Less obscenely expensive is still expensive. To call a $17,000 kit "affordable" is insultingly misleading. I can buy a 4K video camera for $350. That's affordable. That democratizes high-def video. What Red apparently meant was "a full-featured ultra-high-end, state-of-the-art, ultra-HD video camera that will cost professional filmmakers less than the current similar options, while gutting them on absurdly-priced 'accessories' without which the camera is unusable."
To ignore the time period that quote is from is insultingly misleading. The Red One came out in 2007. It shot RAW 4K up to 30fps (and 2K up to 120fps) at a time when most cameras weren't 4K and didn't shoot RAW. It was hard to even get a decent HD camera in 2007 for $350.
But I guess this is all semantics. Red never tried to make a ripple in the consumer market. In the strange silo of professional filmmaking, I'm sure $17,000 seems as reasonably entry-level as a $17,000 hammer does on a Congressional budget spreadsheet.
This is a terrible analogy. An overpriced hammer is an overpriced hammer. If it was easy to build a cheaper cinema-level 4.5K camera that shoots 120fps RAW, they'd exist. Cinema cameras carry cinema camera price tags. In our industry, you're paying for a bleeding edge camera that cheaper manufacturers don't make (and cams are already expensive). You're paying for the ability to rig something, rely on it, and get the shot all while making your life easier through the lifetime of the camera. You can also rent it out so that others can do the same. It's an investment like any other, and a worthy one.
Consider this, a metal plate with tapped holes in our industry costs $200. It is what it is. If I wanted to change it, I would, but I want to make images so I work in the system that exists. There's a reason we pay for it. And there's a reason they sell these cameras, and that they're sought after. If they didn't have loyal customers, they wouldn't exist.
Also consider that our industry is one where people are expected to understand and be familiar with equipment. If you show up to a set with a camera no one is familiar with, you're not going to have a good time. When I show up, I build the camera, and everyone else that needs to work on it, knows what they need to do. I don't have to tell different people how to rig things so I can focus on what I'm there to do. And if I'm not editing, I can be confident that people all down the line will know what they need to do and that they'll have what they need to do their jobs.
It's more than just, "hey guys let's rig up this $350 camera I found on Amazon."
EDIT: didn't see this argument continued. I'll bow out. No need to duplicate arguments.
[doublepost=1501727467][/doublepost]
Being a pro photographer means
That you do shoots for magazines. That you run a tourist business ferrying clients to exotic locales. That you sell your prints to a small clientele. That you cover the big games for SI.
Being a pro cinematographer means
That you directed principal photography for Pirates of the Caribbean IV, and your accountants made sure that you didn't buy the stuff that you didn't need.
And those same accountants would probably have nixed LinusMediaGroups's business case for "8K".
I watched that a few weeks ago and laughed. Like come on, you expect us to believe that you didn't know any of that going into it? His schtick was off the charts. And everyone watching is wondering what he possibly needs 2 8K cameras for.
