# Redrock Micro talks EOS 5D Mark II & Mad Max



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 20, 2015)

```
Redrock Micro has posted an article talking about the use of the EOS 5D Mark II in one of the summer’s best visual treats, George Miller’s Mad Max. If you haven’t seen the movie, go now!</p>
<p>Ten EOS 5D Mark II camera bodies were used by the stunt/action team and the lens of choice was the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. Redrock Micro were the exclusive rig for all the EOS 5D Mark IIs used in the production</p>
<blockquote><p>For the rigging, we definitely see action cam style – the DSLR camera ops were well prepared to strap in to cars, on towers, pretty much anywhere they wanted a great action insert or angle of view that would otherwise be impractical or too time consuming to setup with an A or B camera (ARRI Alexa with those huge Panavision primo zooms). Rigs from Redrock Micro were exclusively used with the canon 5D MKII to fit this style, each slightly customized to each operator’s liking.</p></blockquote>
<p>Why the EOS 5D Mark II?</p>
<blockquote><p>A number of Canon 5Ds were used as crash cams during the action sequences – as “semi-disposable stunt cameras”. The DSLR was chosen as a proven work-horse crash-cam even though it was released way back in 2008. The 5Ds provide extra cut-away point of view angles during action sequences – the cutaways are so short you don’t notice the changes in image quality</p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://redrockmicro.blogspot.ca/2015/06/dslr-insider-on-mad-max-fury-road.html#sthash.BPGCCbAA.dpuf" target="_blank">Read the full article</a> | <a href="http://store.redrockmicro.com/fury-rig.html" target="_blank">Redrock Micro Fury Rig</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Jun 20, 2015)

So while everyone is saying that there 5d mkiii isn't even good enough for home video, professionals are using the mkii for a big budget summer block buster. I think people need to complain less...


----------



## DomTomLondon (Jun 20, 2015)

I'm guessing the 5Ds were hacked with Magic Lantern and shot RAW video, Which will look very good and close to the footage of the ARRI cameras. That's what I would do at least.


----------



## risc32 (Jun 20, 2015)

this is just unacceptable. everyone knows that the 5dmk2 is a has bin, and that the 16-35mm lenses are garbage. This just can't be right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2015)

risc32 said:


> this is just unacceptable. everyone knows that the 5dmk2 is a has bin, and that the 16-35mm lenses are garbage. This just can't be right.



Yeah, but those producers are just out there in harsh conditions getting the job done, and they don't know any better. It's much easier to criticize gear as outdated and poor if you're sitting comfortably at home in your cave or under a bridge. Someone from here needs to tell those clueless movie producers they'd be much better off using a D810 or an a7S.


----------



## dolina (Jun 20, 2015)

I am guessing a 5D Mark II can be bought now for $600 in bulk.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2015)

dolina said:


> I am guessing a 5D Mark II can be bought now for $600 in bulk.



They spent $150,000,000 producing the film. The difference between destroying a couple dozen $600 cameras and a couple dozen $3000 cameras would be 0.04% of the budget. I doubt unit cost was a major factor in the decision. 

OTOH, the easy availability of full shooting rigs for the 5DII was probably meaningful.


----------



## dolina (Jun 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I am guessing a 5D Mark II can be bought now for $600 in bulk.
> ...


Not to mention predictability.

Part of the money goes into marketing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2015)

Marketing? What's that?? ???


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 20, 2015)

The 5D2 is still a bloody good camera. I miss mine despite switching to a 5D3 and 1DX.


----------



## KateH (Jun 20, 2015)

risc32 said:


> this is just unacceptable. everyone knows that the 5dmk2 is a has bin, and that the 16-35mm lenses are garbage. This just can't be right.



They stated the 16-35 2.8 Version 2- much better than the v1. As for the 5D MKII being irrelevant, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Obviously people in serious industry positions think otherwise.


----------



## dolina (Jun 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marketing? What's that?? ???


Marketing of the movie.


----------



## dolina (Jun 20, 2015)

KateH said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > this is just unacceptable. everyone knows that the 5dmk2 is a has bin, and that the 16-35mm lenses are garbage. This just can't be right.
> ...


Kate the version 2 came out in 2007 while the 5d2 came out in 2008. I would think it would be difficult to find a version 1 in good condition in quantity.


----------



## vscd (Jun 20, 2015)

...it seemes the Dynamic Range was sufficient  Even for a Blockbuster...


----------



## LukasS (Jun 20, 2015)

> They originally started with Olympus bodies (due to the in-body stabilizer), but they had a tendency to shut down on impact,overheat, and when they broke they lost the footage as well - See more at: http://redrockmicro.blogspot.ca/2015/06/dslr-insider-on-mad-max-fury-road.html#sthash.BPGCCbAA.2CMPZyUl.dpuf


I've ended up with the same conclusion - my OMD EM-5 overheated with IBIS on, it was good as paper weight for the most part of trip I've been on few months ago. Classic 5D worked like a charm, 3 weeks ago tested on air show 7dII + 100-400 (5hrs in full sun - it was hard to grasp body - too hot too handle and no problem with results).


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 20, 2015)

So if you want a camera that works well outside a testing lab ... Canon. Shocker. (And yes, you better believe they had those ML hacked) PS - Compact Flash card stands up a lot better in a vehicle crash than an SD card I bet too ;-)


----------



## emko (Jun 20, 2015)

vscd said:


> ...it seemes the Dynamic Range was sufficient  Even for a Blockbuster...



missing this bit "The 5Ds provide extra cut-away point of view angles during action sequences – the cutaways are so short you don’t notice the changes in image quality"

so yea the quality is good enough for scenes that are so short that you wont even notice it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2015)

emko said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > ...it seemes the Dynamic Range was sufficient  Even for a Blockbuster...
> ...



Good enough for cut-aways when the majority of footage is being shot with camera+lens combos costing well over $100K each, yes.


----------



## Mr Bean (Jun 21, 2015)

Pfft, would have much better with an A7rII....


----------



## slclick (Jun 21, 2015)

I bet my bottom dollar the people complaining about the Mk3's are those who spend more time on forums than shooting. Humans like to bitch about things, I get that but this entire culture of acting as if your camera body is obsolete and will not function once the newer model becomes announces is for idiots. 90% of the best photography done in the history of the art was done in film and ages ago at that. Gear is irrelevant. Motivation and perspective is real.


----------



## Mr Bean (Jun 21, 2015)

slclick said:


> I bet my bottom dollar the people complaining about the Mk3's are those who spend more time on forums than shooting. Humans like to bitch about things, I get that but this entire culture of acting as if your camera body is obsolete and will not function once the newer model becomes announces is for idiots. 90% of the best photography done in the history of the art was done in film and ages ago at that. Gear is irrelevant. Motivation and perspective is real.


+1
Yep. Show me what you can do, not what you have.


----------



## emko (Jun 21, 2015)

slclick said:


> I bet my bottom dollar the people complaining about the Mk3's are those who spend more time on forums than shooting. Humans like to bitch about things, I get that but this entire culture of acting as if your camera body is obsolete and will not function once the newer model becomes announces is for idiots. 90% of the best photography done in the history of the art was done in film and ages ago at that. Gear is irrelevant. Motivation and perspective is real.



you are joking right? 5D3 video is utter crap blurry mess, only thing is the 5D3 with ML hack can do RAW video and that is amazing but its a hack.

in fact most phones shooter better quality 1080p then 5D3 its really that bad.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 21, 2015)

R1-7D said:


> The 5D2 is still a bloody good camera. I miss mine despite switching to a 5D3 and 1DX.



I've retained mine as my second/backup body and I still love it and don't see myself selling it in the foreseeable future. There's something really robust about it that I like. Nevertheless it's the MkIII that gets the most use, obviously. The MkIII is also more forgiving and easy to use, which I find especially useful when traveling. Mind I only shoot stills because that is what a DSLR should (primarily) do


----------



## risc32 (Jun 21, 2015)

i'm glad to see that sarcasm can still be spotted.


----------



## drs (Jun 21, 2015)

In the right hands the 5Dmii and the 16/35 is a great combo. Knowing the weakness of each part is critical to not go there in the first place, and play it only from the sweet-spot. ;o) 
The 5Dmii was since long an "on set" to go camera for VFX artists, hence they know the results, which was certainly a plus. 

However, following the presentation of the Australian Cinematographers about the shooting of MM, I wonder how all of that came together, as the DoP seems to be really ignorant to anything digital. 
https://vimeo.com/127381179

There I see the biggest discussion point.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jun 21, 2015)

According to the article, Redrock Rigs were contacted in summer 2012.

How good/complete was the MkIII ML hack back then?.. the camera had only been out for six months.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 21, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> According to the article, Redrock Rigs were contacted in summer 2012.
> 
> How good/complete was the MkIII ML hack back then?.. the camera had only been out for six months.



First announcement of Raw Video is 26th. April 2013.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 22, 2015)

Damn, I'm not going to bother going to see this film now . . . 

What do these people know about cameras anyway???


----------



## vscd (Jun 22, 2015)

> A7R2 Blabla



...a sensor is just a minor *part *of the equation (even if way superiour). 

If Canon closes the gap with a new sensorgeneration it's the same as before: Sony has a lousy lens-line and nothing around it. 8)


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jun 22, 2015)

vscd said:


> ...it seemes the Dynamic Range was sufficient  Even for a Blockbuster...



DR is way less important on a big budget production where you can afford to light everything exactly how you want it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 22, 2015)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > ...it seemes the Dynamic Range was sufficient  Even for a Blockbuster...
> ...



Not really, the main lighting is not set up for the angles the 'C' cameras provide.


----------



## risc32 (Jun 22, 2015)

lighting? i thought i was told a few times from different sources how the 5dmk2 was going to make the massive lighting schemes obsolete? so that didn't happen? so you mean to tell me that we still need light? well golly...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 23, 2015)

These cameras were often used as quick cut-away shots due mainly to size. They have been replaced by the C300, BM pocket camera and the Codex action cameras to name a few. The Canon 5D MKIII is hardly ever used by the time youve added lenses, monitors etc it ends up being similar to the C300 which is better suited.


----------



## vscd (Jun 26, 2015)

...I think most of the scenes were filmed in a greenroom, anyway. Plenty of light and no harsh shadows to push by +5 stops. Or maybe the banding would have fitted quite well into the sandstorm-scenes. 8)


----------



## Local Hero (Jun 26, 2015)

No Magic Lantern used.

I think in every 5D shot that ended up in the film had the sky replaced in post because it was completely clipped.

Second Unit DOP David Burr suggested the Olympus cameras because he had previously used a heap of them with great success on the movie The Cup.

Being full frame means it is easier to get a wider shot, especially with a 16-35mm.
C300, BlackMagic etc. are all smaller sensors, so not as good at getting really wide shots.
The less distortion the better, because there is going to be a lot of compositing going on.
Codex is too expensive to smash or fill with dust, dozens of them.
Camera budget is a tiny, tiny percentage of the film's overall budget.
Budget for throwaway action cams is a tiny percentage of that tiny percentage.
Even on a big film, the cost of the smallest camera item matters and is calculated.

Remember how long ago this was.


----------

