Am I the only one to think that the speed at which new cameras are being marketed can only hurt our community?
This is good for the consumer, but (truthfully) fuck the consumer.
Do we really need a new 4K camera from Sony every 3 months? This is getting ridiculously silly. Too much competition in technology, not enough in art.
Geez, would it be possible that we mainly pay for brand and reputation? And that cinema gear makers sell expensive equipment because their market generally has the budget to afford to pay for it all?
I would have never thought so.
PS - not to say that cheap lenses are worth it, but it's just that the differential in price isn't reflective of the differential in quality. Not in the least. The power of marketing makes it that way...
This gear-oriented mentality is very much a consequence of consumers polluting professional niches. I don't think professional DP's tended to obsess that much with cameras; your average Joe who doesn't know much, though, he finds a camera to be fascinating: all the buttons, the functions, the menu, the automatic features - fascinating!
From there, camera manufacturers see a potential for profits. Of course, they jump on the opportunity and rig their cameras with thousands of designs, codecs, versions, et cetera. They make the filming process about the technology - I find myself spending so much time trying to figure out how to use certain functions, and the path is never clear and user-friendly. It's almost as if the menus are saturated just to cover up a lack of completeness in the internal design of the camera itself... while the outside is made out to look neat.
And then, the real issue with all that gear-oriented trend: we waste time trying to figure out how to make our machines work and end up realising that the final output doesn't justify the thousands of dollars invested. You also end up realising that to get the BEST quality, you need THIS or THAT external recorder, or firmware update, or newest, fastest card for recording - ultimately, you never have enough gear to get the quality you were promised and find yourself having to buy more add-ons and plug-ins in order to get your basic camera to work as well as you were promised when buying it.
Amateurs/consumers gave camera manufacturers the opportunity to scam professionals. They did that alright.
Meanwhile, phone companies jumped in and made professional cinematography irrelevant by pimping their products to make the same average Joe feel like he could do a professional job for 5% of what a pro would charge. Only he doesn't have the talent of a pro.
Bottom line: consumerism makes talent irrelevant. And then we wonder why most videos and movies are crap... and why it's so hard for filmmakers to make a living.
This gear-oriented mentality is very much a consequence of consumers polluting professional niches. I don't think professional DP's tended to obsess that much with cameras a couple of decades back; but today's average Joe who doesn't know much, he sure finds a camera to be a fascinating object. All the buttons, the functions, the menu, the automatic features - fascinating! Especially when you don't really understand how it works inside - it's like magic!
From there, camera manufacturers see a potential for profits. Of course, they jump in on the opportunity: they rig their cameras with thousands of designs, codecs, versions, accessories, et cetera. That is, they make the filming process about the technology.
And then, at the heart of this gear-oriented trend, we waste time trying to figure out how to make our machines work and end up realising that the final output doesn't justify the thousands of dollars invested. You also end up realising that to get the BEST quality, you need THIS or THAT external recorder, or paid firmware update, or newest, fastest card for recording your video - ultimately you never have the quality you were promised out of the box, and you find yourself having to buy more add-ons and plug-ins in order to get your basic camera to work up to expectations.
Amateurs and consumers gave camera manufacturers the opportunity to scam professionals; camera manufacturers did that alright. Even user manuals are written in such a synthetic way that you find yourself having to need additional education on the latest camera you bought! Shouldn't each camera come with a proper training manual going into the details of operation? The Sony F5 manual is less than 120 pages long if I recall well... there's no way that's enough to teach someone to use the camera properly. Maybe Sony had something else in mind. Something like... seminars, workshops, classes. Basically they make you pay for an overpriced camera, and they make you pay for an overpriced lesson on how to use it too. And in the end your image is still noisy as fuck. But that's because you don't have a "Cooke" lens.
Meanwhile, phone companies jumped in and made professional cinematography irrelevant by pimping their products to make the same average Joe feel like he could do a professional job for 5% of what a pro would charge. Only he doesn't have the talent of a pro.
Bottom line: consumerism makes talent irrelevant. And then we wonder why most videos online and movies are crap... and why it's so hard for filmmakers to make a living. Anybody who has 3 grands saved can buy the latest DSLR, but not anybody who has 3 grands saved does have an artistic eye.
Rely on fancy technology, and you'll never need to develop any talent. Rely on your talent, and you should never need to become a slave to technology. But if everybody else opts for enslavement, you'll have to follow or become irrelevant.
Make yourself relevant and put a stop to this nonsense. Work your ideas like your life depends on it. Stop copying; stop looking for "inspiration". Study and analyse life; get the hell out of the camera shop and spend that time on the streets, or reading, or just thinking. Most importantly, stop thinking like a consumer and start thinking like an informed professional.
Then, just like magic, you might start coming up with good craft.
Amen to this.
Or maybe that's just what they are. After all, people who complain anonymously aren't usually of the brave type.
The opinion of a few gossip queens shouldn't exactly matter.
Who's Shackleton? Whatever that guys sells, you bought into it real good, with a bit of sugar coating on top, and "I'll have some more."
Don't take this the wrong way, but as a matter of principle, when anonymous criticism goes against human (artistic) progress, chances are you shouldn't defend those who complain.