the name of that blasted Leica.

In post 113 in the Reduser thread a user links to another monochrome cine camera: the A-Cam dII Panchromatic Carl T. Dreyer Edition. The moniker's homage to Carl Dreyer is appreciated--it has been said while praising cinematographs that one could 'take any frame and hang it in a gallery' and there are few films this describes as well as Ordet.

>But they do use Reds for still shoots in the fashion world, methinks.

There is a six page fold out Red ad in the latest Vogue - the 916 page behemoth. "The camera that changed cinema is now changing fashion."


See the switch on the handgrip of the RED at trigger-finger position? It offers two choices, S and M, and I think for the person who is going to postprocess the flood of bits that this puppy will generate, the terminology "S&M" is quite appropriate.


I imagine that reverting to ASA from ISO has something to do with the flexibility of conforming to a non existant standard, but if vgotvba RED camera wouldn't GOST be more appropriate?

Appears to have designed by the Borg.

The best options for monochrome shooting are Sigma DP2M and the upcoming DP1M. They are small, light, have high quality prime lenses and HUGE resolution. There is no Bayer filter, so you don't lose resolution when converting to BW but still have colour information for channel mixing. These cameras are unusable for colour shooting at ISOs more than 800 but can make pretty good BW shots up to 6400.

The only drawback is that the only available RAW converter is user unfriendly, but it can't be worse than a darkroom, can it?

for Ctein:

A quick look on e-bay showed an Arri BL III 35mm camera kit for, "buy it now" at $3,250...

I've got a 35mm BL 1 in my garage. It's gathering dust in preparation for my museum :) I used it on "The Mask" and Francis Coppola's "Dracula". It's in good working condition too!

"...it just doesn't look like a carburetor is all."

Stan B. - that's the funniest thing I've read all week. I'm glad I wasn't holding a cup of coffee when I read it...

If 35mm costs about $10,000 an hour to shoot just for film and lab costs , so after 4 hours this is free, right?

At 48fps it will be free in only two hours !

Sorry I must be missing something with this camera - why would you pay that kind of money for it?

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007