buying over renting

[zrszach]

I am looking to do some shooting with an arri 35-3 but i just cant bring myself to rent one. if anyone has any info on financing that would be great.

 

something about own your own camera is vary appealing.

 

I could use it in the future. its not just for one shoot.

 

unfortunately i dont fave the funds.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm trying to understand why you can't bring yourself to putting LESS money down on a rental versus MORE money down on a purchase. It's like craving a cheeseburger but deciding you want to first buy the restaurant. Little purchases scare you but huge ones don't?

 

Don't buy a camera unless you know you will be working steadily enough to pay it off the costs within, let's say, two years. Maybe a few more years than that with a film camera since they don't depreciate like a video camera does. And you won't know that you'll be working that much until you already ARE working that much -- i.e. buying a camera is something you do when you're renting all the time and now it looks like it makes more sense to own, because you have a good sense of how much work you'll be getting. Buying a camera and THEN looking for work to pay it off is much more risky.

 

But you have to take what I say with a grain of salt since I don't own a camera.

[Michael Nash]

Also keep in mind you don't just buy a camera, you buy a camera PACKAGE. That includes all the extras that make a camera functional like lenses, magazines, batteries, matte box/iris rods, follow focus, filters, tripod and head....

 

You can buy a basic "complete" package if you want to, but if you're serious about using it there will always be an additional lens or accessory that you'll need, and you'll end up renting that anyway.

 

The cost of renting, even with insurance, is FAR less than purchase. Price it out yourself, and see how many rental days it would take to equal ammortizing the purchase of the camera package. Here's a hint: the industry standard day rate for most gear rental is 1% of the purchase price.

[Sean Stiegemeier]

Do many "bigger name" DP's own their own cameras?

[David Mullen ASC]

Some do, like Roger Deakins and Michael Ballhaus, both Arri guys. Others might own a B-camera or an MOS camera but rent the main A-camera. One of my regular 1st AC's owns an Arri-2C that the productions have rented now and then. Another guy I know owns an Eclair Cameflex that he rents out as an MOS camera.

 

Probably successful commercial shooters are more likely to own a camera.

 

Panavision doesn't sell their cameras, only rents them, so DP's who shoot mostly with Panavision are less likely to own cameras except for small ones.

 

My point is that you have to have some sort of business plan before you buy and you have to have some guarantee of regular work that will use the camera to help pay it off. It's easier to do all of that if you are working regularly with rented equipment and can see that owning the camera instead might make sense financially given your steady work. Or if the camera is for a personal project that has a long-term schedule, like a long documentary.

[Sean Stiegemeier]

what if you are just a rich guy with nothing to spend money on... haha. thanks.

[Christian Appelt]

@zrszach:

 

If you do not need the high speed option and register pin for effects work, buy an older Arriflex IIC, maybe with PL mount so you can rent any special lens you need. It's a fine camera, and if you are shooting wthout sound (the Arri III runs loud enough too), this could be a good solution at your budget.

 

There's a lot of accessories and lenses out there for Arris, and with good lenses and today's film stock they will give you first rate footage. It is also easy to service and repair, no fancy electronics to fail, and it is easier to handle than an Arri III (handheld shooting).

[Patrick Neary]

Hi-

 

Another issue to consider (and this is primarily if you work in LA, and maybe the few other "rental-house-rich" markets) is that rental prices for older cameras like 35-3s and II-Cs have fallen so much that you can rent one for almost nothing. And the flip side is that in owning one, you won't be able to rent it for much either!

 

To make an opposite arguement, though, I remember an interview with a Seattle DP who said basically "If you don't own it, you don't use it." (speaking about working here in the NW, or any small market for that matter.) I also find that to be true working on the rare NW film shoot.

 

But working in LA is just a whole different matter, gear-wise.

[GregIrwin]

Also keep in mind you don't just buy a camera, you buy a camera PACKAGE. That includes all the extras that make a camera functional like lenses, magazines, batteries, matte box/iris rods, follow focus, filters, tripod and head....

Not to mention various ground glasses and super 35 front plates and anamorphic capabilities...

[Matt Pacini]

I seriously considered picking up an Arriflex IIC at one point, but just how many people get a 35mm camera for shooting their main footage that AREN'T going to be shooting sound?

Stock photo guys?

Ya just gotta have a quiet camera unless you're just shooting MOS stuff while someone else shoots the meat of the project, which is probably not what this guy intends to do.

 

And I see good points on both sides of this issue, but let's be honest, who out there is a working DP, who rents and doesn't own, but HAS NEVER OWNED THEIR OWN CAMERA(s)?

 

It seems to me that the usual scenario is:

That most DP's owned at least a 16mm setup to get gigs early on in their career, then as they became more in demand, ended up on more and more shoots where their personal gear was sub-standard.

Then they finally realized their personal gear was just setting in the closet most of the time, sold it, and now post on boards like this one telling people it's dumb to buy your own camera!!!

 

Seriously, how many of you working DP's NEVER owned your own cameras?

 

Sure, we all get that you don't own one NOW, but how likely is it that someone who has only spent "rental" time shooting film, is going to get experienced enough to be in demand to the point where they're making a living at it?

I'd think that scenario is pretty rare, but certainly someone here correct me if I'm wrong.

David, Mitch, Greg... you guys never owned a 16mm camera?

 

Matt Pacini

[Landon D. Parks]

I'v Always wanted to own a Camera Package. But the cost is so high!!! Do you know how much a Film camera package cost's? www.cinevision-ny.com has a Arriflex 435 ES Package w/ accessoies for $105,000.00

 

Now thats not bad compared to some prices I'v seen!!!

[Landon D. Parks]

Ya just gotta have a quiet camera unless you're just shooting MOS stuff while someone else shoots the meat of the project, which is probably not what this guy intends to do.

I'v seen a lot of MOS cameras used for Sound production. Aaton 35-III is a MOS camera, I know they used it one "Pete Jones, Stolen summer". I think as the "A" cameras, maybee "B". But still, it was operating durring diolog scenes.

[Ryan Puckett]

An aaton 35III isn't exactly a MOS camera. It runs at about 30db. which is almost inaudible at about 4 or 5 feet. That's way different then a Arri2c or any other old MOS camera which might be screaming at 50db. or more. 30 db. wouldn't be that difficult to deal with in average shooting situations.

[Chance Shirley]

I live in Birmingham, Alabama, which has a growing film scene but no film rental houses. Heck, there are probably only 2 or 3 good dollies in town. I own an Aaton. If I was able to do my projects full-time, say shoot a feature in 20 consecutive days, it'd be cheaper to go to Atlanta or Nashville and rent.

 

However, I've shot the feature I'm currently working on mostly on weekends. I've probably used my camera at least 20 weekends in the last 9 months, sometimes on a whim, which I couldn't have done if I was going out of state to rent.

 

Also, since my Aaton is one of the few 16mm cams in town, I'm able to lend it to friends who want to learn about shooting film but don't want to go out of state to rent.

 

I think if I lived closer to a good rental house, I'd rent a lot more. Then again, I'd at least like to own an inexpensive 16mm for "B" camera work.

 

However, if you're in more of a middle-of-nowhere situation, I think owning an "A" camera isn't a terrible idea.

 

If anyone else has any experience living/working far from a good film rental house, I'd like to hear their thoughts on the subject.

 

-Chance Shirley

[GregIrwin]

I own a small rental company and can supply 2 or 3 movies at a time with support gear. By that I mean the easy stuff like remote focus systems, filters, batteries, camera support, etc. I never wanted to get beyond that type of equipment due to liability issues. If I owned a camera or lenses, for that matter, and they developed problems, I would suddenly be liable for the production down time. I do not have the resources to just send out another camera like a larger rental house could do to resolve the issue. Thus, I avoid that equipment.

 

I remember working in Canada on a movie for Paramount Pics. when the DP's 435 went down. It got a bit messy for him - after all he is the Cameraman and the rental agent. I let that be a lesson to me on what not to own.

[Alessandro Machi]

Selling your gear and relying on the rental house is a sure sign of confidence and success.

 

I know a DP who sold most of his lights and just rents as needed, the DP now relatively major fare.

 

I think it's wise to rent at first so you can decide what system you like the best.

 

So, rent to start out, buy after you try, then eventually sell when you're going well.

[Michael Nash]

If anyone else has any experience living/working far from a good film rental house, I'd like to hear their thoughts on the subject.

I used to live in the Tampa Bay Florida area, which had a fair amount of film commerical projects, but no rental houses. The nearest at the time were Panavision in Orlando (2 hrs.) and a couple places in Miami (6hrs.).

 

There were a handful of working film DP's in the market, and only a couple of them owned their own packages (16 SR's and 35 MOS cameras). The rest of us struggling DP's had an equitable situation -- no cameras, and no projects!

 

But that's not to say that the cameras got the working DP's their jobs -- it's more the othjer way around. The DP's paid their dues to get established as professionals, and purchased camera packages to supplement their work. It kind of became a necessary evil in order to stay working and stay competitive. I can't say that those cameras earned them money directly; it was more like they helped them stay working. That said, they needed to produce national quality commercials in order to stay competitive, so that usually meant renting a Panvision or Arri 35 synch sound package rather than shooting with their own 16 or 35 MOS gear.

 

At the lower end of the scale (where employment was more plentiful) was broadcast and corporate video. There were a few rental houses around, but the shooters who were any good ended up buying their own Betacam packages and put the rental houses out of business.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The evil of buying equipment #14b: if you are a relative newcomer to the market, if you buy equipment, you will become a target of attention for low and no-budget filmmakers after a free deal. Resist them.

 

Murdering them is of course optional!

 

Phil

[Leon Rodriguez]

I agree with Allesandro. Unless you've rented as many different kinds of 35mm packages as you have access to, how could you evaluate which camera is best for your business?

 

A good sound sync camera package can cost as much as a house. It's an enormous investment. Make sure that it makes economic sense.

 

Having said that, I totally understand the hunger to have your own 35mm package. Mine never goes away. I'm perpetually saving for one and never quite get there.

 

I guess what I'm saying is investigte it thoroughly before commiting to a monthy fiscal obligation. You have to ask, "Is it worth it?"

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I have my own Arri IIc. It's great for me because I'm shooting on weekends on very last minute sometimes. I often operate with a crew of one. I post dub all my audio. Works for me. At under six grand it's an investment I can live with, and it was worth it for me.

 

I like having a camera because it frees you to shoot whenever you want. I can call up an actor at a whim and within a few hours we're shooting at some interesting location I found. I strongly recommend for any DP or director/DP to have their own MOS camera package. If you're going to shoot with sound, you're going to need a crew anyway, but if you want to do some mininal filming with a crew of one, it's great to have that option. No rental house, no paperwork, you can be as flexible as possible.

 

On the flipside, I had to pay $600 to replace a dead tachometer that happened just outside the warranty period for the camera. That was not fun. Also, I can't afford the latest and greatest optics for my camera, so I'm limited to my old Cooke lenses. But they're okay, and if they get damaged I won't be crying for months. Bottom line - I can produce very good images with this camera that are as professional as anything else out there in my opinion. I think it's silly to blow a lot of cash on an Arri III, it's 3 times the price of a IIc and other than the orientable finder and the high speed option, I can't see it being 3 times the quality or functionality of the IIc.

 

- G.

[Matt Pacini]

Many good points, George.

I can't see owning a 35mm camera, unless it was something like an Arri IIc setup like you've got.

I have 2 16mm cameras, and even these are nickel & diming me to death! (finally getting some good glass!!!).

But the upkeep and all the other stuff you need for a 35mm camera is just outrageous.

Getting a spare mag, etc., is just ridiculous, whereas for my CP16R, I now have 4 400ft mags, and one 200ft mag, and I didn't pay more than $85 for any one of them.

 

Matt Pacini

[Mitch Gross]

I have a complete Aaton Super-16 package with piles of accessories, 18 cases in all. The insurance value is over $100,000. I've written on this here many times in the past. DON'T OWN EQUIPMENT UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF OWNING EQUIPMENT. You are going to be competing with companies who's very existance depends on offering a better product or a better price with more options or greater reliability or all of the above. You have to ask why anyone would choose to rent from you when they could rent from a professional house. The usual reason is because you'll come cheap. Do you really want to be in that position?

 

The second problem comes when you start working for the equipment instead of it working for you. You have all this money invested, and so you start pushing the use of the gear to people, sometimes taking jobs you otherwise wouldn't want just to keep the gear making some money. Or you get those calls where people are interested only in your equipment and not you. That's always lots of fun. And possibly the worst is that you start pushing to use your gear for a job so you can make more money, when if you were simply the DP you would actually prefer something else. That's pretty insideous and can really bite you both in your professional growth and eventually in your position in the industry ("Don't hire Mitch; he's a Super-16 DP and we want to shoot 35."). This is a very real concern, trust me.

 

I've gone on and on about this befoer, and I suggest you peruse some old threads from this and past years on owning gear. For someone very established (like Greg) it can make a nice secondary income, and for someone shooting a no-budget indie (like George) it can be the most affordable way. For myself it was a specific investment towards promoting myself as a DP to the indie feature market in NYC in the early nineties, which thrived on Super-16. It worked well for me and the camera package continues to pay for itself enough each year that it remains worth it to continue to own. But times are very different now and the business model is always changing. I seriously doubt I would make a similar purchase today and when people ask me about buying a camera package (I get asked A LOT) I usually try to convince them not to.

 

BTW, I would never consider owning a 35mm package unless handed me a huge long-term job that would immediately pay for most if not all of the cost. I can rent 35mm gear for so little that I simply cannot imagine how I could ever pay off my own purchase in a timely manner. Equipment rental is one tough business.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

About every three months I end up reexamining whether I should buy a DSR-570, or a DXC-35 plus DSR-1, or whatever. Then Mr. Gross posts one of those. Shudder.

 

Phil

[Christian Appelt]

I think owning equipment is OK if it doesn't take too large an investment.

You can get a MOS 35mm camera package for as little as $ 2.500, and when you have used it for one or two projects, the gear has paid for itself. Then you can use it for occasions where you would not rent a camera, like helping on other people's films or shooting inserts on short notice.

 

Besides, if you are working on your own long time project (documentary, wildlife, low budget feature film), owning may make much more sense than renting again and again, provided you know how to keep everything running.

 

Owning such a modest package will not prevent you from renting a nice new Arri 435 with newest lenses and all the bells & whistles when you get a job that demands it.

 

Do not invest more in equipment than you could afford to lose without getting into financial trouble. ;)

[Alessandro Machi]

I have a complete Aaton Super-16 package with piles of accessories, 18 cases in all.  The insurance value is over $100,000. 

 

 

On a Super-8 forum a Super-8 camera with pin registration and interchangeable lens was deemed a foolish investment at 3-5,000 dollars! I know that the film format tends to relate to the film crew size so you would rarely if ever use a Super-8 camera in place of a 16mm or 35mm camera, but as a b-roll camera it seems like an interesting option for maintaining a film look as a second camera available to steal certain kinds of shots without having to interrupt what the primary film camera is already set up to do the A shots.

 

I'm finding in video that I can keep my BetaCam SP camera on sticks and steal shots with my Digital 8 camcorder without disturubing what the primary camera is videotaping.