camera help please

B

bnewb123

New member
Can someone please help me with trying to find out what is the best camera to shoot a feature on under $ 3000.00
I do not have much experience, when I posted this i was just wondering if I could
find a camera with this budget that I could make a film that could possibly be release
for the theatre I know this is far fetched but anyone can dream. So the camera i need
is one that I can take the film and blow it up to film or what wvwrthe process might be.
THe $3000.00 is just what I have for the camera alone. I ahve heard some people mention
dslr's but i have naver heard of anyone shooting a released feature so I dont know if I should go that way. IF the extra info can help you help me thak you.
And to the people talking about hiring a dp with camera I live in louisvill ky and I am not
for sure what that would cost around here i have a feeling I could not get someone
for 15- 20 days for three grand please help with sugg.
 
Last edited:
bnewb123 said:
Can someone please help me with trying to find out what is the best camera to shoot a feature on under $ 3000.00
Click to expand...

There really is no "best" camera to shoot a feature, let alone a camera under $3000.00. You must step back and look at the big picture about what your feature will require. A lot goes into making a feature and the camera is not the most important factor. First and foremost, story is the most important aspect. There is a plethora amount of things you must ask yourself;

i.e.
How will I be lighting the film?
What exactly do I want to do? Direct? Operate the camera? Write?
Will there be more budget or is it $3000 for camera and funding for the entire feature?
Have I ever shot/directed a short film?
Is buying the camera the most ideal option for me and my current situation?
What is my desired output?(youtube?)
Will I need to shoot high definition?...Or is standard definition better suited for me?
Can I hire someone with a camera instead of purchasing myself?


In my opinion, before you jump in, if you haven't already, browse these boards and learn some more about filmmaking as a whole.
At a point you will realize there is no "best" camera all around. There may be a best camera for you and your economic situation(among other things), but that is why you should be informed before investing your money.

Also, if you'd like some suggestions still, we would need to know some more information about your experience as a filmmaker and more importantly your goal for this feature.

Hope that helps, let us know more so we can be informed and help by giving you better advice.
 
Last edited:
You can shoot a feature on the iphone if thats the medium you chose to tell your story. Whether thats the best or not, solely depends on you and the content you plan to shoot with it.
 
your new camera is rebel t2i/550D , i love how people keep discouraging the guy and DONT answer the question at all giving him model name:) Canon DSLR is best quality for the money right now.He can also try hacked GH-1 but no external monitoring is a joke.
 
Honestly I think external monitoring is a crutch. I'm not saying I don't want it, I'm just saying that people have been doing this for decades without live monitoring..

I say that those people want their shots to look like film, well to start, need to work like film.

That means:

No live monitoring.
Only use the viewfinder.
Wait for hours, usually after all your talent leaves for the day, to review your shots and see that half of them have blown focus.
Drink heavily.
Spend a lot of money adding days of reshoots to the schedule.
Screw up continuity which you won't notice til you review your (pretend) dailies.
Spend more money for booze and reshoots.
Go try to get more funding.

rinse and repeat as necessary.

NOW you will have earned the *right* to complain about live monitoring. :P
 
I agree with bwwd, geez what's with all the huffing and puffing and not just throwing out a couple of camera recommendations so he can start doing some research on the cameras? I'd take a look at the Panasonic HMC150, it's right around $3000 new and you can definitely find one used for under $3000. IMO its one of the best most versatile cameras out there.
 
But HMC150 wont give him easy DOF like on 35mm film,also its quite expensive.DSLR are best way to do that and 550D is best deal for least amount of money.IT does not mean that he would not have to learn how to make your picture cinematic cause having 550D and kit lens wont do that for you.From the other side he can shoot even on cellphone but he would have a lot harder path to make his movie cinematic enough to keep viewers interested ,picture quality is important.
 
I'm gonna go with Juice, we need to know a bit more before we can start making suggestions. However the Canon t2i is a great camera for the price as long as you already have sound lined up. If you were just doing one feature for now though I would take the $3000 and hire a DP with their own camera (or rent a RED or something).
 
1) You are shooting a feature
2) You want the best quality tools to help you create your image.
3) You have a set budget.

I'd rent.

It's absolutely crazy nobody has suggested this.

When renting you get better equipment you otherwise could not have access to if you had to purchase it. You also get customer support from the rental house. If something breaks, you can get another in a pinch. Or work with their inventory for a substitute.

Better equipment via renting can not only benefit the image on the screen, but allow the camera department (and thus production) to do their job more efficiently and smoothly. Professional equipment means not having to ghetto-rig (excuse my expression) everything together. It means solid workflow, solid controls, and solid accessories. It helps people on crew do their best and focus their attention to making a great film. The film's look onscreen will benefit, and perhaps become more successful because of it. The goal of every filmmaker, with the exception of the incredibly rich, incredibly dumb (or both) is to sell a film. That's how filmmakers get to make more. Sell a film.

Under most circumstances, purchasing a camera for a production and then spending all your time trying to make it perform like a camera you could have rented... is a bad idea.

If you truly believe in the film you are making... you ought to get the best tools you deem appropriate for the production. If the movie is a success, you'll get investors for the next. This is the cycle of professional filmmaking. This is the professional work-flow. For people who do this as a satisfying artistic venture and as a business.

Don't get me wrong, there is a benefit to having a small personal camera to practice your craft and make small projects... but for a feature film, I wouldn't compromise. Buy a Rebel T2i for your smaller productions, music videos, what have you. But if you have a budget for a feature film and you truly believe in its potential as a successful film, think twice.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see anyone huffing at the guy. He wanted the know what the "BEST" camera is under 3000.00 Unfortunately there is no answer to that question, because it all comes down to personal opinion.

Now, if he had asked "what camera can I buy that will let me shoot a good looking short for under 3000.00" I would have listed a bunch of cameras in that price range. People come here all the time asking what the best camera is to shoot their feature on. I know, I did EXACTLY the same thing when I first came here, and got the same exact answers he got. Are we supposed to also list every thing that he needs to be able to shoot a feature with every single camera suggestion we give? No camera in that range can do everything. What if his feature is going to be shot entirely during the day? night? underwater? What if he doesn't have a mic? What if he doesn't plan to buy a mic? What if he is using a NLE with a weird workflow for certain kinds of footage? What if he doesn't have a pc capable of editing footage from said camera? There's just too many variables.

Now, under 3000.00... your choices are (and this is probably not all of them)

SD
-----
Panasonic DVX100
Canon XL1
Canon GL1
Sony PD150

HD
-------
Canon HV20, 30, or 40 or any of its flash variants
Panasonic HVX200 (used)
Canon XHA1 (used)
Canon 5D (used)
Canon 7D
Canon T2i (most bang for the buck in my opinion, not barring ANYTHING else but the camera)
Panasonic GH1
Canon 60D
 
bwwd said:
i love how people keep discouraging the guy and DONT answer the question at all giving him model name:)
Click to expand...

Actually I thought gottabethejuice asked very valid questions in an effort to get more information to answer the OP's question with more meaning.

And agree with Ryan that looking at renting as an option is definitely worthwhile. Though if total camera budget is $3k and you want to shoot for 30 days it wont get you far, so purchasing may be a better choice then sell after youve shot to recoup some of that.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
1) You are shooting a feature
2) You want the best quality tools to help you create your image.
3) You have a set budget.

I'd rent.

It's absolutely crazy nobody has suggested this.

When renting you get better equipment you otherwise could not have access to if you had to purchase it. You also get customer support from the rental house. If something breaks, you can get another in a pinch. Or work with their inventory for a substitute.

Better equipment via renting can not only benefit the image on the screen, but allow the camera department (and thus production) to do their job more efficiently and smoothly. Professional equipment means not having to ghetto-rig (excuse my expression) everything together. It means solid workflow, solid controls, and solid accessories. It helps people on crew do their best and focus their attention to making a great film. The film's look onscreen will benefit, and perhaps become more successful because of it. The goal of every filmmaker, with the exception of the incredibly rich, incredibly dumb (or both) is to sell a film. That's how filmmakers get to make more. Sell a film.

Under most circumstances, purchasing a camera for a production and then spending all your time trying to make it perform like a camera you could have rented... is a bad idea.

If you truly believe in the film you are making... you ought to get the best tools you deem appropriate for the production. If the movie is a success, you'll get investors for the next. This is the cycle of professional filmmaking. This is the professional work-flow. For people who do this as a satisfying artistic venture and as a business.

Don't get me wrong, there is a benefit to having a small personal camera to practice your craft and make small projects... but for a feature film, I wouldn't compromise. Buy a Rebel T2i for your smaller productions, music videos, what have you. But if you have a budget for a feature film and you truly believe in its potential as a successful film, think twice.
Click to expand...


+1

The only reason I didn't suggest this, is because judging from how the question was asked. If he is so new to film making that he has no idea what camera to buy for under 3000.00 to shoot a feature film with.. he probably has very little experience (if any) in what goes into shooting a feature and unless he hired a DP, he'd be spending a ton of money on something he doesn't even know how to operate.

Now, if that isn't the case then disregard that. When I shot my first feature I went the route of buying, simply because I knew we'd be filming for an indeterminable amount of time and buying just made more sense at the time. My goal for next go round (funds allowing) is to rent a RED. If I had a choice, I'd always rent for features.. like you said, most of us can't run out and buy a RED. But renting one for 21 days or something might just be in the budget. Or you may luck up and find a DP who HAS one.. who will come for less money than what you'd pay to rent a package just to get some stuff for his reel.
 
I presumed he never shot a movie before so i thought he even doesnt have computer cabable of editing RED files ,3k is not that much ,maybe if you rent for free then its ok.RED is different league than DSLR and more "serious " approach,you need equipment and people for that,3k for a feature isnt serious approach IMO(yes you can do that with 3k but you need to know what your doing and you need a lot of favors),but its only me.You dont need that much equipment to handle DSLR ,you can learn to do that yourself ,but with RED... its just different and you need people ,so you spend more money which you could save with DSLR ,cause obviously 3k budget tells something.
 
Last edited:
bwwd said:
I presumed he never shot a movie before so i thought he even doesnt have computer cabable of editing RED files ,3k is not that much ,maybe if you rent for free then its ok.RED is different league than DSLR and more "serious " approach,you need equipment and people for that,3k for a feature isnt serious approach IMO(yes you can do that with 3k but you need to know what your doing and you need a lot of favors),but its only me.You dont need that much equipment to handle DSLR ,you can learn to do that yourself ,but with RED... its just different and you need people ,so you spend more money which you could save with DSLR ,cause obviously 3k budget tells something.
Click to expand...

IMO if you only have 3000.00 to your name, you shouldn't even be bothering with a feature. I spent that on food.
 
Mister Stocks said:
I assumed 3k was just the camera budget.
Click to expand...
I did as well.

I know you can get a RedMX Camera package for about $1,500/week in LA. I also know you can shoot a feature in two weeks (I've worked on many). You'll have to have a script like Reservoir Dogs, or something where the action mainly takes place in a very few, cheap locations. Either way, it can be done.
 
But usually you can find an owner operator who is willing to give you a good deal as long as you don't break their back during production and feed them on time.
 
Maybe I'm just not normal in my way of thinking but I would MUCH rather own a cheaper camera and learn everything there is to know about it, all of it's tricks and idiosyncrasies, and take my time and practice everything rather than rent a camera and it's operator (whom you may or may not get along with) and then hurry up and try to get a bunch of shots in your budgeted rental time even without knowing how the camera reacts or how the operator sees your shots.

And yes, I've done this.

I wasted time and money trying to get the camera and operator/owner seeing my vision and then we didn't even jive. Shots were poor for one reason or another and had to be redone, etc.

Of course, all the dudes who rent their cameras out will say "renting is best!!". ;)

It might be if you are familiar with a certain camera and lenses and you know your operator so well that you can just rent and go to work and get it done in the time allotted, but that's rarely the case in the real world, especially for a first shoot. However, you might have to bite the bullet and do it once and waste the time and money just to get acquainted with someone and their camera and plan to use them again(granted they work out for you).

Personally though, for a small budget shoot I would take a slightly "lesser" camera and know what I'm getting in the end than hire a good camera and have an unsure result.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top