Camera Or Lens

[Max Field]

Somewhat of a "microphone or preamp" debate, at least I hope it's close.

 

Say you have $10,000 for a camera-lens tandem (in the realm of digital) would you take a $2000 body and $8000 (zoom)lens?

Or an $9000 body and a $1000 lens?

 

Strictly from a final viewer's perspective, ignoring workflow for right now. At a glance do we appreciate the depth glass can bring to an image? Or would raw color and dynamic range from the sensor be appreciated sooner?

 

Thanks for any and all input.

[Jay Young]

Meh.. I've been thrilled with the images I've gotten out of digital cameras that were limited to a 12-stop dynamic range. People mix Alexa's and Blackmagic all the time because the color is very good on both.

 

I would go with the more expensive lens, personally. All things being equal, if the more expensive camera body has the same features as the less, one might only be paying for brand.

 

However, often one is also paying for reliability, so there is that.

[Aapo Lettinen]

if you need cine mechanics then it might be more valuable to get a good lens IF your current camera body is good enough. remember that you may not be able to update your camera any time soon if you use all the money for lenses. 8000 is not much for a cine zoom though and if you can manage with modified stills primes I would maybe choose a 5000 or 6000usd camera and 5000 or 4000 usd for lenses or even less.

with glass it's more of a matter of mechanics and look, not the optical performance. you could manage perfectly well with modified still lenses even for 4k theatrical release if you can make the mechanics and possible chromatic aberrations and different bokeh and flaring work

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I"d go full cine lens honestly. A body is so cheap to rent.

[Max Field]

Define "cheap". Every body I see online is $800 for the first day.

[Kyryll Sobolev]

i'd go for a 10k lens...

you can always find a body. if you are established in the industry, a friend may loan one. if you are in school, you can probably get one from them.

 

the trick with camera is that you will always need extra bits to make it fully functional, and those extras add up mighty quick.

[Aapo Lettinen]

the main problem with cameras is that you need to update them at least every 3 years or so (even 1.5 or 2 years depending on the model and what you use it for) but you may use the same lenses even for your whole professional career and good lenses may be updated every 10 or 20 years or so. it is thus much easier to waste money on cameras than on lenses, you'll probably change the camera body at least 4 or 5 times before changing your lens set if you like those lenses and use them often.

however if you are doing certain type of low or mid budget work or lots of indie stuff or live far away from rental houses or need to have a specific camera model which is expensive or difficult to rent compared to the purchase price, then it may be wise to purchase a camera body... even if you have to sell it and buy a new one after 2 years you may get the purchase price 5 or 10 or 20 times back during that time depending on what type of work you do with it. cameras need to work like mad continuously, then be thrown away and replaced. lenses need to be taken care for and serviced and maintained for decades. that is the main difference I think

[Aapo Lettinen]

Define "cheap". Every body I see online is $800 for the first day.

a perfectly usable mid level semi pro camera like FS7 or Ursa Mini 4.6k or Red One MX can cost here something like 200 - 300 euros a day + vat including media and batteries, you can surely find something similar in States

[Max Field]

But you can get some of those for like only 3-4 grand, at that point it's so low what's the point of rental? At least that's how I've been taking it.

[Aapo Lettinen]

But you can get some of those for like only 3-4 grand, at that point it's so low what's the point of rental? At least that's how I've been taking it.

 

for me the difference is that I can charge next to nothing for a camera body if I own it by myself but if I need to rent a camera for a project, the customer will pay 100% of the rental fees. so for me it is much cheaper to rent because of that, I only own cameras and lenses which cannot be rented at all in my area or are so cheap to purchase that a 2 or 3 day rental would be same than the purchase price. like with camera stabilizers, I purchased a used steadicam for 600 euros and daily rental cost for similar type of equipment would be about 300-400 euros a day, plus it would have been impossible to learn to operate it if not owning the rig.

 

owning a expensive camera has the pitfall that you have to shoot all your projects with the same camera to make it affordable, that may be OK for most projects but it really sucks when you know you would do much better with a different type of equipment but cannot afford to rent it because all the money was invested to the one system you own :o

"married with the camera" for the 2 or 3 years or so. if you are doing lots of different style of projects it may not be practical at all to own a expensive camera system... maybe something handy for b unit or c camera stuff but nothing overly expensive. same thing with lenses of course

Edited April 19, 2017 by aapo lettinen

[Max Field]

 

the customer will pay 100% of the rental fees. so for me it is much cheaper to rent because of that

 

Yeah that's where our situations differ lol. All my clients are too damn cheap to cover stuff like that.

[Aapo Lettinen]

 

Yeah that's where our situations differ lol. All my clients are too damn cheap to cover stuff like that.

 

they still pay you a reasonable compensation for the equipment I hope? then it would make sense to own a zoom or two, some stabilizers+gimbal and stuff like that. a low day rate may not matter because lenses don't go obsolete quickly like cameras do

[Phil Rhodes]

Lens, every time. The lens will last as an investment. The camera, much less so.

[Max Field]

 

they still pay you a reasonable compensation for the equipment I hope?

Ironically enough, I make more money on commissions for things that don't require gear of any kind. So far the compensation I've gotten on camera related things has been ripping me off.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Sounds like you need to negotiate those rates better.

Also you're looking at about 10K+ for even an URSA mini camera Package that you can shoot with without lenses to a level that you may get some kind of rate for it; but here in LA, for example, a full PL Ursa Mini can be had with some CP2s for about 350/day. Same for a Red Dragon, basically.

[Max Field]

Sounds like you need to negotiate those rates better.

(or just find more work in general)

[Satsuki Murashige]

Strictly from a final viewer's perspective, ignoring workflow for right now. At a glance do we appreciate the depth glass can bring to an image? Or would raw color and dynamic range from the sensor be appreciated sooner?

 

If you're asking about the average viewer, then I doubt either would make a massive difference in their appreciation of the finished product. I think great locations, strong compositions, and good lighting would matter more.

 

Now, there are some images that a fast prime lens can make which a slow zoom simply cannot. Same with a camera that has a wide dynamic range versus one which clips very quickly. And some cameras can can capture a wider range of colors than others. So in that sense some equipment can help you out to a noticeable degree, but it's really situation-dependent.

 

If you're asking what a cinematography-savvy viewer would appreciate in an image, then I think they would notice image problems first. If there are no obvious problems, then I think the actual work of framing and lighting would stand out. Then over time, some might pick up on the lovely character of a particular lens, the smooth highlight rolloff of the sensor, or unusually deep color response.

 

Some obvious image issues:

 

1. Dynamic range - harshly clipped highlights that would normally be there. Also, excess color noise in the shadows.

 

2. Colors - skewed or unnatural colors, especially in skin tones or other recognizable subjects that we see every day.

 

3. Soft focus - an image that is slightly out of focus, or just seems to be consistently mushy without anything ever coming into focus.

 

4. Too sharp - seeing every pore and wrinkle on someone's face, every fly-away strand of hair.

 

5. Imaging artifacts - moiré, aliasing, macro-blocking.

 

6. Lens distortion - bowing lines which should be straight, faces looking fat or skewed, circles looking ovoid.

 

7. Rolling shutter/motion cadence artifacts - too much/too little motion blur, skewing distortion on moving objects, partially exposed frames from flash bulbs, flickering monitors and fluorescent lighting.

 

Now, you could use each of these things to artistic effect, but without context most viewers would find these images distracting. Once you are working with gear that isn't causing unintentional distractions or isn't getting in your way, then I don't think the specifics matter as much.

[Brenton Lee]

Man, I'd spend $500 on a second hand BMPCC from eBay, then spend $9500 on glass and accessories.

[Aapo Lettinen]

Ironically enough, I make more money on commissions for things that don't require gear of any kind. So far the compensation I've gotten on camera related things has been ripping me off.

 

maybe the lens would be a better investment then, it will pay itself back much slower but there is also less risk because it lasts much longer than a camera body would do.

 

I tend to charge a low fixed rate for my gear when working on projects (most often a set of Nikon AI-S lenses, the steadicam, onboard monitor, tripod and some misc stuff like filters) , you can try similar approach with your customers if you have problems getting enough compensation and you already have most of the gear paid off. you could charge for example X amount of dollars per day for your gear and if the project needs something extra it can be rented at customer's expense. when getting more gear you will raise the daily rate depending on which type of gear is in question and how expensive it was to purchase.

 

the projects I do have normally budget for renting lighting gear, camera bodies, etc. but cine lenses may be too expensive for the customers so I can use my own lenses and the needed additional gear I have for X euros fixed rate to help them out with the budget. that usually works very well but does not create enough revenue that I could buy any expensive lenses at those rates. it allows, however, me to keep a collection of special nice looking stills lenses and other gear which is virtually impossible to get from rental houses so that I can create special looks for projects easily. if I would own for example a set of Master Primes the customers would not pay much extra for using them in the production I shoot (and they might think it being a bit dishonest if I would try to force them to take the expensive lenses if I would be both the rental house and the DP on the same project) but for lower priced gear it has worked very well

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Man, I'd spend $500 on a second hand BMPCC from eBay, then spend $9500 on glass and accessories.

 

Word.

[Tyler Purcell]

I think one thing professionals gloss over when they get into a subject like this, is the cost of renting.

As a filmmaker, I can't afford to rent anything for my own productions. If I don't own a package of some kind, I wouldn't be shooting personal projects. I think you'd find, that's the case with the majority of people who don't have friends with fancy camera packages or sweetheart deals with rental houses.

So "renting" is in most cases is simply out of the question. If you're on a production as a hired gun, they have the money to pay for rentals, so all of a sudden your personal package becomes less desirable.

With all that in mind, we can drill down to a more realistic framework; Filmmaker wants kit to shoot his own stuff, friends stuff and be hired to shoot other things on occasion. In this case, it's simply about finding a happy medium between the package cost and what is a valid kit to own, so others will hire you to do their shows.

This is where the pocket camera and cheap cinema glass, kinda goes out the window. Love it, works great for personal productions, but you aren't getting hired to shoot with it, unless it's some sort of a friend deal. This is why I kinda recommend the Ursa Mini 4.6k Pro. I think as a $10k package out the door, with all the accessories you need, it's a killer deal. I also think you can hold onto it for 6 - 8 years before it will be come obsolete. Just look at the slow adoption of 4k and how the Pocket Camera still holds up pretty well for being 4 years old (originally announced at NAB 2013)

Then you start with the EF mount, gobble up some inexpensive/older/manual EF glass and call it a day. You can buy a decent set of Canon still lenses for less then a grand on ebay. Sure, they ain't no cinema glass, but to start out with? I think they're a great beginning. Then over time you can invest in something better; PL mount (modern) Sigma, Rokinon, Tokina, solutions and maybe an older PL mount zoom. The adaptor for the Ursa 4.6k to PL mount isn't very much money either. Over the years, you keep the body and simply upgrade the glass.

Where I do understand the mentality of glass being #1, I also think expensive glass isn't important unless you're shooting really high end stuff. The lower-end glass can deliver some cool/soft more filmic results and if you're very careful about flares and aberrations, nobody would know.

 

So yea, that's my opinion on the matter... I spend the money on a good body that will last a long time and the glass will eventually come. That's how I've built all of my camera packages and it works well. In my opinion, there is no point in owning glass and not a decent body because renting ANYTHING gets expensive fast.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I don't think you can manage with any digital camera body for 6 or 8 years nowadays, at least if you want it to be even the #10 package the friends and customers would like to have on a shoot.

Most current cameras wont even last that long in working condition and the repairs may cost more than updating the body to new one every couple of years.

 

maybe I'm just starting to get over of the whole "starving artist" ideology, I personally don't want to make crappy shoestring personal projects anymore or contribute to projects where there is not even budget to rent sandbags or starve myself to death to get the latest next camera or lens model :blink:

suffering indefinitely for art is not worth it in the long run, it makes the life worse but does not get the art to any higher lever, just makes it more hasty and desperate.

maybe I'm finally shifting to the more ideal zone of having the project to choose the gear, not the other way around. i'm not even going to update my GH4 when the GH5 comes around.

I'm perfectly happy shooting personal projects with a 70 years old Cameflex. maybe would buy a Ursa Mini Pro or similar for a project if someone else would pay for it, I don't know ^_^

going to spool down some Vivid now for Konvas, just floating around ^_^

[David Mullen ASC]

It's just math whether it makes more sense to own or rent.

 

If you had an idea for a 35mm short film that could be shot over a weekend, would you first go out and buy a 35mm sync-sound movie camera just so you could shoot with it for two days? No.

 

If you have an idea for a short film that would be shot digitally over many weekends over many months, would you keep renting the same camera every weekend? No.

 

You have a short film and you have one night exterior scene in the woods and you need to light a large area -- what's going to be more expensive? Buying a generator and a 6K HMI just for one night of work or renting those items? You have to shoot interviews in living rooms for a documentary over a year period of shooting, are you really going to rent that small light kit for six to twelve months?

 

Rental is not impossible for people with a small budget and it may make sense financially for some items depending on a number of factors.

[Stuart Brereton]

IThen you start with the EF mount, gobble up some inexpensive/older/manual EF glass and call it a day. You can buy a decent set of Canon still lenses for less then a grand on ebay. Sure, they ain't no cinema glass, but to start out with? I think they're a great beginning.

Canon EF mount lenses are all autofocus. You can use them in manual mode, but they are not ideal for narrative projects. The older FD mount manual lenses don't work on EF mounts without an optical adapter, which significantly degrades their performance. It's only recently that third party manufacturers like Rokinon have started make manual lenses in EF mount, so the prices tend to be higher. There are other manual lenses in a variety of mounts which can be used with an adapter, Asahi Pentax M42, for example, but they come with their own issues.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Nikons can also be used with EF dumb adapters.