Camera Or Lens

[Tyler Purcell]

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.

 

Interesting, I didn't know the FD mount glass didn't fit the EF cameras. I guess it's down to Nikon mount then because that hasn't changed much, but I think you still need an adaptor of some kind right?

[Satsuki Murashige]

Other options for manual focus stills lenses that can be easily adapted to EF mount are Contax Zeiss, Leica R, Pentax K, some Minolta Rokkor, and various M42 screw mount glass.

 

Leitax in Spain make the best adapters: http://leitax.com.

[Phil Rhodes]

The practicality of renting is entirely situationally dependent.

 

People scoff at the idea of scraping together a basic lighting package, for instance. The cost of renting that 575 HMI is mere tens of units of currency a day, perhaps.

 

Well, it is and it isn't. If you already have a lot of rental gear involved, the cost of adding something to the package can be quite low. If you're not already renting equipment, though, the total cost of renting it, insuring it and having it transported can be impractical. Often, small productions will involve a personal dropoff or pickup, at exactly the time when people's concentration really needs to be elsewhere. It's half a day at least even if the place is reasonably local.

 

This is why microbudget filmmakers own gear.

[David Mullen ASC]

If low-budget people never rent, then why are there so many small rental houses? Just go over to Samy's Camera, a still photography store, and you see students and small production companies renting gear all the time. I see people there renting a few c-stands, sandbags and a backdrop for some little photo shoot they've got going.

 

Sure, ownership is more common than ever because the gear is more affordable than ever, but there are always items that get rented on a short-term basis because it makes no sense to buy everything if you are only going to use it once. If you need to do a single endoscopic shot for some local TV spot, are you going to buy an Innovision probe lens or just rent it?

 

The first time I ever used a 6K HMI was on a student shoot; the director rented it along with a generator. How does anyone ever use something big like that for the first time if they never rent?

 

There are many levels of budgets out there, it isn't just tiny productions where people own all the gear and big productions with big trucks of rented gear. There are some in-between levels in there, someone who rents a special item for a shoot, maybe it's a jib arm, maybe it's a dana dolly, or a probe lens or a bigger HMI. Or a smoke machine. Seriously, if you were going to do a little shoot and you had one bar scene that you'd need haze for, you'd always go out and buy a smoke machine?

 

I shot a promo spot for "The Love Witch" with my Sony NEX6 but the director found a small rental place to get some extension cords, a few c-stands, a few tweenies, a couple of small flags, and some sandbags. She didn't go out an buy all of those items for a one-day shoot!

[Tyler Purcell]

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.

Yea I hear ya, but 1080p cameras only were phased out two years ago, they had a solid 10 year run. Plus, even today 4k is a nightmare to deal with post wise and the prices for "decent" 4k cameras have pretty much stabilized in the last two years. So there really isn't a "next big shift" in technology coming, or we'd know about it right now since it usually takes 2 years to incubate and another 2 years for the price to come down. So today is a great time to buy a 4k cinema package because we don't know the future and manufacturers are still putting in a lot of effort to make better 4k cameras for lower prices with better quality.

 

So I believe my "estimate" of 6 years makes sense math wise based on those numbers because no matter what, even if the tech is phased out, you'll still get another 2 years out of it. Maybe 8 is pushing it, but I still shoot stills with a 10 year old DSLR and have zero reason to buy another one.

 

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

Yea, I hear ya totally. I do feel that most people are starving artists... so they want equipment because it's an enabler. When you have the stuff sitting in your garage, in your house, maybe even bedroom, it's a constant reminder to go out and make stuff. For me, it's a huge motivator, I've shot more little projects in the last 3 years OWNING equipment, then the previous 10 NOT OWNING equipment. I've also worked more as a DP and filmmaker thanks to my equipment.

 

The big question is... has owning equipment paid off? Well, if I didn't have an Avid Edit bay, I wouldn't have been working the last 3 years straight. If I didn't have DaVinci and a 4k color grading monitor, I wouldn't have learned how to color and done color jobs for various people. Same with cameras, if I didn't have my cameras, I wouldn't have met the filmmakers I currently work with.

 

So even if you buy equipment JUST to get your foot in the door and meet people, I think in a lot of ways it's worth it, if what you have is worthwhile. I invested in two really nice film packages recently and in 2 weeks I already picked up two features, doing pickup's and reshoots... I mean that's paid work I wouldn't have without the cameras, as neither filmmaker can afford rental house prices which with lenses are close to $500/day + labor. With me, they get labor AND camera for that much. Will I ever see the money back on the investment? Yes, because without it, I wouldn't be working.

[Tyler Purcell]

If low-budget people never rent, then why are there so many small rental houses?

Low-budget people DO rent, we rented 5DMKII's and lenses for 'A Fuller Life'. Cost is around $150/weekend, which is peanuts.

 

However, if you're a shooter and you're trying to garnish work, you look more enticing to a client with equipment then without. I can't even imagine being an editor without an edit bay. I'd be working 16 hour days in a sweat shop somewhere in Santa Monica, sitting in a chair, getting fat and hating myself. With a bay, I work from home, make my own hours, stand up all day and spend most of my time shooting other projects. It's liberating.

 

Sure, ownership is more common than ever because the gear is more affordable than ever, but there are always items that get rented on a short-term basis because it makes no sense to buy everything if you are only going to use it once.

Ohh no doubt. It's just, to rent you now need insurance. You now need to shlep yourself to the shop, check stuff out, bring it home, make sure it all works, check it afterwards, bring it back on monday, yada, yada, yada. It's just a lot of extra work for a one day (weekend) shoot for no pay/fun. Sure, if I need an HMI or dolly, I'll run over to Wooden Nickel and they'll hook me up for one or two items, using my CC as a deposit. Decent cameras and lenses? You need insurance.

 

It's impossible to own everything you need... but if you have a decent camera, lenses, support, audio gear and maybe some lights, you're already 80% there. All of the smaller, ancillary things aren't very expensive to deal with.

 

I have around $25k invested in my work equipment from computers to cameras. I'll make 3x that much money this year, using that gear. So... yea, it's worth it for me as a filmmaker, someone who shoots/directs their own productions most of the time.

[Max Field]

I think my personal anxiety with rental as someone not currently making much is dollars going into the void. As opposed to purchasing used equipment and then having the ability to resell whenever I want. Paying actors, artists, boom ops, isn't an issue for me, renting objects in general has always felt unfulfilling.

 

If a Dragon was only $300 for a weekend I'd be super down for rental every time. But renting it for a whole week, going well into 4 digits, you may as well just wait and purchase if your shoot isn't a guaranteed return.

[Brian Drysdale]

Having rented on my personal own films, it can come down to if you want top make the film now, or do you want to want a year until you can afford to buy the gear?

[Max Field]

Anyone know of used camera sellers that offer financing? Or is that not common in the realm of cinematography?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

 

 

If a Dragon was only $300 for a weekend I'd be super down for rental every time. But renting it for a whole week, going well into 4 digits, you may as well just wait and purchase if your shoot isn't a guaranteed return.

A dragon IS 300/wkend just about here in LA and probably out of NY as well. Check out Sharegrid and their yrly insurance deal.

 

https://newyork.sharegrid.com/en/browse/cinema-cameras--2/red--3

[George Ebersole]

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.

 

Well, I'm of the opinion that you can always rent glass.

[Bob Hobbs]

I'm a hobbyist/micro budget shooter.

I have been working as Sales for a camera store in Canada for over 2 years. (great discounts)

 

Over 2 years working, I have gathered some gear, however, never sold myself into a body. (now if I did, it would probably be a BMPCC and I'd most likely take your extra 9.000 and buy a Cooke variokinetal.)

 

I have purchased everything I can think of under the sun for a microbudget narrative feature filmmaking. But Coming from a student/micro budget "wokring on my own projects" filmmaker. I totally feel your need and want to get out an own an 'entire package'. However, I'd be more inclined (IF IT WAS ME) to put the 10,000 into GLASS.. More longevity and also a better chance to rent out, and renting out your gear is a great way to pay for more gear. or the gear itself.

 

That all being said, If you invest into lenses that cover 6k-8k (new sigma cine's) your probably set for life. as long as your happy with the lens itself. In comparison, putting $10,000 into a body, you might not be in the ball park to secure yourself a solid "life-long" body.

 

Cheers!