Back to the Gym...

[Leo Ticheli]

I just put on the scale our Red, fully tricked out with all ET parts, 15MM base & 24" Ultra Rods, Topside Combo & 12" Ultra Rods, LCD, Red Cradle with Red Drive and Anton Bauer 140, Red Top Handle, Arri Matte Box MB 14, Arri Follow Focus FF4, and Cooke 18-100.

Roughly 47 pounds.

A very heavy mother...

Heavy, but pictures so incredible.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Director/Cinematographer

[Brent J. Craig]

Why would anyone go handheld with a Cooke 18-100?!?

The weight of a Red compares quite favorably to most sync-sound motion picture cameras. A more typical hand-held config is about 33 pounds.

[Antoine Fabi]

Ah !

Leo,

That's exactly what i told to a friend when i received my camera.

Must go back to the gym !!!

This image box is heavy.

[Warren Kommers]

No Way! This camera is so light compared to any 35mm body. Arricam LT or Movicam SL included. Unless you are handholding a zoom of that range. With an s4 prime, drive, battery, ET Ultras top and bottom, LMB 4 and top handle it's still way lighter than many ENG camera configs I've held.

The only problem is that the weight gravitates to the front. The battery and drive must be far back to counter this.

[Leo Ticheli]

Originally Posted by CrewPix.com

Why would anyone go handheld with a Cooke 18-100?!?

I don't believe I wrote or implied that my studio rigged Red was suitable for hand-holding.

I have found the balance point to be just forward of the lens mount, not bad at all, pretty much centered at the center of the Top Handle.

I've got the Red Cradle mounted on the rear most top mount, lying flat against the top cheese plate. I much prefer this configuration to mounting the cradle on the rods.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo Ticheli
Director/Cinematographer

[Antoine Fabi]

Hollywood,

beeing lighter than a film camera doesn't mean it's light...

Let's say it's light for a 4K camera :)

[Nick Gardner]

I think the weight is pretty good. It's way lighter than most 35mm cameras. People on this forum talk a lot about the weight, with a prime and a P-size matte box, it's lighter than a varicam. I put it on my steadicam and i kind of wished it had a little more mass.

Early camera recievers, note the yellow chart tape on the film plane on the Panavision.

[M.Halsell]

Tobeorx,

Could you please up with a rig photo? Thanks.

[Warren Kommers]

Originally Posted by Antoine Fabi

Let's say it's light for a 4K camera :)

Well there is not much to compare it to in that category now is there?

It's all relative.

[Häakon]

Originally Posted by Antoine Fabi

Hollywood,

beeing lighter than a film camera doesn't mean it's light...

Let's say it's light for a 4K camera :)

That's exactly what I was thinking. :) This is new technology; I would hope that the fact that it is a solid replacement for most of the "tradtional" systems would bring improvements in all areas - including weight. It does this to a degree, of course, but I still find a fully maxed-out rig to be quite heavy during handheld work. Just because film has been the standard for 100 years and just because some of those cameras can be quite heavy doesn't mean that's the way it *should* be. With close to no moving parts in a camera system these days and magazines being replaced with media the size of a postage stamp, I'm surprised at how heavy the camera still ends up being. On the other hand, as Antoine mentioned, I'd take this over the Dalsa form factor any day!