C500 MKII Leaked on Canon Rumors

NorBro said:
35 pages to choose from and that's what you single out as sarcasm?...lol

[And this is how DVXuser has been since Day 1.]

I am very serious.

In short - without writing a novel about it - many new age clients do not understand the concept of charging for gear you own.

This is an old-school mentality that is not as acceptable today as it once was.

And I personally do not believe in it, and wouldn't strain potential relationships by asking for a separate amount of money/rental fee for my gear.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is very interesting, I've never heard of such a thing, that sounds quite unusual for most of us. But I work mostly in and around the edges of Hollywood where nobody would ever NOT charge for gear and kit, especially since literally every single shoot is radically different and the gear needed seems to be radically different.
I don't really have a standard kit. This year has ranged from everything from me and the gimbal with an XT-3 for a few hours of b-roll to me with an Alexa Mini full kit, two ACs and a ten ton G&L truck and a lot of stuff in between. Hallmark Channel Movie was C200, shoulder mount kit and Ninja Blade with V mounts, couple of lenses, tripod and of course, the production had their own G&L department and sound. Different markets I guess? Been shooting a decent amount of green screen too, I definitely charge additional for the frame, screen, grip to hold it, additional lights to light it, etc. than shooting an EPK interview or shooting BTS at an event or on a TV set.
 
It's not that one can make more with C500 MKII, it's that one will probably make a lot less (going forward) with cameras below this and FX-9 tier. At $16,000 ready to shoot (glass & accessories excluded), it's a very affordable gear by the US pro standards.
 
NorBro said:
In short - without writing a novel about it - many new age clients do not understand the concept of charging for gear you own.

This is an old-school mentality that is not as acceptable today as it once was.

And I personally do not believe in it, and wouldn't strain potential relationships by asking for a separate amount of money/rental fee for my gear.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe in it, then I definitely wouldn't do it, but I'd really challenge this assumption. I'd almost guarantee you that you could grandfather your existing clients in to your model of not charging gear rental and then for all new clients charge equipment rental (whether that's an actual line item, or its you internally bumping your rate up a little bit) and nobody would bat an eye.
 
jcs said:
You're a great salesman Jim- hope you sell a lot! (+thx again for the C700 FF test. Maybe I should dig up the Canon rep's card and ask to release the test footage. I was at Samy's and they said you moved to Filmtools- hope all is well there!).

PS- keep an eye on Eric- looks like he's interested in acquiring a C500 II or 2 ;)
Click to expand...
Yes...it's awesome to be back at Filmtools, by far the place in LA for everything including cameras in stock from RED, Sony, Pany,JVC and Canon.......and yes. hopefully Eric will throw the love this way instead of NY!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
puredrifting said:
Wow, this is very interesting, I've never heard of such a thing, that sounds quite unusual for most of us. But I work mostly in and around the edges of Hollywood where nobody would ever NOT charge for gear and kit, especially since literally every single shoot is radically different and the gear needed seems to be radically different.
I don't really have a standard kit. This year has ranged from everything from me and the gimbal with an XT-3 for a few hours of b-roll to me with an Alexa Mini full kit, two ACs and a ten ton G&L truck and a lot of stuff in between. Hallmark Channel Movie was C200, shoulder mount kit and Ninja Blade with V mounts, couple of lenses, tripod and of course, the production had their own G&L department and sound. Different markets I guess? Been shooting a decent amount of green screen too, I definitely charge additional for the frame, screen, grip to hold it, additional lights to light it, etc. than shooting an EPK interview or shooting BTS at an event or on a TV set.
Click to expand...

chris f said:
If you don't believe in it, then I definitely wouldn't do it, but I'd really challenge this assumption. I'd almost guarantee you that you could grandfather your existing clients in to your model of not charging gear rental and then for all new clients charge equipment rental (whether that's an actual line item, or its you internally bumping your rate up a little bit) and nobody would bat an eye.
Click to expand...

Maybe my situation is unique. It's a little different than the traditional "blue-collar" video production (for the lack of a better description). And it's a 1 on a scale of 1-10 in terms of size.

It's very low-key work for specific people.

Simple, straightforward...if and when that ends, my career in video production ends.
 
Bern Caughey said:
Years ago I was at Filmtools, & observed Jim Martin trying to talk a couple of customers, believe they were Swedish, out of buying a full Steadicam kit. Would have been a quick sale as they were traveling home the next day, but instead he showed them how a monopod might better suit their needs. Don’t think I’ve ever shook Jim’s hand, & certainly he’s never sold me anything, but earned my respect that day.
Click to expand...
Thanks much on this....and someday I'll officially meet the man behind the mask!....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
I think there's some misunderstanding going on. I don't think anyone is "not charging" for gear. It's just a package price. There's not a separate line item for labor and gear(unless it's extra items and OT). It's more or less semantics. There's really no difference between sending in an invoice for $1900 for operator and cam package together and sending in an invoice with a separate line for $700 labor and another for $1200 for the gear.

With most of my client's, it's a package price. This is especially how TV clients operate and expect to be invoiced. I only have one that has to have labor and equipment on separate invoices and that's because they're paid by separate divisions.
 
NorBro said:
Simple, straightforward...if and when that ends, my career in video production ends.
Click to expand...

And yet here you are diving deep into camera forums speculating about potential quality to price ratios of mid/high level cameras....... Something tells me the above statement isn't true.
 
Run&Gun said:
I think there's some misunderstanding going on. I don't think anyone is "not charging" for gear. It's just a package price. There's not a separate line item for labor and gear(unless it's extra items and OT). It's more or less semantics. There's really no difference between sending in an invoice for $1900 for operator and cam package together and sending in an invoice with a separate line for $700 labor and another for $1200 for the gear.

With most of my client's, it's a package price. This is especially how TV clients operate and expect to be invoiced. I only have one that has to have labor and equipment on separate invoices and that's because they're paid by separate divisions.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to challenge the assumption (and mindset) that any professional is "losing" money on a camera being under spec'd or overpriced in the mid-level camera market. If you're aware of what you're spending and what you're making on shoot days the gear should be paying for itself and then some - if not you may have bought too expensive of a camera, but even then you should be able to sell your used camera and cut your losses.

Externally it might be more semantics, but internally if you're tracking everything line item you'll know how much your gear is making and will help you make much more educated decisions on when/how to invest in future gear purchases. If you're just lumping everything together its hard to know what's really going on.
 
Last edited:
chris f said:
And yet here you are diving deep into camera forums speculating about potential quality to price ratios of mid/high level cameras....... Something tells me the above statement isn't true.
Click to expand...

Been doing this for 10 years. Nothing has changed. Trust that my words are here to help.

I don't get paid by anyone to say certain things or to lie.

___

And where and for whom I may work is irrelevant. As far as you know, I could be rich and maybe I'm renting ARRIs and REDs (along with the Canons and Sonys and Panasonics) every week to play with. (I'm not and I don't.)

But that's how I could have gained my experience. And that could be why I'm telling you certain cameras are not worth the price, IMO.

Just because a camera costs a certain price doesn't mean it's worth that much. Everyone is free to speculate, and does. If you can personally say the C500 Mark II is an amazing camera for an amazing price then I can say it's not - even though I didn't - and we can coexist.
 
There is another element to camera ownership. Joy of use and subsequent good work.

THe FS7 is full of minor niggles and also doesnt have AF, the plastic hande makes me feel ill, the S+Q takes a week before one can start rolling again. Cache record is forgotten when one leaves S+Q. Not to mention the menu.

Im not saying the 500 is better. Im just saying that such things can ruin an operators day and beyond beusiness we do want to enjoy our work and deliver our best.. which of course good for business in the long run.
 
morgan_moore said:
There is another element to camera ownership. Joy of use and subsequent good work.

THe FS7 is full of minor niggles and also doesnt have AF, the plastic hande makes me feel ill, the S+Q takes a week before one can start rolling again. Cache record is forgotten when one leaves S+Q. Not to mention the menu.

Im not saying the 500 is better. Im just saying that such things can ruin an operators day and beyond beusiness we do want to enjoy our work and deliver our best.. which of course good for business in the long run.
Click to expand...

This is true. The X-T3 is incredibly fun and easy to use, and I think my work is better when using gear I connect with. In contrast, I find Sony's mirrorless cameras feel like I'm using a computer with a lens vs. a camera.

My C200 is also fun to use.
 
Run&Gun said:
I think there's some misunderstanding going on. I don't think anyone is "not charging" for gear. It's just a package price. There's not a separate line item for labor and gear(unless it's extra items and OT). It's more or less semantics. There's really no difference between sending in an invoice for $1900 for operator and cam package together and sending in an invoice with a separate line for $700 labor and another for $1200 for the gear.

With most of my client's, it's a package price. This is especially how TV clients operate and expect to be invoiced. I only have one that has to have labor and equipment on separate invoices and that's because they're paid by separate divisions.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about the history of this custom of charging separately for labor and gear. I'd have thought charging separate rates would have been a tradition of TV production, rather than the reverse. Historically speaking, has this been more common in the corporate and/or commercial worlds than elsewhere?

Most of my experience (until mid-2016) has been with in-house production, so I'm still a bit new to the world of freelance rates and billing. Thus far, most people I've worked for (both direct-to-client and producers/production companies) haven't questioned my separate line items for labor and gear, but there have certainly been exceptions.

I worked a couple of days for Vice News earlier this year and was directed to log labor and gear expenses separately in their payroll system, for what that's worth. On the other hand, I worked frequently in the last few years with an agency client on corporate and small-scale commercial jobs, as well as on a reality/doc TV series that they produced in-house. They rarely questioned my gear expenses for the corporate/commercial stuff, but when it came to the TV show, it became a real issue.
 
mattmealer said:
I'm curious about the history of this custom of charging separately for labor and gear. I'd have thought charging separate rates would have been a tradition of TV production, rather than the reverse. Historically speaking, has this been more common in the corporate and/or commercial worlds than elsewhere?
Click to expand...

My hunch is that it trickles down from the top where commercial DPs and feature DPs don't own cameras so camera packages are always line items in the budget. I think as you start to come down a level or two certain types of DPs see how much money is going towards camera rentals on every shoot and start realizing that the same camera(s) are getting rented and then decide to buy the camera themselves in hopes of paying it off and then having a great camera that they can use on their own passion projects and/or something that can eventually make them even more profit on top of their day rate (which will always be trading time for money).

For me the turning point from doing a package deal (me + camera package) to charging separately for labor and gear was several years back when I used to always offer myself as a package deal at a rate that I wanted to make for the day. The producer (wanting to save money) realized he owned the same camera as me and then asked how much my rate would be if we used his camera instead since he wouldn't need mine. I paused for a moment, and then said the same dollar amount which made no sense to him (or me even though I'm the one who said it...). After a lot of awkward backpeddling and back and forth i realized in that moment that I needed to make my labor day rate the amount that I want to make for a day and then add my camera package on as a separate expense on top of that. It was scary to do, but moving forward I made my new labor day rate what my old labor+camera rate was and then made an additional camera rate.

For what it's worth I price my camera rate lower than what it would cost to rent from a rental house for a few reasons, one of them being that going with my camera package (which i'm more comfortable with and will almost certainly do a better job with) will "save" the producer money compared to renting whatever other package they may be considering and it will make my job easier, which is what I want to incentivize. Also, by doing this I'm able to bump up my labor rate which insures that I still get paid well if they want to use another camera. I'm not sure what industry standard is, but within my package deal (me+camera) rate I'd say my labor rate makes up about 80% of the total rate.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
... But that's how I could have gained my experience. And that could be why I'm telling you certain cameras are not worth the price, IMO...
Click to expand...
In terms of pure economics (or even accounting), you want gear that will be the most beneficial to your job and career long-term. If you're a top DP, you pick what you want or what a producer might want. If you're just starting up, you go with the appropriate for the assignment gear. And, if you're a hired gun, you go by the segment.

And C500 MKII looks quite capable for a lot of segments.
 
DLD said:
If you're a top DP, you pick what you want or what a producer might want. If you're just starting up, you go with the appropriate for the assignment gear. And, if you're a hired gun, you go by the segment.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it's eerie that no one ever talks about the audience, you know, the people who actually watch what you made?
 
NorBro said:
The irony is the best DPs in the world probably don't own a camera and rent one, or are provided one by a studio.

But I guess if I'm going to go big, I'm going to go big:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1389602-REG/arri_kb_72020_d_alexa_lf_pro_camera.html

View attachment 136788
Click to expand...
I know it's relatively new, but I haven't seen that many shows or movies actually using the Alexa LF. I talked with an AC who worked with one on a local Atlanta show and complained about the weight. It's a bit heavier than the Alexa XT, but as you'll need larger and heavier lenses generally speaking, that adds more to the weight as well. Most big movies I've been seeing use the Alexa XT in combination with the Alexa Mini. I suspect the LF will become more popular once the Mini LF is released, but many shows and movies not forced to adopt 4K will stay with the Super35 Arris.

Just a quick look at the top box office movies at the moment...

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw: Arri Alexa Mini, Hawk class-X Lenses, Arri Alexa SXT

Good Boys: Arri Alexa Mini, Zeiss Master Anamorphic Lenses, Arri Alexa SXT, Zeiss Master Anamorphic Lenses

Angel Has Fallen: Arri Alexa Mini, Zeiss Master Prime and Fujinon Alura Lenses, Arri Alexa SXT, Zeiss Master Prime and Fujinon Alura Lenses

Ready or Not: Arri Alexa Mini, Cooke 5/i Prime Lenses

The Lion King: Arri Alexa 65, Panavision Sphero 65, 2400mm, & Canon 150-600mm Zoom Lenses, Arri Alexa IMAX, Panavision Sphero 65, 2400mm, & Canon 150-600mm Zoom Lenses).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top