Canon R5 Announced with 8k

[Guest]

I agree with Norbro's larger point. The business model is what makes the difference between a stressful hobby and a job. And when you have a good job, buying a camera isn't stressful either. If the business is clear, then the tool purchase is more clear too. And in most cases, a good business can absorb a bad purchase here and there.

There are friends that own homes from a business built on A7sII and Canon L zooms. ...and (shudder) Manfrotto sticks (vomits in mouth), and then I know guys with stinky stress-breath and crazy eyes living in a shack of an apartment that own more gear and debt than is necessary, and they have no plan whatsoever. Just winging it and walkabout such in such show having great writing while shining a star loaded coffee into their system. BUT, they have all the freedom in the world to do whatever the poo poo they want whenever. Might not be on a yacht or in a mansion, but they have their own thing going, so gotta respect that they at least are doing what they want.

For many of us, a $10K seems like a very important purchase, but you can generally recoup some of that and buy something else if you feel it isn't working out. Yeah, sucks to lose a few grand, and especially when things are tight.

But, idk, to me Abe, it feels like you are having fun with the back and forth, and it is stirring up conversations and debates, which I am all for. Keep on typing! =)

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I would say the average equipment rental house owner makes more money than the average DP. Making statements like talent is more important than equipment from a financial standpoint is not always accurate. A rental house owner does not need to be a skilled DP but they do need to have the right equipment. And then there are people like me, who are DPs who make the majority of their income from rentals (not dry hire) and less from labor, so are playing in that middle ground where both equipment and skill-set is important, not just one or the other.

If a rental house only rented and had in stock one or two A7s IIs and L-series lenses with Manfrotto sticks they likely would not be very profitable due to the low rental rate for those items. The more expensive and larger the stockpile of equipment they have, the more profits they are capable of making assuming there is enough market demand for it.

 

[Tom Roper]

Sincerely, I wish you could open your eyes about this camera thing because you're struggling.

I have worked in Manhattan my entire life for many people; we are in the same market and from first hand experience I know that so many people, companies do not care about which camera you own. Are you really that rare of an example that it matters for everything you shoot? Maybe.

But I truly believe you need to invest in a better business plan and find niches that will maximize your pay, not cameras.

^+1 Totally agree.

I've never seen an end client who cared which camera was used. It's the film agency who might. You might get hired as a freelancer because you shoot with the same camera as the other collaborators the film company uses, but the client hires the agency based on reputation and prestige. When you own that, you shoot with what you want.

 

[NorBro]

I would say the average equipment rental house owner makes more money than the average DP. Making statements like talent is more important than equipment from a financial standpoint is not always accurate. A rental house owner does not need to be a skilled DP but they do need to have the right equipment. And then there are people like me, who are DPs who make the majority of their income from rentals (not dry hire) and less from labor, so are playing in that middle ground where both equipment and skill-set is important, not just one or the other.

If a rental house only rented and had in stock one or two A7s IIs and L-series lenses with Manfrotto sticks they likely would not be very profitable due to the low rental rate for those items. The more expensive and larger the stockpile of equipment they have, the more profits they are capable of making assuming there is enough market demand for it.

IMO, you cannot make any meaningful side income (that's worth the stress) in local rentals in New York City unless you're Adorama. (There are some others too.)

Point being, a Joe or Jane offering their equipment on ShareGrid/KitSplit will make an extra few hundred bucks some weeks if he or she is aggressive, persistent - and, quite frankly, lucky. And the chances of getting your camera damaged or stolen increases with each rental.

In the old world, people invested in $50K+ packages because that was a major business 15 years ago. You could make amazing money with renting. It was like renting a home you flipped to someone.

Everyone would love to offer their cameras for a few thousand dollars a week to mostly the same safe and reliable crew(s), but that's not how it works for most people...so you're one of the lucky ones, Eric.

 

[Guest]

IMO, you cannot make any meaningful side income (that's worth the stress) in local rentals in New York City unless you're Adorama. (There are some others too.)

Point being, a Joe or Jane offering their equipment on ShareGrid/KitSplit will make an extra few hundred bucks some weeks if he or she is aggressive, persistent - and, quite frankly, lucky. And the chances of getting your camera damaged or stolen increases with each rental.

In the old world, people invested in $50K+ packages because that was a major business 15 years ago. You could make amazing money with renting. It was like renting a home you flipped to someone.

Everyone would love to offer their cameras for a few thousand dollars a week to mostly the same safe and reliable crew(s), but that's not how it works for most people...so you're one of the lucky ones, Eric.

Agreed. Sharegrid can be extremely stressful and hardly worth it considering the risk to one's gear. There is no protection from theft. It is called at will parting, and insurance doesn't cover theft. Same goes for kit split.

Only ones making any real income on share grid are either, as Norbro said driven and or lucky, but more usually, they are rental houses. But here is the poo pooery, Sharegrid brings down the price even for rental houses, but rental houses had to do it because people were flocking to share grid. But now, instead of owner ops making a good income, they make a small side hustle at best, and pre establish companies have had to lower rates to hardly being great. The producer wins, sharegrid wins, but the rental industry kind of loses. and owner ops have had to devalue their camera day rates, because low day rate numbers are listed on share grid. It is a weird vicious cycle.

The only thing I really like share grid for, is the opportunity for some directors to get a passion project together for a lower budget, BUT, I think they end up spending more, because the camera owner op friend they hire for their passion project now is so strapped for income that they have to charge their director friend instead of doing it for free. Catch 22.

 

[AndreeOnline]

It is a weird vicious cycle.

It's why I've always believed that the best solution is to make yourself 'the brand'. As the cliché says: there is only one of you. So if you can turn the focus from 'items' towards the 'solution' and perhaps how you execute it, then you're in a stronger position.

And it does't matter if you can't do it 100%. Every litte shift in that direction will benefit you.

This also ties in nicely to what we all know: what matters is your network or your connections. And those personal connection are ultimately also about you.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

IMO, you cannot make any meaningful side income (that's worth the stress) in local rentals in New York City unless you're Adorama. (There are some others too.)

Point being, a Joe or Jane offering their equipment on ShareGrid/KitSplit will make an extra few hundred bucks some weeks if he or she is aggressive, persistent - and, quite frankly, lucky. And the chances of getting your camera damaged or stolen increases with each rental.

In the old world, people invested in $50K+ packages because that was a major business 15 years ago. You could make amazing money with renting. It was like renting a home you flipped to someone.

Everyone would love to offer their cameras for a few thousand dollars a week to mostly the same safe and reliable crew(s), but that's not how it works for most people...so you're one of the lucky ones, Eric.

I was comparing legit rental houses to DPs, not DPs making side income dry hiring (renting out without the owner on the shoot) their gear out. The owner of LensRentals likely makes a lot more money than the average DP. The owner of one of the larger rentals houses in Atlanta, PC&E, which has I'd guess around five million dollars of equipment, likely makes more money than the average DP. Neither of those owners needs to be a top notch DP in order to own a successful rental business.

Since I don't dry hire my equipment (except in rare cases to friends) I don't use Sharegrid or KitSplit. Those places are bringing down industry rates and are a bad thing overall for us. Good for producers wanting to save money. But business is business so if they fill a market need then they'll continue to exist whether we like it or not. Fortunately I have not had much instances of clients quoting Sharegrid rates to get my rates down; I have had clients quote Lens Rentals rates on occasion, but LensRental rates aren't overly cheap so that can also work in my favor at times. LensRentals does big discounts for multi-day shoots, which I don't typically offer, so that's where their rates can come in much lower.

Overall I don't think Sharegrid is that appealing to clients because it can require too much piecemealing to get a full kit; they don't want to travel to 10 different sharegrid owners to get all the equipment needed even if it is half price, while they will consider going to just one rental house which has everything they need.

 

[Guest]

It's why I've always believed that the best solution is to make yourself 'the brand'. As the cliché says: there is only one of you. So if you can turn the focus from 'items' towards the 'solution' and perhaps how you execute it, then you're in a stronger position.

And it does't matter if you can't do it 100%. Every litte shift in that direction will benefit you.

This also ties in nicely to what we all know: what matters is your network or your connections. And those personal connection are ultimately also about you.

I was just describing the rentals issue.

Personally, I went without a camera for years. and I didn't even buy a new camera since 2013 till late last year. I had an F35, but it had that fan issue, so I never got to use it really, other than a few tests. I had a Scarlet MX for several months, but hated it, and kept running into directors thinking it was an Epic and getting all confused when we had to crop in, swap a lens, and down Rez for higher frame rates. It was kind of helping me get gigs, but also causing me stress I on the gigs. So, I went back to renting cameras. So, yeah, I do not rely on the camera at all. Cameras are like college degrees. They may not get you the job, but they certainly don't prevent you from getting the job.

 

[DLD]

It's why I've always believed that the best solution is to make yourself 'the brand'. As the cliché says: there is only one of you...

"And you can always set your own rate".

Signed, Leo Messi.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I was just describing the rentals issue.

I wasn't careful with the quoting there... when I'm writing 'you' I didn't mean you directly, James. More in a general sense.

I thought I had read you own a Gemini now? Or has that been in the context of renting for projects? Only asking out of curiosity.

 

[John Brawley]

It's why I've always believed that the best solution is to make yourself 'the brand'. As the cliché says: there is only one of you. So if you can turn the focus from 'items' towards the 'solution' and perhaps how you execute it, then you're in a stronger position.

And it does't matter if you can't do it 100%. Every litte shift in that direction will benefit you.

This also ties in nicely to what we all know: what matters is your network or your connections. And those personal connection are ultimately also about you.

Yep, this was the best piece of career advice I ever got.

They are renting the person, not the box of gear you come with. The sooner you get away from that thinking the better.

JB

 

[John Brawley]

I would say the average equipment rental house owner makes more money than the average DP. .

Not so sure about that.

Rental equipment is really tight.

My last big shoot, had something like a 95% discount. On a long job there's often a built in discount right off the top because they do 3 day weeks (pay 3 days for 7 days rental) and THEN you put on 95% discount on top of that.

Rental companies have to have a huge depth of inventory, usually need enough backups for when things go down and carry overheads for service for the idiots that think "it's a rental don't be gentle" that I still see being carried out.

The only way they can typically claw something back is to charge full price for any dailies and additional items, but PM's are starting to get the discount locked in across the board....

Rentals are ruthless, and is another reason I like to be gear-switzerland and try not to own any gear....

So maybe yeah as an overall number they do, but they have ato carry a huge inventory and risk...

JB

 

[AndreeOnline]

"And you can always set your own rate".

Signed, Leo Messi.

I personally like Zlatan introducing himself (via full page in LA Times) to Los Angeles after having signed for Galaxy:

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Not so sure about that.

Rental equipment is really tight.

My last big shoot, had something like a 95% discount. On a long job there's often a built in discount right off the top because they do 3 day weeks (pay 3 days for 7 days rental) and THEN you put on 95% discount on top of that.

Rental companies have to have a huge depth of inventory, usually need enough backups for when things go down and carry overheads for service for the idiots that think "it's a rental don't be gentle" that I still see being carried out.

The only way they can typically claw something back is to charge full price for any dailies and additional items, but PM's are starting to get the discount locked in across the board....

Rentals are ruthless, and is another reason I like to be gear-switzerland and try not to own any gear....

So maybe yeah as an overall number they do, but they have ato carry a huge inventory and risk...

JB

This article actually shows numbers for LensRentals. It's an interesting read. The owner, Roger Cicala, used to be an anesthesiologist, and now having quit that job makes a similar amount of salary per year, $220k, with the company making 13 million in annual revenue, according to the article. Aside from the salary that he lists as paying himself, he also has a huge inventory of assets and a business model that will continue profiting him after he retires. According to the White Pages, he lives in a $1,117,112 home that is 6,162 sq ft.

https://money.com/physician-changes-focus-renting-camera-gear/


According to a quick Google search, the average salary for a cinematographer is $58,210 per year. I would imagine LensRentals is one of the most successful rental houses in the U.S., but all I was saying is that the average rental house owner of a legit full service rental house (so not including small ones in small towns or owner ops who do it as a little side revenue) makes more income than the average DP.

Not every rental house offers these 95% off type deals. That tends to be more of a Hollywood production kind of discount thing, but clearly they would not offer that if they were not able to remain profitable while doing so. PC&E which I mentioned which is one of the top rental houses here in Atlanta caters moreso to corporate and commercial shoots and I believe regularly gets full rental rates. There is a ton of high end film production in Atlanta but those productions mostly rent from one or two other local companies (not PC&E) (or rent non-locally) which likely do offer those bigger discounts for long term productions. Still, I'd have a hard time imagining the owners of those big rental houses catering to huge productions as making less than $60k of personal income.

Aside from listed income in owning a rental house, there is also the huge growth of assets over time that a labor only DP does not get. Any legit rental house is going to own millions of equipment, which when retiring can either mean passing the company to someone else while still getting profits (like LensRentals is planning), or liquidating the assets and closing the company, like the biggest high end rental house in Tampa did, liquidating around three million dollars of equipment which is a good amount of money to throw into a retirement fund on top of other regular retirement savings done over the years. If a DP spends 40 years averaging $60k per year, that's 2.4 million dollars over that course of time, which is less money than what many rental houses could sell off all of their inventory for. The owner of the Tampa rental house who retired had been an A-list Steadicam and cam op on many big budget movies, so their rental income and the liquidation of that company was in addition to their well paying job as an A-list Steadicam and cam op.

 

[ahalpert]

I've talked to a couple ASC members, and they talk of the drop in prices as the talent pool expanded. Now we are seeing a huge talent pool and a lot of talk about jobs going away. So, not sure what is unclear about being paid less and less. Ok, sure, we might get the same day rate that has been standard for the last 10years, but those jobs are fewer than before, which is just another version of being paid less. And some may go away completely with current trends. Sure we could find a new way. But I don't see the need to act like it isn't happening and that it is all just because of a negative attitude.

I agree with you, I just think the dynamics are complex. Streamers may cause a glut of work at elevated rates until some go bust and the remaining ones cut costs to turn a profit. Some shooting is highly vulnerable to automation altogether, like studio and sports stuff. OMBs may be able to charge more as technology enables them to deliver more, but some of their shoots may be replaced by "good enough" self-shooting with iPhones. If fewer couples order wedding videos, shooters may need to charge more for the videos they film in order to justify staying in business.

Sincerely, I wish you could open your eyes about this camera thing because you're struggling.

I have worked in Manhattan my entire life for many people; we are in the same market and from first hand experience I know that so many people, companies do not care about which camera you own. Are you really that rare of an example that it matters for everything you shoot? Maybe.

But I truly believe you need to invest in a better business plan and find niches that will maximize your pay, not cameras.

I'm not struggling, I'm thinking, thank you very much. I have 2 types of clients: those who care about what I shoot on and those who don't. If I handle the former, I will easily handle the latter. Also, when cold-emailing a job lead, one of the first things a prospective client sees about me before they bother to click through to my reel is what camera I have (or claim to have).

For many of us, a $10K seems like a very important purchase, but you can generally recoup some of that and buy something else if you feel it isn't working out. Yeah, sucks to lose a few grand, and especially when things are tight.

But, idk, to me Abe, it feels like you are having fun with the back and forth, and it is stirring up conversations and debates, which I am all for. Keep on typing! =)

My next camera purchase is not going to break my business. But anything worth doing is worth doing right. I'm the sole breadwinner for a family of 4 and I'm saving to buy a house. Wasting $5-10k delays that goal by a few months and ultimately impacts my gross retirement fund. That's all.

What I've done for the last several years is simply tell people I own or have access to a camera that I'm considering buying, then rent it for the shoot if they take the bait. Based on the response it generates, I know whether or not it will be in demand. Which saved me from buying the EVA1 as no one was ever interested.

You might get hired as a freelancer because you shoot with the same camera as the other collaborators the film company uses, but the client hires the agency based on reputation and prestige. When you own that, you shoot with what you want.

Yes, I'm talking about being hired by an agency or a producer who has a camera preference. I'd love to tell them I shoot on Blackmagic cameras and the IQ is better than the alternatives in the price range, but I've gotten a very soggy response from bringing up BMD. Only no-budget indy shorts and MVs want to shoot on BMD, though in that case it's the only brand they want.

IMO, you cannot make any meaningful side income (that's worth the stress) in local rentals in New York City unless you're Adorama. (There are some others too.)

Everyone would love to offer their cameras for a few thousand dollars a week to mostly the same safe and reliable crew(s), but that's not how it works for most people...so you're one of the lucky ones, Eric.

I think Eric was talking about making money on gear he provides with himself, not renting gear to 3rd parties.

I mean, all we're discussing here is the business model of owning/operating. You can make more money from owning the gear you use and/or charge a lower rate.

Agreed. Sharegrid can be extremely stressful and hardly worth it considering the risk to one's gear. There is no protection from theft. It is called at will parting, and insurance doesn't cover theft. Same goes for kit split.

Not sure, but I think kitsplit amended their insurance policy to cover random thefts.

It's why I've always believed that the best solution is to make yourself 'the brand'. As the cliché says: there is only one of you. So if you can turn the focus from 'items' towards the 'solution' and perhaps how you execute it, then you're in a stronger position.

And it does't matter if you can't do it 100%. Every litte shift in that direction will benefit you.

This also ties in nicely to what we all know: what matters is your network or your connections. And those personal connection are ultimately also about you.

All of this is true, but somewhat irrelevant to the question at hand.

I tell people I own a camera I don't own if I think it's the best tool for the job or most likely to land me the job. Then i go out and rent it. Or the client is offering to do the rental anyway. The question at hand is which camera/s would I be using so regularly as to merit owning them.

In any case, renting a camera costs me a lot of time and travel or I have to be home to intercept a shipment.

After all, why are you upgrading from a Pocket 6K? Presumably it's to gain functionality and/or quality in a camera that you have freely available. Perhaps you don't have any clients who request a specific camera, but you are still concerned with vetting the capabilities of your options.

They are renting the person, not the box of gear you come with. The sooner you get away from that thinking the better.

JB

Try telling your producer that you're gonna shoot your next episode on a GH5 because you're so skilled that it will make up for the weaknesses of the camera.

The camera I own is not always a factor in applying for or landing a gig. But as far as owning/operating is concerned, I need to carefully consider both what cameras I would most like to shoot on and what cameras will make me the most money.

I could buy an Alexa Mini, but I mostly don't have Alexa Mini clients and buying one will not get me them any faster than renting it for those jobs.

Most of my clients who care what I shoot on request an FS7 or a C300mk2 (or, for a different tier, a recent-generation Sony/Canon/Panny DSLR).

I will happily rent or have rented whatever I need for a particular shoot, don't get me wrong. And again, at least half my clients don't care or even know what I'm shooting on and solely hired me based on seeing my work or getting a referral.

Incidentally, I know a guy who had an FS700. He bought an external recorder that unlocked the same recording options as the FS7 after the FS7 came out. But he said that none of his clients were interested in hearing that it was just as good as an FS7. So eventually he sold it and bought an FS7. That is the type of client I am talking about.

 

[DLD]

This article actually shows numbers for LensRentals. It's an interesting read. The owner, Roger Cicala, used to be an anesthesiologist, and now having quit that job makes a similar amount of salary per year, $220k, with the company making 13 million in annual revenue, according to the article. Aside from the salary that he lists as paying himself, he also has a huge inventory of assets and a business model that will continue profiting him after he retires. According to the White Pages, he lives in a $1,117,112 home that is 6,162 sq ft...

If Roger makes $220K/Y as an equipment rental owner, he probably took a huge pay cut from an anesthesiologist gig that in a major city can easily pay double that amount. But that's his choice to do what he does.

Having said that, gear rental business is an absolutely competitive market. A $70,000 ARRI package may rent for $2,500/w to an occasional customer but a studio needing several cameras, some lights, some lenses, some this, some that will get a major discount. I am not sure it gets as low as $500 but I can see $1,000/w easily. And those clients are actually desired and these connections are developed over the years since a camera package that's $70,000 retail is closer to $45,000 cost and, after a year worth of rentals, it can be sold off for $25,000 leaving a really tidy profit.

But you're no longer in a film making business but in pure electronic retail and those go bust all the time.

Signed - Circuit City, Silo, Highlands, Tweeter, Good Guys, Federated, American TV, Comp USA, Fretter, J&R, Sound Advice, the Wiz (and, naturally, many others ... I could name several more where I had worked)

 

[John Brawley]

This article actually shows numbers for LensRentals. It's an interesting read. The owner, Roger Cicala, used to be an anesthesiologist, and now having quit that job makes a similar amount of salary per year, $220k, with the company making 13 million in annual revenue, according to the article. Aside from the salary that he lists as paying himself, he also has a huge inventory of assets and a business model that will continue profiting him after he retires. According to the White Pages, he lives in a $1,117,112 home that is 6,162 sq ft.

https://money.com/physician-changes-focus-renting-camera-gear/

I know of lensrentals. They are aimed at still photographers who don't don't really have an equivalent to Panavision. I doubt they rent very much to anyone operating at a serious level of production. No real production would rent a camera that you can't prep properly in-house.

He's also made a great deal of inroads in doing specialised optical testing, which few others do. He's a unique individual.

I don't think they count really.

PC&E which I mentioned which is one of the top rental houses here in Atlanta caters moreso to corporate and commercial shoots and I believe regularly gets full rental rates.

I just spent most of the last three years working in Atlanta....Was there last week and was the first "job" back in Keslow since lockdown.

Panavision, Keslow, VER and Otto Nemenz are all way ahead of PC&E in ATL who are more known for G&E than camera as far as I understand.

I've heard of them, but as far as I know we didn't even get quotes from them. I don't think they're as big as you think they are.

I'm not sure where we're going with this, but rentals is a cut-throat business and it takes a lot of capital and you're generally running on very tight margins.

JB

 

[Run&Gun]

^+1 Totally agree.

I've never seen an end client who cared which camera was used. It's the film agency who might. You might get hired as a freelancer because you shoot with the same camera as the other collaborators the film company uses, but the client hires the agency based on reputation and prestige. When you own that, you shoot with what you want.

Gotta call bull on that.

 

[Run&Gun]

Agreed. Sharegrid can be extremely stressful and hardly worth it considering the risk to one's gear. There is no protection from theft. It is called at will parting, and insurance doesn't cover theft. Same goes for kit split.

Only ones making any real income on share grid are either, as Norbro said driven and or lucky, but more usually, they are rental houses. But here is the poo pooery, Sharegrid brings down the price even for rental houses, but rental houses had to do it because people were flocking to share grid. But now, instead of owner ops making a good income, they make a small side hustle at best, and pre establish companies have had to lower rates to hardly being great. The producer wins, sharegrid wins, but the rental industry kind of loses. and owner ops have had to devalue their camera day rates, because low day rate numbers are listed on share grid. It is a weird vicious cycle.

The only thing I really like share grid for, is the opportunity for some directors to get a passion project together for a lower budget, BUT, I think they end up spending more, because the camera owner op friend they hire for their passion project now is so strapped for income that they have to charge their director friend instead of doing it for free. Catch 22.

The rental houses are worse whores than we are. They give it away for almost nothing, now. And even worse than the true rental houses are places like Lens Rentals. They are almost like Wal-Mart. Making billions one nickel at a time. Meaning they charge pennies on the dollar, but when you're moving THAT much product, it still amounts to a lot of money in the end.

 

[Run&Gun]

I was comparing legit rental houses to DPs, not DPs making side income dry hiring (renting out without the owner on the shoot) their gear out. The owner of LensRentals likely makes a lot more money than the average DP. The owner of one of the larger rentals houses in Atlanta, PC&E, which has I'd guess around five million dollars of equipment, likely makes more money than the average DP. Neither of those owners needs to be a top notch DP in order to own a successful rental business.

Since I don't dry hire my equipment (except in rare cases to friends) I don't use Sharegrid or KitSplit. Those places are bringing down industry rates and are a bad thing overall for us. Good for producers wanting to save money. But business is business so if they fill a market need then they'll continue to exist whether we like it or not. Fortunately I have not had much instances of clients quoting Sharegrid rates to get my rates down; I have had clients quote Lens Rentals rates on occasion, but LensRental rates aren't overly cheap so that can also work in my favor at times. LensRentals does big discounts for multi-day shoots, which I don't typically offer, so that's where their rates can come in much lower.

Overall I don't think Sharegrid is that appealing to clients because it can require too much piecemealing to get a full kit; they don't want to travel to 10 different sharegrid owners to get all the equipment needed even if it is half price, while they will consider going to just one rental house which has everything they need.

I don't compete with rental house rates when people do call for my gear, because it's my gear and I'm not a rental house. If someone wants to rent it, it's just gravy.

Lens Rentals angle day rate is about average and I'll use it for reference since most of the real rental houses took their rates off-line years ago, but the multi-day rates are stupid. It almost doesn't make sense to rent anything from them except in 5-7 minimum stretches. I actually had some people that rented my F55 out a few years ago, bring it back because I wouldn't give them the big 4 for 7/3 for 7 type deals they wanted when they wanted to extend and use it longer. They wanted to use it for like another 10 days, but I would have only made the equivalent of like four days. Hell no.