When it comes to opinions, I believe in "the more the merrier". All the advice you've gotten so far has been quite good, but with all due respect... pretty predictable.
So, it's time for something completely from left field. And I'm willing to play the role of the fool here
. And so, my advice is going to be quite different from most you got so far.
I think you should consider two possibilities.
1) Get no camera at all.
Look at this whole thing from a higher altitude. What do you want to accomplish, and what is the best way to do it? Without getting into a book length philosophical discussion, let's just say you want to (a) learn to become a filmmaker OR (b) make a film... most often both.
I found that when probed, many folks actually reclassify (b) to (a) - i.e. they want to make a film as a way of learning to become a filmmaker. Either way, think about it.
Do you want to be a director? It's good to have a basic knowledge of all aspects of filmmaking. Sure. But let's get real here - there's a sweet spot. You can take it too far into diminishing returns: for example, while it may be useful to have a basic understanding of cinematography, it's not necessary to be Nobel Prize winning physicist in the field of light theory, and also a brilliant engineer who can design his own camera etc. There isn't enough lifetime to learn all those crafts so thoroughly that you'll be tops in all. You must make a judgment call. Learn enough - and not more.
Moreover (and I'll catch massive flak for this) I actually think too much technical knowledge can hurt you (as Andy Warhol maintained) - this is not to promote amateurism or ignorance or downplay technical expertise, but there's a tendency for some not to see the forest for the trees... actually something changes in your brain, as if it's made of clay, and once you stamp it with something too strongly (say, cinematography), it won't leave enough room for anything else. Have you ever noticed how many DP's try to become directors, and how tiny a percentage ever get to be any good as a director? These are the practical consequences of what I pointed out (and yes, there are exceptions, but exceedingly rare, like Nicolas Roeg etc.). You see this on a smaller scale, even here, where there'll be technical wankery aplenty, but when one of these (actually very competent) technical gurus submits a film sample as director (i.e. not as DP work), all of a sudden you realize that however brilliant they are as a DP they suck as director. Again, I'm not saying you should ignore it all - but there are many ways to be a director. There's only one way to be a DP. A director can be great with story, but suck with camera placement - and the audience will forgive him, because story is 95% of the impact of film on audiences (and no, I'm not talking about the 3% of film nerds in film school). A director may have a great way with actors, but be so-so as far as his eye for cinematography goes (think Robert Altman). He may be very good with special effects, but suck in every other way (Michael Bay - OK, I'm kidding a bit). So, you may have almost zero technical skills, but be good with actors and story, and you'll be a great director. But a DP has to be good as DP, and what that means is much, much more limited - end of story.
Furthermore, some things cross better into a directing than others. Counterintuitively, I'll claim cinematography is one of the worst - watch them draw and quarter me here But I'm serious. That skillset just doesn't translate to directing (again, yes there are exceptions) - how can it be, since film is a visual medium? I don't know why, it just is - again, the proof is in the pudding - there really are few DPs who cross to becoming good directors (every DP seemingly gets 1 or 2 shots at it). Maybe we overvalue the "visual" impact on an audience compared to story and acting elements? Writers cross a lot better (screenplay writers). Editors cross a lot better. DP's? Not so much.
OK, my point is: don't get a camera. Get a brilliant/good/competent/decent/tolerable/ DP who brings his own camera. (I)He'll be better at DP'ing than you'll ever be, and a better camera operator. (II)He'll know his camera a lot better than your half a$$ed study of a few dozen hours of your camera. (III)It'll free you to concentrate on other tasks - a director has a lot to do, why take on another duty. Leave the technical wankery to the technical guys - they're better at it, and you'll never match them... unless you want to be the cam operator or DP as a career, then go knock yourself out. (IV)Finally, there's always money needed on a shoot. It's cheaper not to buy a camera if the DP has one he's more comfortable with anyway. Problem solved.
What you must do as a director is have a vision - know what you want, pick a DP and then trust him (and supervise - that's the job of a director), and guide him to get you what you want.
You'll get a lot more out of studying writing and editing - which you can do without a camera. Write. Edit. Hire/cajole the technical people - the DP's, the sound people, the rest.
Brutal truth: if you write something good enough (or obtain the rights to, or get ahold of a script), MONEY WILL COME TO YOU with just a bit of work, and then, you won't have to worry about which camera to get, and how you'll pay for it. If you have that kind of backing and legitimacy, you'll get a real DP involved and the camera will be his problem - as long as you know what you want from him in broad strokes.
And if your writing is not strong enough (or you property not strong enough) to get financing, and you're forced to do it on your own? Well, read that again. Honey, if your project sucks, maybe you should work hard enough to unsuck it, maybe it's not ready for prime time - in which case you should not shoot it, and again, the question of "which camera do I get" is irrelevant.
Now, OK, since not every project can be brilliant and get financing - maybe you feel there's value in just shooting a film to learn the art. In that case, my friend, I submit, option two.
2)Get the cheapest camera around - maybe the Canon HV20.
Ask yourself - if your film is strictly for learning, does it matter that it's "wow 16:9", "wow 24p", "wow filmlike"?
I submit it's a lot of rubbish. What you'll get from a shoot is how to handle actors, how to tell a story, how to edit, how to run a production - almost none of this involves "which exact camera do I get".
And if you insist that there's something for a director to learn from a camera - OK, for example, shot blocking - friend, you can do it with a $5 camera.
Bottom line, think more about the important things, look at it from a higher altitude, and you'll either get no camera or a total cheapie.
Sorry for the length. All IMHO.
So, it's time for something completely from left field. And I'm willing to play the role of the fool here
. And so, my advice is going to be quite different from most you got so far.I think you should consider two possibilities.
1) Get no camera at all.
Look at this whole thing from a higher altitude. What do you want to accomplish, and what is the best way to do it? Without getting into a book length philosophical discussion, let's just say you want to (a) learn to become a filmmaker OR (b) make a film... most often both.
I found that when probed, many folks actually reclassify (b) to (a) - i.e. they want to make a film as a way of learning to become a filmmaker. Either way, think about it.
Do you want to be a director? It's good to have a basic knowledge of all aspects of filmmaking. Sure. But let's get real here - there's a sweet spot. You can take it too far into diminishing returns: for example, while it may be useful to have a basic understanding of cinematography, it's not necessary to be Nobel Prize winning physicist in the field of light theory, and also a brilliant engineer who can design his own camera etc. There isn't enough lifetime to learn all those crafts so thoroughly that you'll be tops in all. You must make a judgment call. Learn enough - and not more.
Moreover (and I'll catch massive flak for this) I actually think too much technical knowledge can hurt you (as Andy Warhol maintained) - this is not to promote amateurism or ignorance or downplay technical expertise, but there's a tendency for some not to see the forest for the trees... actually something changes in your brain, as if it's made of clay, and once you stamp it with something too strongly (say, cinematography), it won't leave enough room for anything else. Have you ever noticed how many DP's try to become directors, and how tiny a percentage ever get to be any good as a director? These are the practical consequences of what I pointed out (and yes, there are exceptions, but exceedingly rare, like Nicolas Roeg etc.). You see this on a smaller scale, even here, where there'll be technical wankery aplenty, but when one of these (actually very competent) technical gurus submits a film sample as director (i.e. not as DP work), all of a sudden you realize that however brilliant they are as a DP they suck as director. Again, I'm not saying you should ignore it all - but there are many ways to be a director. There's only one way to be a DP. A director can be great with story, but suck with camera placement - and the audience will forgive him, because story is 95% of the impact of film on audiences (and no, I'm not talking about the 3% of film nerds in film school). A director may have a great way with actors, but be so-so as far as his eye for cinematography goes (think Robert Altman). He may be very good with special effects, but suck in every other way (Michael Bay - OK, I'm kidding a bit). So, you may have almost zero technical skills, but be good with actors and story, and you'll be a great director. But a DP has to be good as DP, and what that means is much, much more limited - end of story.
Furthermore, some things cross better into a directing than others. Counterintuitively, I'll claim cinematography is one of the worst - watch them draw and quarter me here
But I'm serious. That skillset just doesn't translate to directing (again, yes there are exceptions) - how can it be, since film is a visual medium? I don't know why, it just is - again, the proof is in the pudding - there really are few DPs who cross to becoming good directors (every DP seemingly gets 1 or 2 shots at it). Maybe we overvalue the "visual" impact on an audience compared to story and acting elements? Writers cross a lot better (screenplay writers). Editors cross a lot better. DP's? Not so much.OK, my point is: don't get a camera. Get a brilliant/good/competent/decent/tolerable/ DP who brings his own camera. (I)He'll be better at DP'ing than you'll ever be, and a better camera operator. (II)He'll know his camera a lot better than your half a$$ed study of a few dozen hours of your camera. (III)It'll free you to concentrate on other tasks - a director has a lot to do, why take on another duty. Leave the technical wankery to the technical guys - they're better at it, and you'll never match them... unless you want to be the cam operator or DP as a career, then go knock yourself out. (IV)Finally, there's always money needed on a shoot. It's cheaper not to buy a camera if the DP has one he's more comfortable with anyway. Problem solved.
What you must do as a director is have a vision - know what you want, pick a DP and then trust him (and supervise - that's the job of a director), and guide him to get you what you want.
You'll get a lot more out of studying writing and editing - which you can do without a camera. Write. Edit. Hire/cajole the technical people - the DP's, the sound people, the rest.
Brutal truth: if you write something good enough (or obtain the rights to, or get ahold of a script), MONEY WILL COME TO YOU with just a bit of work, and then, you won't have to worry about which camera to get, and how you'll pay for it. If you have that kind of backing and legitimacy, you'll get a real DP involved and the camera will be his problem - as long as you know what you want from him in broad strokes.
And if your writing is not strong enough (or you property not strong enough) to get financing, and you're forced to do it on your own? Well, read that again. Honey, if your project sucks, maybe you should work hard enough to unsuck it, maybe it's not ready for prime time - in which case you should not shoot it, and again, the question of "which camera do I get" is irrelevant.
Now, OK, since not every project can be brilliant and get financing - maybe you feel there's value in just shooting a film to learn the art. In that case, my friend, I submit, option two.
2)Get the cheapest camera around - maybe the Canon HV20.
Ask yourself - if your film is strictly for learning, does it matter that it's "wow 16:9", "wow 24p", "wow filmlike"?
I submit it's a lot of rubbish. What you'll get from a shoot is how to handle actors, how to tell a story, how to edit, how to run a production - almost none of this involves "which exact camera do I get".
And if you insist that there's something for a director to learn from a camera - OK, for example, shot blocking - friend, you can do it with a $5 camera.
Bottom line, think more about the important things, look at it from a higher altitude, and you'll either get no camera or a total cheapie.
Sorry for the length. All IMHO.
)