Cinematographer - Personal Gear in the Industry

iamlance

iamlance

Well-known member
Hey, I've been slowly building up a collection of production gear for all areas of production, as I share my equipment with many people who could not afford the stuff themselves. I have camera gear, sound gear, lighting gear, etc. What I am curious about is on a professional level, is this necessary/normal? I don't want to spend too much money on an area I won't be pursuing a career in, say sound for example. However, as others use my gear and it is necessary at the moment, I went ahead and spent some on the equipment. For a student, the amounts I have spent are large (eg. over $1k for sound), but it's not a problem if the stuff is quality investment items that will be useful in my career.

But, I cannot continue to do this and want to know the extent in which this is necessary. As a dedicated sound man would have his own gear, I wouldn't need to purchase it; or the production would rent that equipment. As I am very interested in lighting, but wouldn't want to be a gaffer, should I purchase good quality light stands, c-stands, and other grip equipment? Or would that normally all be rented? What about lights? To what extent are they owned by the gaffers or cinematographers, rather than just being rented? These items are nice to have now, when I would never rent equipment (our work is for fun and educational purposes, not paid), but should I limit what I purchase to only the basics?

The future is unlimited. I do not know whether I would be working on large productions that rent tons of equipment, or if I would work with only a small team with limited renting budgets. What are your thoughts?
 
Small budget (and no-budget) productions usually want the person to come with equipment. Crappy low-budget stuff expects you to work for free and come with free equipment. Usually anything with a budget of more than a few thousand will rent your equipment from you (a package fee.) High-budget stuff, like Hollywood movies, don't expect you to bring equipment past your own tools (like a light meter and gloves) and will rent everything else.

So the system is somewhat backwards, low budget stuff expects everyone to have their own equipment, and big-budget stuff expects to have to rent equipment from a rental house.

That said, I find with the stuff I'm doing it helps to have my own equipment that won't get outdated. Lights, stands, mics, and lenses. Camera bodies, audio recorders, and the like get updated frequently enough (and are expensive enough) that you can rent much more feasibly than you can buy.
 
Agreed. Having this gear will help you in small/no-budget projects (or at least make you popular amongst other film makers wanting to take advantage of your generosity by borrowing your gear). Then again, owning a van or baking great muffins will also make you popular, without necessarily advancing your film making career any :) If you find yourself working on a $100 million film, it will have helped your understanding of how the gear works, but you'll actually be using rented pro gear.

So don't turn yourself into a no-charge gear rental house, but by all means continue to invest in gear that helps your particular areas of interest - e.g. sounds like some lighting gear could be next on your list.
 
I think it is always a good idea to have a bit of everything, just to be able to run a small crew if needed.

I will always own a camera, a bit of lighting gear, grip, support and a bit of audio, but will never buy a big HMI or a cooke lens set for example. Such equipment would stay for a lifetime though, but would get rented anyway if needed on a bigger production.
 
The bigger the show is, the less personally owned gear, but probably not for the reasons that you might think. The major studios prefer not to rent personally owned gear and have been moving away from that for years, because they feel that it is somehow a liability, that individuals will abuse their insurance coverage and file frivolous claims. The last bastions of this that are almost always owner/operator are Steadicam and location sound packages, because they are highly customized and outfitted.

Having owned the former for years and become accustomed to rental income, once I moved on from Steadicam I re-invested into support gear like heads, monitors, transmitters and lenses. I kept my Preston systems and these days every AC wants to pull remotely, so that's an easy rental. While the upkeep is somewhat tiresome (I discovered at a prep today that about $1000 worth of parts have gone missing from my kit, too late to bill back to any given production) not to mention having to drag the gear around, it's still absolutely worth it as the rentals represent nearly 1/3 of my income as they have for the past 25 years.

That said, many of my colleagues own little to no gear and while I sometimes yearn for that simplicity, it's just tough to give up that extra income--and the tax benefits are undeniable.
 
CharlesPapert said:
That said, many of my colleagues own little to no gear and while I sometimes yearn for that simplicity, it's just tough to give up that extra income--and the tax benefits are undeniable.
Click to expand...
That.
I don´t know the situation in the US, but being freelance in an often high paying market and having no costs, means taxes where I live. Lot´s of taxes.
There's of course a sweet spot between what things will cost you to buy and how much taxes you "save" in the end. You still need to earn the money first;)
 
Thanks your all of your responses! Let me clarify on the borrowing part: I'm an officer in a film club at FSU, and were I to not have bought my equipment and let them use it (on the same films I work on), the sound/lighting in our small productions would be junk. I've purchased my setup to improve the quality of the stuff we do there, and for educational purposes. Although I have worked on sets with huge grip trucks and tons of lights/high quality equipment like RED Epics (not our club productions, obviously), I still seem to learn better when I own the stuff myself. Although I want to be a cinematographer, I have an interest in most of the jobs, so having some equipment for each part is helpful. They don't abuse my generosity!

All the stuff I have purchased is fairly basic, though none of it is cheap quality so could be sold later on without too much devaluation. I plan on investing in some more lights, as I only have 2 650w currently. Although I love expensive equipment like HMIs, I would never purchase one. (Okay, well I did think about doing the DIY CoolLights HMI tutorial, but those go for a tenth of the cost as new on B&H.) I'll continue to grow my setup a little (a beefy baby or 2, more lights, those useful but overpriced scrims, lenses), but will stay away from the popular rental gear until I decide whether or not that would be a smart long term opportunity.

Charles, why are you eligible for tax benefits, and if you don't mind answering, how much equipment do you have to earn such a large portion of your income from renting them out? Do the items pay for themselves fairly quickly?

Do you think there is more opportunity in freelance work or in working for a large production company?
 
I think it's fine to own one camera, if you use it a lot and it was within your budget. For a middle-class hobbyist, I wouldn't spend much more than a thousand bucks. If you are somehow making money off the camera, as a professional cameraman or renting it out, then you can spend a proportionally greater amount on it.

In addition, if you're going to use them often, these tend to hold their value: tripods, microphones, and lenses --- but that's only if you spring for the name brands that are considered industry standards. The price can seem very unreasonable. Several thousand dollars? For a tripod? On the flip side, these are good candidates to buy used, because they're durably built and should be in good condition if well taken care of. And their technology hasn't really advanced much. Some people, in fact, will pay more for older instances, like old lenses and some of the old microphones.

Lighting is also durable and doesn't change much in technology over time. So it could be argued that lights and stands fall in the same category as mics, etc. But for me I would prefer to rent them. It's starting to get a little crowded in my storage closet if I try to maintain a varied collection of lighting gear. Also I personally am a lighting minimalist, going for natural light whenever possible, augmented by just one or two reflectors, lights, flags, etc.

There's obviously no specific answer. Just weigh these factors:

You should buy if:
- you use it all the time
- it's cheap or holds its value over time
- it will more than make back its money in how you use it

You should rent if:
- you seldom use it
- it's expensive or plummets in value over time
 
Last edited:
Everyone's situation is different. Where do you live, what kind of work do you do? If you
live in NY or LA, you have access to big rental houses and there are lots of big productions.
If you are a hobbyist, then I wouldn't be spending thousands of dollars on gear, but instead
looking at gear that is good, but has 'fallen out of favor' because of new tech. I live in a small
town in Alaska, not many big productions, no rental houses, and even though I could rent online,
Fed Ex won't even honor their delivery guarantees to my town so renting is a non option.
I provide promo videos (usually web based) to organizations and the government. So I need
to own a little of everything....enough to make small productions. The tax benefits are certainly there
for buying new gear, especially with the section 179 deduction in the US. I usually start going through
my financials in November and make some end of year 'fun' purchases for my business. Nice
Christmas present for yourself.
 
I have at least 3 big clients (where as DP you walk away with a few thousand a day) that use me specifically because i come with "everything that's needed." So owning is a plus but that can change as more people buy gear. The camera packages (Red especially, but Alexa slowly is creeping in too) are so cheap to rent from owners/operators that i have no idea how people are justifying its purchase so i wouldn't be surprised that my situation with lights soon will become that. Namely that clients will expect everything for "nothing." So... I have no idea what it will be like in a few years but right now majority of my clients do take advantage of my gear every time we shoot (for extra fee of course).

Now this is not only about money as there are two shoots: the ones with decent budget so you get paid and your gear too and the ones that have very limited budget where you get paid and barely anything is left for the gear. On those shoots it's at your discretion how much "free" stuff you fell like bringing to the table based on how excellent you want to make the project.
 
Right now I'm in college, but definitely want to pursue this as a career. So I guess I'm a hobbyist as of now. I live in a small city for film work (capital of Florida), but plan on hopping all over the USA to figure out what I like and where I want to live after graduation in 2 years. My equipment isn't worth enough to be rented out, unless as a set, but that's not an option for me. I do not have insurance on this stuff. I'm definitely going to look into this renting thing and the tax deductions. That sounds like a major plus.

Almost everything I purchase has been obtained under market value, either used, craigslist/ebay, or really good deals. I just grabbed a pelican 0370 empty case for only a hundred bucks! That'll hold almost all of my equipment. It was used, though good condition and at hundreds below the retail price, was a steal.

While I understand the cost of high-end tripods, it would be overkill right now. I have a wonderful Benro S6 which I favor over a more expensive Manfrotto. Perfect for my needs.


The reason I see in purchasing lights is that I am not working on professional sets. These productions are for experience and entertainment only, so renting is not an option. If I don't buy them, I won't get the experience.
 
Patryk, how many years have you been doing this? That seems like quite a lot to me, though I'm only an amateur.
 
Last edited:
And there's the fine line between giving the client too much for his money, and making your job harder (or your job longer, or your product worse) because you didn't have the gear.

I'd love to have someone pay me to shoot an interview and pay me for my lights, but I'm not going to shoot an interview with no lights when I have some sitting in my garage not getting used.
 
The answer also really depends on what kind of work you're after. Personally, if I didn't own gear I would lose 2/3 of my business immediately. I'm relatively early in my career (4 years in as a full-time freelancer and running a very small production company) who had zero connections and no film school background or network to draw upon, so while my main focus is narrative films, the bills often get paid through freelance gigs for repeat clients, small corporate jobs, concerts and events, and a smattering of freelance craigslist/mandy/staffmeup/etc. DP and operator gigs.

The majority of narrative jobs I get have a rental budget, and I rarely provide gear other than little pieces of kit that I like or aren't always on the truck. It's relatively common to provide a personal camera as a B camera or some supplementary pieces (steadicam usually), but I think I'd probably get most of the same gigs without owning anything.

The freelance stuff is a crapshoot, but 90% of the time I'm providing a camera/lenses, and at least 50% of the time I'm asked for lights, grip, etc.

The corporate gigs are usually my own gear. Bigger jobs with bigger budgets make rentals possible, but I couldn't compete and win bids on the majority of the projects if I was renting equipment or charging fair rates for the gear I provide.

Concerts and events are my own gear. I do a lot of 4 camera concert shoots, and for the clients/budgets I have even renting 4 DSLRs plus support (and insurance) would basically eliminate my profit, not to mention tack a few hours on to each job for pickup/dropoff.

Owning gear allows me to (sometimes barely) not work a day job. I don't usually make much on rental fees for it, but I consider it a cost of doing business at the level of the market I'm in. Owning a lot of gear also affords you the flexibility to bid for a wider variety of jobs, and the power to shoot your own projects on your own time at a far reduced expense.

In short, if you're looking to freelance as a DP right away without a source of steady work, then you'll need more gear to be competitive. If you have some good sources of work for good clients, or if you're planning on pursuing work as an AC or operator, then you might be able to get away with much less. If you want to live in the narrative/commercial world and you find steady work, then you probably don't need to own much. If you have an in into higher budget corporate work, then you probably don't need to own much. But if you want (or have to) to bid for lower budget contracts, or don't have a way into projects with decent budgets, then you'll find yourself needing to own more gear.

And as much as it shouldn't be a primary consideration, I sometimes land jobs simply because I'll bring gear to the table that the production couldn't otherwise afford. On the other side of the coin, I (very) frequently lose jobs because I don't own a Red package and can't afford to subrent one for a project when the rate is $400/day.
 
I've been doing this for over 10 years.

I have to stress it again, IT IS NOT ABOUT MONEY.
A typical producer is making so many phone calls/email daily the last thing on their mind is to "save" a few dollars on cheaper gear. It's nightmare for them to get a list from the DP or gaffer and then after forwarding the list to a rental company get follow up questions from the rental place. They have better things to do then forward emails back and forth only on the day of the shoot to discover that some of the gear is still missing. It's MUCH easier for them to hire one-stop place. "This is the job on this day. Do you have everything that's needed? Great, you are hired!" is the prevailing mentality. People with gear get hired not because they are cheaper (yes my gear is cheap, but my day rate is not), but rather because they save the producer a headache.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I've been doing this for over 10 years.

I have to stress it again, IT IS NOT ABOUT MONEY.
A typical producer is making so many phone calls/email daily the last thing on their mind is to "save" a few dollars on cheaper gear. It's nightmare for them to get a list from the DP or gaffer and then after forwarding the list to a rental company get follow up questions from the rental place. They have better things to do then forward emails back and forth only on the day of the shoot to discover that some of the gear is still missing. It's MUCH easier for them to hire one-stop place. "This is the job on this day. Do you have everything that's needed? Great, you are hired!" is the prevailing mentality. People with gear get hired not because they are cheaper (yes my gear is cheap, but my day rate is not), but rather because they save the producer a headache.
Click to expand...

There are so many different levels of productions/types of producers/types of shoots/variance amongst markets that it is hard to make any kind of generalization except within one's own experience. Patryk and I are both working DP's and yet we have different angles on this (NY vs LA, different types of clients etc). But that is the complication of crowd-sourcing opinions!

In my experience, it is almost ALWAYS about money. When I rent gear to production, it is very often a requirement that it be quoted through a rental house as a complete package, and my gear is included in that quote. When the inevitable discounts are applied, both the rental house and I suffer equally--I have to match what it would cost for them to supply the gear, no more and no less (I've had producers try to get me to discount my gear further, but it's as simple as me saying "then you can just get it from the rental house" and that goes away). Once every year or two I will be asked to act as a production company and hire crew, provide all gear and billing and insurance etc. and unless it is a gig with plenty of margin, I'll contract out the production services aspect because it's not worth it for me to carry that overhead year round.

As far as getting hired because of gear--I'm fortunate enough that in my world, this is rarely the case. I own the gear to bring in extra income, but it is not a requisite of getting jobs. I am more than aware that a few levels down from me (maybe even one level, brrrr it's chilly in here) this is going on, and I think it's a travesty because more often than not producers are taking advantage of people hungry to get gigs and parading their gear out in front as a loss leader. RED created a monster with this, and it will likely never end.

One of the things that is challenging about providing gear to production is that you are responsible for its performance, and need to have backups at your fingertips. When the rental house camera goes down, production calls the rental house and they send a new one. When it's your camera, it's all on you. This is why I don't own cameras. For those that find any stories to do with film cameras anachronistic and boring, feel free to jump to next paragraph. I used to own a specialized lightweight Arri 35mm body; we used it on one feature for second unit and multiple camera days. One time the negative report came back with scratches on the footage from my camera. We immediately began the usual detective hunt for the issue: checked with the lab, scrutinized dailies etc. It was always about "what color is the scratch" to determine if it was in the negative or print. Anyway--eventually the lab admitted fault and I was greatly relieved. I passed on this info to the producer and her response was "Dammit. Now we have to pay you for your camera rental. If we had just gotten the camera from the rental house, we wouldn't have had to tell them it was the lab's fault and they would have credited us the rental". UGH. Like I said--it's all about money!

Finally to answer the question about tax benefits--as a freelancer I can deduct purchases and have a multi-page amortization schedule of depreciated gear. My accountant is always delighted to see my list of acquired assets at years' end! I pick and choose my purchases, avoiding impulse-buys of the latest sexy toy, trying to gauge what will have the best ROI and what will hold its value over time. It is a complicated calculation in terms of balancing the purchase price (I don't lease, but it might make sense for some) against the tax deductions and eventual re-sale returns. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose. At the beginning of the year I sold a five-figure HD transmitter for the same price I spent on it, after three years of rental returns and tax deductions. To avoid capital gains I turned the sale back into two new transmitters (which cost half the price); they are now combined earning more in rentals than the previous unit--the value of which has since dropped several thousand because of the introduction of the new units. That one worked out. The afore-mentioned film camera, that cost me $30K back in 1999? Still sitting in my garage. Current value, maybe $2K for everything if I'm lucky.
Timing is everything!
 
The "it's not about money" statement is trying not to superficially look at what's easily countable. Even though it IS the predominant mindset on this side of the Atlantic where only quantifiable items count, but it also is simplifying the situation. With that mindset spending weekend reading literature or philosophy doesn't count because after all how can you quantify it? But it does matter and is more meaningful than, say, browning ebay for used gear (quantifiable savings) or reading up about newest camera (quantifiable knowledge). Not quantifiable things grow your understanding of life and through that you become better person, better artist, better craftsman... The OP is a guy still in college so it's important not to reinforce wrong impressions. Just because money is involved doesn't mean it's the ultimate motivator. For that matter i know more than one producer [me, sometimes, being one] that will say it outright - money matters only to certain degree, beyond it's about other things. Likewise, extra income from rentals (or upping the rate because of the gear that comes with you) is one aspect - getting the job done to ones high standards because you have tools even on a low budgeter is another. So once again, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for sharing your opinions and knowledge!

I've gained some worthwhile information from this. I seems the most economical option for me is to continue purchasing enough to supply gear myself in a small production, excluding big-ticket and quickly-updated items.

After looking into CODB (Cost of Doing Business), it seems that for most freelancers (I might have to do that if I do not have a window open into big productions. Film School as a Master Degree may be something I do.) have to earn anywhere from $500-$1000 a day for 200 days a year to make a living (salary included). For a regular shoot in which you have to spend tons of money for equipment (what does a RED cost to rent for a day/week? and which RED model is generally used) (assuming you have to rent a camera and maybe some equipment), how are you supposed to earn anything? Tax benefits would help cover the cost of purchasing equipment over a period of time, but the rentals seems to kill any chances of meeting your needed daily pay. I understand that some of you earn thousands a day on shoots, but for someone just entering into the industry, that isn't reasonable.
 
Several of you have mentioned having an all-in-one package of gear. Without going into specifics (unless you want to), what does that consist of?

Ex.
4k Camera (unless you rent) with 5 prime lenses
Camera Supports (Tripod and/or Rigs)
Basic grip gear (stands, safety cables, sandbags, etc.)
Sound Package (Microphones to cover most jobs, recorder, mixer, boom and accessories)
Simple Dolly/Jib
Lights (150w, 300w, 2 650w, 2 1000w, 1 2000w) and light affecting gear (scrims, flags, etc.)

Would this be a basic kit, too little, or too much for someone starting out having to do freelance work? I know it depends on your budgets and opinions, but I'd like to hear what you have to say anyways!
 
iamlance said:
Thank you all for sharing your opinions and knowledge!

I've gained some worthwhile information from this. I seems the most economical option for me is to continue purchasing enough to supply gear myself in a small production, excluding big-ticket and quickly-updated items.

After looking into CODB (Cost of Doing Business), it seems that for most freelancers (I might have to do that if I do not have a window open into big productions. Film School as a Master Degree may be something I do.) have to earn anywhere from $500-$1000 a day for 200 days a year to make a living (salary included). For a regular shoot in which you have to spend tons of money for equipment (what does a RED cost to rent for a day/week? and which RED model is generally used) (assuming you have to rent a camera and maybe some equipment), how are you supposed to earn anything? Tax benefits would help cover the cost of purchasing equipment over a period of time, but the rentals seems to kill any chances of meeting your needed daily pay. I understand that some of you earn thousands a day on shoots, but for someone just entering into the industry, that isn't reasonable.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that dollar amount for required income? $100k-$200k seems pretty high to call the bare minimum needed to make a living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top