Red One Weight?

[Gene Crucean]

I'm sure this has been brought up before but how heavy is the One?

Thanks

[Andrew Benz]

Hi Gene,

Last # that I saw was around 9lbs. Jim wanted more of a tank, but they are also trimming weight where they can. So, we may see a final weight between 8lbs and 9lbs. This is ultimately speculation on my part, but it is based on these web pages and the words of the RED team.

Hope this helps Gene.

Andrew

ps-- you are very welcome Gene, we have some great times ahead. I have clients that are properly chummed and THEY cannot wait for this camera system, these are the great days before the storm.

[Gene Crucean]

Thanks Andrew

[Zakaree Sandberg]

so...cine style should be...18-20lbs? lens.. ff. box. rails.. evf.. battery.. harddrive?

[Andrew Benz]

Sure, though very interested to see the weight specs on the basic red rail. To re-iterate, I was only referring to the basic body only... your config. will vary widely from efp to cine to stripped down still mode. Zakaree is absolutely correct that a basic cine package could run this heavy easily depending mainly on zoom lens and support.

[Jannard]

I think you are high (not on drugs... on your weight estimate).

Jim

[Paolo Tinari]

I think i've read somewhere here an estimate of 7lbs for the camera naked.

[Chris Gearhart]

7 was the initial weight goal, then Jim upped it to tank status. Assuming they didn't discover a way into another dimension, (and if Andrew is on drugs) I assume 8 lbs.

[Finner]

I've been wondering about that Andrew for a while now. Did anyone else get that "Purest Columbian Snow for sale" P.M. from him also.

As far as weight goes The camera body looks like it will be one of the lightest parts of my set up. You stick on a cooke zoom a 6x6 matte box with a filter or two a FF and everything else and the camera will be lucky to come in under 30lbs.

[Steve Gibby]

A different weight for each project, depending on lens and accessory needs of that particular project: range from 14 to 75 lbs. It is what you make it for each cine-style and EFP style project, and each sub-genre within them...

[Hrvoje Simic]

My starting configuration guestimate is in the 12-15 range.

[Shawn Nelson]

What are people's guess for a setup of Red, EVF, one battery, RedDrive, rails, mattebox with two filters, FF and the Red Zoom? I was thinking around 15-20 lbs.

[Jannard]

My guess is 12-16 pounds... but what do I know. Biggest variable is the lens.

Jim

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Hmmm.... I was thinking heavier. This throws off my whole tripod & head estimates and will have an affect on which ones I look at and ultimately buy. ...In a good way.

[Chris Kenny]

Yeah, the lens is going to make a significant difference. A Nikon prime could be under a pound. A first-rate cine prime is ~4-6 pounds. A cine zoom... lots.

[Brook Willard]

~9lb body, lightweight zoom [6-7lbs] or lightweight prime [<1lb] plus support. Something tells me Jim's guess is the closest here...

[Andrew Benz]

I think you are high (not on drugs... on your weight estimate).
Jim

I have been high on RED for a while now...:biggrin:

7 was the initial weight goal, then Jim upped it to tank status. Assuming they didn't discover a way into another dimension, (and if Andrew is on drugs) I assume 8 lbs.

Lakeview, I hope to get back up to Chicago soon when I get my camera, get some stock footage, visit Columbia College, do some Bikram Yoga in Wicker Park and take in my favorite city in the world. If I get up there before you get your RED I would love to visit.

I've been wondering about that Andrew for a while now. Did anyone else get that "Purest Columbian Snow for sale" P.M. from him also.

Hahaha... LMAO Finner. Gives a whole new meaning to a "white russian". You are another guy that I really appreciate on this forum... the stories you must have... the beer we must drink...

Now, here is where I got my info...
01-18-2007, 09:34 PM per Jim "As we have said countless times, "specs can and will change". I have made the decision to make the body more "tank-like". It will be much more stout and bulletproof. The consequence is that it has gained a pound or so. We are not likely to meet our original goal of under 7 pounds. Somewhere around 8 lbs. is more accurate. I am sure that it is worth it."
03-12-2007, 11:25 PM per Jim "We are still putting the system on a diet. The camera (after beefing it up) weighs nearly 9 pounds. I think we can now suck out a bit of "fat" from the body."
03-13-2007, 12:08 PM per our friend Brook "The current camera weight is just over 9lbs, but that is a prototype only. They're working on trimming the fat, so your 8lb guess is probably right on."

I love the fact that I may be high on the estimated weight, everything about this system just gets better. Thanks for setting me straight again guys. LOL

[Priyesh P.]

Isn´t that a pity ? An Arri SR3 is as light as a feather - as far as you only take the body, until it´s fitted with the mag+film, battery, lens, ff, mb, s-3 ( shoulderset ), videotap and onboard lcd it has reached 16 Kg ( around 32 pounds ).

Mr. Jannard´s estimate of 12 to 16 pounds ( roughly 6 to 8 kilos ) would be a whole new world - and that´s for a 35mm-equivalent, great times for our backs and stamina !

[Chris Gearhart]

Are you kidding! We Americans love our supersizing, and from what Jim says, he's got Boris and Natasha on a steady diet of big MACs. It's all good cholesterol, though--It's the special sauce.

Andrew, mi casa es su casa, man. Any time! PM me when you're coming and we'll have you over for dinner.

[Brook Willard]

Isn´t that a pity ? An Arri SR3 is as light as a feather - as far as you only take the body, until it´s fitted with the mag+film, battery, lens, ff, mb, s-3 ( shoulderset ), videotap and onboard lcd it has reached 16 Kg ( around 32 pounds ).

That's the very reason why I dislike using the SR3. I recently rented an SR2 "advanced" from UltraVision [at least I think we got it from them...]. It was basically a retrofitted SR2 with digital controls superior to those of the SR3 [and it weighed several pounds less]. We lovingly nicknamed it the SR "Two and a half" - I swear by the thing for cheap S16mm.

[Roberto B]

I think you are high (not on drugs... on your weight estimate).

Jim

me likes your words.. thx

as light as possible it'll rocks..

[Andrew Benz]

Andrew, mi casa es su casa, man. Any time! PM me when you're coming and we'll have you over for dinner.

Lakeview, I will certainly take you up on the offer. All my friends have moved from Chi-town and I really miss living there... the offer means alot and we will have a blast!!! I plan on getting alot of footage while I am there.

Cheers -- Andrew

[tj williams]

A Friend says the viper body alone weighs about 6 lbs. Looks like RED is the heavyweight here?? well lets not think about lifting the Dalsa....

[Michael Brennan]

For those considering a comparison with HD camcorders, be careful if comparing RED weights with the published figures from Sony.
If they want to make a camera look light they quote the wieght without standard zoom lens tape and battery. Other models they quote with lens tape and battery!
They did this with the launch of HDW750 (probably) to make it appear lighter than the f900 than it actually is.


Mike

[Illya Friedman]

The Origin isn't as heavy as it looks, about the same as loaded up 535B. There was a shoot recently entirely on Steadicam and just before that- hostess tray.

If you're familiar with shooting 35mm film, the size isn't an issue- if your experience is limited to dv/handycams... that's another story.

I.

Dalsa

[Finner]

The 535 is a freakin boat anchor. You dont find a much heavier camera (last 20 years) then it.

IMO not the best camera to be compared too when talking weight.

[Charles Papert]

The 535 was indeed a boat anchor. The 535B was more reasonable. Certainly not as light as an Arri LT or a Millenium XL, but probably only a couple more pounds than an Arri ST similarly equipped.

As far as a heavier camera in last 20 years...how about the Genesis!!! oy...