Buy or Rent?!?!

[K-Ro]

Dear Forum!!

My partner and I are looking at producing a $225,000 movie to be principally shot in LA for a 4-week shoot. I like the idea of buying a camera instead of renting one because then we can do reshoots without fear of extra costs. I can already guarantee that I'll have 2 to 3 weeks of additional (smaller) shoots with just me, the director and the the other actor, who's a friend. Just three of us. We ourselves don't cost anything. No labor. No insurance. No food. But the camera itself could be expensive if we were renting the whole time. We'd probably be devoting $15,000 to $25,000 to the camera regardless of whether it's a rental or a purchase. The image quality needs to be as good as we can afford. Don't need to go crazy with lenses. Probably a basic kit. My question to this forum is I was wondering what you guys might be able to tell me about the lower- or middle-range versions of the RED and I guess also the Sony F65. (Did I get that right? Is that what's comparable?) Average rental cost for 4 weeks? Price to just straight up buy one? If we found a DP who owned a RED, and he adored our adorable script, how much would he cost all-in?

thank you so much!!!
Kendra

 

[Sweetie]

If we found a DP who owned a RED, and he adored our adorable script, how much would he cost all-in?

Your best approach is to talk with him with an offer in the budget range that you're thinking. If he truly adores the script, then he might be happy with a reduced fee in exchange for (or even in lieu of) a piece of the back end. That's probably your best option.

 

[jax_rox]

I like the idea of buying a camera instead of renting one because then we can do reshoots without fear of extra costs.

Always budget for this. I have not worked on a film yet that didn't have 10% of the budget as contingency, and budgeted/pencil scheduled time for pickups/re-shoots.

But the camera itself could be expensive if we were renting the whole time.

Not necessarily, you can always sweet talk deals with rental houses, and you'll always get better equipment through rental than purchase for the same money.

Don't need to go crazy with lenses.

Lensing and lighting are more important than the camera body. It seems in this day and age that the camera body is the most important thing, when really with the right lenses and the right lighting, you can make a DSLR look almost kinda like RED.

I was wondering what you guys might be able to tell me about the lower- or middle-range versions of the RED and I guess also the Sony F65. (Did I get that right? Is that what's comparable?) Average rental cost for 4 weeks? Price to just straight up buy one? If we found a DP who owned a RED, and he adored our adorable script, how much would he cost all-in?

I don't live in LA, so I can't give you exact costs for LA rental houses. I can give you a rough estimate of what it would cost locally to me, which is I guess not dissimilar to what it would cost for you.

The 'lower' range 'version' of th RED is I guess a Scarlet. It gives you 4k at 25fps, which is fine. You could probably get a good deal and get a full Production Kit for ~$2500/week (including perhaps a basic kit of the lower-end Zeiss Compact Prime lenses). To buy a Scarlet, you'd be looking at ~$17,000 just for a basic kit, without lenses.

The Sony it would compare to is probably the F5. I personally prefer the look of a RED (and RED's far from my favourite camera) but each person/DP likes their own things. Purchase price of an F5 is a tad more than a Scarlet, but rental price would also be a tad more.

The Sony F65 is their top of the line cine camera - a ~$60,000 camera that rents out for about as much as an Alexa at ~$5,000/week.

Honestly, my favourite digital camera is the Alexa. It has a beautiful image - it's what most of Hollywood currently shoots on. If you took your $15-20k to a rental house I think you could easily get a RED Epic or Arri Alexa kit with a Zeiss Ultra Primes set for the 4 weeks.

If you found a DP with a RED, it would likely be cheaper than renting one...

BUT

As a DP myself, I really take issue both with DPs buying cameras to sell themselves, and with people hiring DPs simply because they own a certain camera system. You're not hiring a DP, you're essentially hiring the camera, with an added bonus that it comes with a Camera Operator for cheap.

Some work with this method, and it's what works for them, which is fine. But, to me, DPing is not about justifying your camera purchase.

You should talk with your DP about the look of your film, what you want, what ideas he has, the lighintg and mood of the film. He may well suggest shooting 16mm depending on what the script is - I see no issue shooting 16mm with your stated budget. I always discuss this with my Directors. I'll always sit and talk with them about the themes, mood, visual ideas and concepts behind the movie. I'll talk to them about format. We talk about lensing and what lenses I'd like to use and why - what the difference is in the looks.
So often I hear 'I'm thinking we shoot this' on DSLR or RED, and then we have the discussion - why? The answer is always 'we don't have the budget'. But, in actuality a lot do, and a lot of films benefit from stretching the budget just that little bit to shoot on a certain format. Some Directors simply do not understand exactly what is within their reach.

Look at films like Moonrise Kingdom, or Beasts of the Southern Wild. Such films wouldn't be what they are if they were shot on a RED or DSLR 'because it's cheaper'. I like to design the look with the Director, rather than simply choose a camera based on what I have sitting at home. After all, I'm hired to get the best look out of the production I possibly can.

I don't mean to sound preachy or hipster or stuck up or anything. There are so many options available to you, from really low end and cheap to buy to really high end and expensive to rent. Without reading your script, I can't really give you an opinion on what I think would be the best option for you. But, you should talk about it with your DP and in my personal and professional opinion, I don't think you should hire a DP simply based on what equipment he has got.


--
When are you thinking of shooting? I'll be in LA later in the year.

 

[Alcove Audio]

My personal rule of thumb when the issue is renting vs. purchasing:

If you aren't going to use it every day (300 days/year), rent it.

Yes, it's sort of fuzzy; I don't use every mic I own every day, but being an audio studio is my business. My primary business is audio post, but I do not own a field recorder; I rent what I need on a project-by-project basis. Besides, since it is my business, I can build the rental cost into my bid. A perk is I can rent/borrow the latest toys and have some fun. It actually makes more sense to own accessories (they change very little over the years) than to own the "big" stuff. Ten years ago the absolute must have camera was the DVX-100. Who lusts after a DVX-100 these days? But you can still use the same tripod, C-stands, lights, etc., etc., etc. you bought back then.



I'm curious... Why no insurance? Your ass is grass is you have a problem. Why no food? No one is going to get hungry or thirsty during a 12 hour day?

 

[K-Ro]

Wow, thank you guys for such generous information!! This is reaaaaaaaaaaally helpful. Thank you!!!

Normally a line producer would be key in this discussion for us but since my partner and I are in the first phase of negotiating with an investor, we're not going to bring in a line producer until there's money to pay one. I do realize that using a DP whose only asset is being a one-stop-shop is a risk. But there are so many DP's now who own, you can actually find a decent artist among them. I'm not sayin' we're sold on this option. But it's one that people keep mentioning.

Our camera budget of 15k - 25k would have to include lens costs but it does not include lighting costs.

Oh, and to the question from Alcove Audio, as far as skipping food and insurance, sorry, I wasn't talking about principal photography. For the four weeks with a big crew, we will of course run a standard set. But the for the couple weeks after the fact, when we're doing close ups in our own houses or insert shots or stealing shots on a streetcorner, with just three of us total, there won't be an extra cost for food. We'd just be buying the normal meals that we'd each buy on our own anyway. Did that make any sense? : )

 

[David.rhsc]

Wow, thank you guys for such generous information!! This is reaaaaaaaaaaally helpful.
Our camera budget of 15k - 25k would have to include lens costs but it does not include lighting costs.

Definitely rent. At that budget level you are barely scratching the surface of "body only" prices, and aren't even in the ballpark of a solid set of cinema primes.

Think of it this way. For 15K you can purchase a c300 body and have nothing else to use with it, or you can rent a camera package for the month. Most houses will work with people on rates for longer duration rentals. Or you could maybe buy a few Zeiss CP.2's, but nothing to attach them to.

As far as owner/operators are concerned. I agree very much with Jax, but sadly it's becoming the new trend. I'd love to avoid going that route (because it would save me money), but we have to adapt to the business or find a new business. My approach would always be to consider what would be best for the film, even if I do have a pro-level camera package sitting in my truck. Just because its mine doesn't mean its the right thing to use.

Having said that, you are almost always better off renting from a House than from a private owner. Particularly because the House will be able to provide better support than a private owner ever would. For example, not many private owners can deliver a replacement camera body to you within 24 hours if something goes wrong. Nearly every rental house worth it's salt can.

 

[jax_rox]

Having said that, you are almost always better off renting from a House than from a private owner. Particularly because the House will be able to provide better support than a private owner ever would. For example, not many private owners can deliver a replacement camera body to you within 24 hours if something goes wrong. Nearly every rental house worth it's salt can.

This. We've had RED shoots in the past where cameras have been.. well typically temperamental. With a rental house, you can call them up and they'll have another body out to you within the day, and it might set you back half a day. With an owner/operator they're likely going to have to send their camera back to RED to get checked/fixed, so you either stop production down til it comes back (who knows how long that'll be) or you go and rent one from a house anyway.