Jump to content


Photo

Gutting A Camera To Reduce Weight?


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1224 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 20 January 2018 - 03:43 PM

So I have a Sony F900 which is good for most situations, however when I try to get really specific handheld camera movements the weight makes things extremely tricky and shaky.

 

There camera has a major feature I personally never use with is the tape deck inside. Has anyone ever removed or modified certain parts from a camera to make it lighter?

 

If not, does anyone have any camera weight management tips which don't cost over $1000?

 

Thanks.


  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7236 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:28 PM

Seems like it'd mess up a lot more than it would solve... Personally the heavier the camera, often the LESS shaky it is due to the mass smoothing out some microjitters you'd have otherwise.


  • 1

#3 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1224 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:37 PM

I thought the weight would sort out stability as well however, which for the most part it has, but when it comes to having to make quick specific pans, or when the body needs to get low for a low angle, my right arm can't handle the weight in steady fashion.


  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7236 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:43 PM

Ahh yeah; gotcha, there's a few positions I can get myself into which never really work as well (mostly due to my back). But back to the crux of the question, I wouldn't really want to start pulling electronics out of an electronic camera; least of all an older one at home. It possibly (probably?) is interconnected and interrelated to many of the internal circuity of the system and who knows what gremlins could be stirred up.


  • 0

#5 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 January 2018 - 06:46 PM

As long as the camera is well balanced, the weight is your friend actually. F900 is not that heavy so a well balanced camera should make it easier for you.
  • 0

#6 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2089 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 20 January 2018 - 08:31 PM

Well I guess if your not using the tape mechanism at all.. you can at least take the Drum out.. and all the stuff around it.. but I wouldn't want to be doing it myself.. !.. unless you have a friendly Sony engineer at hand.. the cost to have it gutted would probably buy you a brand new Fs7.. or two !.. if you go the official Sony service route..  otherwise second hand easy rig.. probably the only way.. but they are more than $1K I would guess from the price new..


  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5131 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 January 2018 - 04:10 AM

You may want to add weight to the rear of these cameras so they balance, it becomes more noticeable when you put a wide angle zoom onto 2/3" camera. These lenses have become heaver over the years.

 

For low angle handheld shots, using the top handle as  a "low mode bracket" may be the way to go.


  • 0

#8 Tom Visser

Tom Visser
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Hawaii

Posted 27 January 2018 - 06:12 AM

maybe have an HXC-P70 on standby for specialized setups at about a third of the mass (once you rig it up) and heck of a lot smaller.  Also my experience with Sony is that there is usually a lot of internal diagnostics going on, so when things are not to spec, you'll get all types of system warnings - perhaps not an issue and can still function as a dumb head for a downstream recorder, but maybe not.


Edited by Tom Visser, 27 January 2018 - 06:14 AM.

  • 0

#9 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12051 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 January 2018 - 06:31 AM

It'd be amusing to pull the deck out and put an Atomos recorder or something in there!

 

But yes, the thing is likely to scream diagnostics at you.


  • 0

#10 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1224 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 27 January 2018 - 08:00 AM

It'd be amusing to pull the deck out and put an Atomos recorder or something in there!

 

That idea didn't even occur to me.

 

Now I really want to pursue this.


  • 0

#11 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7236 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 27 January 2018 - 12:15 PM

Wasn't there a gut years ago who pulled out all the electronics and threw in a 5D or 7D basically in a Sony Shell?


  • 0

#12 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12051 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 January 2018 - 02:06 PM

I'm not sure I'd want to do that - the purpose of a 2/3" camera is presumably access to cheap, capable 2/3" lenses.


  • 0

#13 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2089 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 27 January 2018 - 08:28 PM

Now there are 2nd hand Fs7,s around very cheap.. and a million E mount lenses to choose from ..(you can use any lens in the universe on an E mount).. a 2nd hand body and 2 x MK Fujinon zooms.. is well under $20k..  dont think you even need to go the ⅔ road anymore ?


  • 0

#14 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12051 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 January 2018 - 09:05 PM

Lots of arguments with that. Usable FS7 with all the upgrades, prores module, shoulder mint, better VF, etc, remains expensive and creates a flimsy rig rather than an integrated camera. Big chips don't suit every job. MK zooms still don't have the characteristics of most 2/3 zooms. Ursa Mini is probably the better base for that, not that anyone cares in most parts of the business.
  • 0

#15 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2089 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 27 January 2018 - 09:13 PM

Sure if you actually want a ⅔ camera .. if its just for using affordable ENG ⅔ lenses .. I,d go 2nd hand fs7 or similar and the MK zooms.. I used my lovely and expensive Fujinon 4.6 zoom on my F5 the first few weeks I had the camera..with Abacus adaptor.. whilst it did actually work ,it really wasn't the answer for many reasons.. maybe I have the OP,s post mixed up..


  • 0


CineLab

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Glidecam

Visual Products

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Technodolly

CineTape