ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 10 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

For a series of films you should be spending the bulk of your time either in preproduction or postproduction, and only a handful of days at a time actually filming. Rather, if you don't, you'll be wasting production time by having to do stuff you should have prepped for, or never finishing films properly in post.

As such, my suggestion is to rent a suitable camera for production periods for a fraction of the cost of purchase plus all the primes plus filler kits plus puller kits plus grip etc you'll need to make it work using. Spielberg's DoP doesn't own his own ARRIs, people generally rent for production period then hand the camera back. It also means you've got a heap more cash to rent decent lenses, lights, pay good crew, feed people, build sets, cover expenses, get locations, work with actors, all of which will result in better quality results and building a core team. Without them, you could be running around with an Alexa or Genesis but still make bad films. Remember 28 days later was shot on DV. Sure, it looks soft by modern standards, but people still enjoy it as a darn good film. Don't get too hung up on the camera/technology behind it!

11 years, 10 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

I agree with Paddy - as usual ;) - I think that filmmakers today are more interested in sinking their capital into cheaper equipment than putting it on screen with high production values. Rent, rent, rent. Then you will get all the best kit in the world and your film wont be let down with a poor budget. beleive me, a poor budget, spent poorly, will show on screen...

11 years, 10 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

I understand the appeal of having a camera on-hand, but once you build out the kit to a useable/useful level (lenses, lights, grip, cards, monitors, matte boxes, filters, etc) you've spent a lot of cash. Of course lenses, lamps and grip should last, but until you've got everything you're going to be going back to rental companies anyway...in which case you may as well take a camera package.

It's up to you of course. I doubt the model you're after is old enough to be sloshing round for cheap on the second hand market yet, professional/prosumer bodies hold value fairly well. Lenses etc will still be full price. Whether or not you'd save the purchase price on hires is your shout. Typically though a camera body needs to spend maybe 50% of its time out on hire to be worth it for the rental company. By reverse, that suggests that unless you're using your camera body at least half of the time, you could be better off hiring.

11 years, 10 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

The advantage of being at college/Uni is having access to kit... Don't waste your money on a camera when you could get one for free. Put the money you have available in to production design or paying your cast and crew to get the best out of them. Or for a top sound mix or online etc etc etc...

11 years, 10 months ago - Dean Uzzell

Really appreciate the reply, ok yeh i think i will consider that its just because i am at uni and constantly filming small projects as well that i asked really. Just prefer the look of the FS100 over DSLR. But once again really appreciate the reply and i can completely see where you are coming from. I understand it is all about the idea and not so much the equipment but if i know it will be getting hell of a lot of use out of it i thought it a viable option. Cheers again Paddy.