As a gear head, I frequent this forum often, and an obvious, general question that keeps popping up from members is some variation of “what camera/hardware do I really need?” It’s a perfectly legit question… every craftsmen needs a specific set of tools to get the job done. Here in my home town of Austin, TX, I was able to get by shooting personal and professional gigs for the past five years using a set of Canon XH-A1s. Before that, I used Canon XL-1s for years. Now I’m using a C100, and it’s working pretty well for me. I guess I’m maybe trying to gauge what kind of work most of you guys are doing out there (especially on the west coast) that requires much more “oomph” than what a C100 (with, say, a Ninja Blade) has to offer. Specifically 4k. I’m not talking about high-end productions where top dollar rigs, large crews, etc are a given. I’m talking more about corporate, wedding, indie film gigs, etc. Productions that are more likely to see web, DVD, Blu-Ray, or *maybe* film festival scenes. I’ve yet to meet a customer who needs a 4k deliverable here in Austin. (Not to say they don’t exist, especially higher up the food chain). Put it this way: If you’re not planning on major distribution or theatrical exhibition, why do you need anything more than HD or maybe 2K? Is 4k for low or medium budget productions any more than a fad at this stage of the game? Why wouldn’t the C100 (or C300) be a completely viable camera for use for many, many years to come? For the record, I think they will be.
C100: How much is enough?
- Thread starter jthabel
- Start date
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
Besides resolution, 4, 5, and 6K offer amazing reframing abilities for live events. I've shot lots of live events with RED cameras and delivered in HD and was LOVING the ability to reach in and grab shots that I just could not get in the moment.
As far as the list of gear...mine seems to be endless ...but there are good reasons for each piece. Don't get me wrong...at the end of the day...what is in my head gives me direction...not a piece of kit in the van. I do love having a proper tool for the requested job though. Makes the vision easier to acquire.
For me...I think my next larger piece of gear will be the C300II. It seems to be a nice balance of resolution, color, and low light. Expensive toy, yes, but definitely looks like a camera with a lot of advantages.
As far as the list of gear...mine seems to be endless ...but there are good reasons for each piece. Don't get me wrong...at the end of the day...what is in my head gives me direction...not a piece of kit in the van. I do love having a proper tool for the requested job though. Makes the vision easier to acquire.
For me...I think my next larger piece of gear will be the C300II. It seems to be a nice balance of resolution, color, and low light. Expensive toy, yes, but definitely looks like a camera with a lot of advantages.
Last edited:
I totally get how 4k+ can be great for reframing, as mentioned above. Makes complete sense. Beyond that, how often does the resolution really come into play for you? I’ve seen projects shot in HD that have been uprezzed to 2k up for theatrical distribution, and I honestly couldn’t really tell the difference. Is it something your clients prefer or expect? Also, when you’re talking about 4k workflow, isn’t it that much harder to have to deal with larger deliverables, not to mention having to have a load more workspace storage on whatever post-produciton platform you’re working with.
And to clarify, having extra pieces of HW besides your camera are essential. I was thinking more in terms of specific camera technology.
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
So far in my situation, its not mandatory that I deliver in 4K or higher. So the benefits of capturing in a high resolution format are great, but delivery in 4K has not been a requirement. That said...look at youtube. You can now upload in 4K which is great. With all the little cameras being released with 4K, the time that it will not be mandatory is quickly ending. Your really talking about a year or two before every client who has a cell phone will have 4K ability...and assume you, as a professional, have been shooting and working in that format for years.
As a business, its a decision to ride the font of the technological wave and gain the benefits of experience, education, and skill....or sit back and wait for it to happen to everyone else....then jump on board when the market is more of an even playing field. I've never been one to really play it too safe. But...there is an equal argument against it as well.
For me...if you can work out the economics of it to work in your benefit...then why not?
Also...if you have potential clients that are not asking for it...educate them, show them the benefits, then sell them on it. Grow...as long as you can see a "potential client base" to support your gear hunger.
As a business, its a decision to ride the font of the technological wave and gain the benefits of experience, education, and skill....or sit back and wait for it to happen to everyone else....then jump on board when the market is more of an even playing field. I've never been one to really play it too safe. But...there is an equal argument against it as well.
For me...if you can work out the economics of it to work in your benefit...then why not?
Also...if you have potential clients that are not asking for it...educate them, show them the benefits, then sell them on it. Grow...as long as you can see a "potential client base" to support your gear hunger.
Last edited:
I agree with all this. Things are always going to move forward, and clients are going to expect the best (especially when it becomes readily available/affordable) from people in our industry. From a pure quality standpoint though, how much of a difference does 4k really make? I’ve been working directly and indirectly in the this field for 15 years now, and one constant seems to be that there’s always some type of new “must have” tech that needs to be adapted. Most of the time it’s viable. HD was a nice leap from SD, and I was happy to jump on board. 4k seems more questionable, though. Maybe because I can’t see an insane quality difference. I know its onset is inevitable, but I feel like we’re falling straight into the marketing machine’s claws with the 4k push. More importantly, it seems like many filmmakers on this forum feel like it’s necessary to hop to 4k asap or suffer the consequences. I think we’re at a place now, with HD or 2k or 4k or whatever format we choose to shoot on, where the quality difference is becoming more and more negligible.
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
I think until it can be viewed on a capable screen, its really not that big of a difference. When viewed properly, its night and day. On my retina screen I can definitely tell a difference. On the big TV at the office (1080P), not so much.
Once the world makes the shift to 4K screens, definitely so. If you are delivering for theaters or nationally release productions, or have a vested interest in future proofing your content, its a great idea. If you mainly deliver for the web, reframing benefits aside, its not too big of a deal.
Once the world makes the shift to 4K screens, definitely so. If you are delivering for theaters or nationally release productions, or have a vested interest in future proofing your content, its a great idea. If you mainly deliver for the web, reframing benefits aside, its not too big of a deal.
All good points. I personally have a hard time seeing much of a difference between a 1080p and 4k TV, particularly TVs under 50 inches, unless I’m sitting *really* close. That said, there’s no doubt 4k is higher quality, and as 4k TVs become cheaper, they’ll become more prevalent. Future-proofing is a good idea, and a valid reason to shoot in 4k as well. That said, most of the stuff I shoot has a very specific shelf life, and I’m not expecting it to go into the vault and be resurrected 10 years from now J.
Most major cinema chains are fitted with 2k projectors, and I doubt they’re in a hurry to upgrade their already recently upgraded systems anytime soon. Seems like just yesterday broadcast standards were pushed to HD, and I don’t expect them to go 4k any time soon. Netflix, YouTube, and other web delivery services are jumping on board, and I’m sure others will soon, which is likely where we’ll see 4k content really play out.
Sorry if I went down the rabbit hole on this topic.
Matt Turner
Well-known member
DPStewart
Veteran
Honestly, I don't think there's really that much to camera technology anymore.
You have phenomenal choices in every price range that each deliver FAR more than was available 10 years ago.
You get a image collector (camera, or sensor unit) and your audio, and your battery solution, and your lenses.
Except for systems using an external recorder that's about it - and they ALL do their jobs better and cheaper than they did 10 years ago....except for the LENSES of course.
To me, cinematography is almost entirely lenses and lighting. The cameras are so freakin' good right now they're only a small part of what I have to think about.
I have already found that if I NAIL a shot even on my hacked GH2s, the right lens, the best lighting I can muster, solid focus, that I can uprez it to anything up to 4K and it looks shockingly acceptable for where the footage came from.
I've certainly seen LESSER 4K footage shot on GH4's etc, where the shooter didn't nail their basics or used the wrong lens...
We are just a few short years away from the camera not mattering anymore.. Ain't that somethin'?
You have phenomenal choices in every price range that each deliver FAR more than was available 10 years ago.
You get a image collector (camera, or sensor unit) and your audio, and your battery solution, and your lenses.
Except for systems using an external recorder that's about it - and they ALL do their jobs better and cheaper than they did 10 years ago....except for the LENSES of course.
To me, cinematography is almost entirely lenses and lighting. The cameras are so freakin' good right now they're only a small part of what I have to think about.
I have already found that if I NAIL a shot even on my hacked GH2s, the right lens, the best lighting I can muster, solid focus, that I can uprez it to anything up to 4K and it looks shockingly acceptable for where the footage came from.
I've certainly seen LESSER 4K footage shot on GH4's etc, where the shooter didn't nail their basics or used the wrong lens...
We are just a few short years away from the camera not mattering anymore.. Ain't that somethin'?
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
A camera with unlimited dynamic range, yet is also selectably limited if you want to have blown highlights (with good rolloff), selectable megapixels up to 500 megapixels, uploads immediately to your editing computer and creates other instant cloud backups at highly compressed data rates (compressed, but without quality loss), does not have any increased noise artifacts when raising the ISO and does not have a limit to how high the ISO can go, is wirelessly linked with my brain so I can quickly control the settings without pressing buttons (this includes for focus), has programmable (via wireless brain link) anti-gravity stabilization built-in so Steadicams and other stabilization devices won't be needed, perfect colors, can change exposure in post an unlimited amount (RAW is limited), does not artifact under any conditions (unless you select to leave artifact on to mimic ancient camera technology), etc.
Yes, I'd say cameras have a lot more than a few short years before manufacturers have no more possible features to improve upon.
nedcam
Well-known member
I'm 62 and have been shooting professionally for 38 years. There is only one answer to this question: The best camera to own is the one that is paid for! Same as your car. So if you have a C100 or C300 and it has paid for itself by now, DO NOTHING!
Once your camera breaks even it is then making a profit. Only by keeping a spreadsheet on it can you keep from fooling yourself. Then when you hit the break even point the most important investment you can make is to take right off the top, pay yourself first by putting a LOT into your retirement savings. Not gear.
Trust me on this. Gear is a tool. If you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s the money you sock away now has a chance to grow, just a chance. When you're my age and you look back you'll think of your gear habit just like a drug addict looks back at his, assuming he's been rehabbed. It's a haze of gear buying binges where you talked yourself into really needing that particular camera's set of features.
And do not get in front of your clients in terms of tech. In the creative services sector which video is a subsection of, there is no such thing as "Build It and They Will Come", I have seen many shooters lose money like that including going out of business. Anyone buy into 3D here? There was a large rental company in Chicago that bet the farm on 3D. Rent until it looks like there is a trend strong enough to make money on it. 4K is just the new flavor, propelled by manufacturers needing to sell hardware. I keep notes as to 4K requests just as I keep notes as to other model requests so I can spot a trend. Do not try to keep up with the Jonses if your client base is presently happy with your output. Plus, you can't keep up with rich kids.
If your work is not for projection or broadcast TV you do not have to go 4K just yet. Clients aren't pixel peepers like the folks who troll this website. I am shooting for my clients' objectives and not for which image the editor likes better. I presently see, after having witnessed many trends over the decades, the only reason to buy 4K right now is if you are losing business to competitors that have gone 4K and have proof of it. Look at Willie Nelson's guitar. Your camera is just a tool and if you're good you can get a killer image from the less than most expensive model.
If anything, if you have money to burn in your pocket, which is a common problem among us shooters, beef up your lenses, audio, support, lighting and van part of your package because the camera models are now changing too fast. My age group of DPs made our money by getting the ONE most popular camera at the time, and the periods lasted 3-4 years, so our ONE camera had a chance to make extreme profits. The Sony D600 and Varicams had a crank on the side that printed money, put 2 kids through 5 years of college each, gave my generation of DPs a great lifestyle. Now one model won't cut it if you're freelance. These types of threads prove that everyone has scattered in terms of brand loyalty. Constant angst over what to get...Only buy a new camera when your clients put a gun to your head.
So in sum, wait until your particular client base is clamoring for 4K because the longer you hold out your present paid for camera is making a profit, which is the most important thing in having your own business: Profit! By waiting you will see what's most popular in terms of models. Uh oh...6K in 2018? And also, by making a clear profit you can send your checks to Vanguard or Fidelity instead of a new camera and then when you're my age you will see the difference, giving your nest egg a chance to grow, which takes decades.
Trust your elders...Print out this post, fold it up and put it in your sock drawer. In 35 years unfold it and re-read it. You will see that I am right...
Once your camera breaks even it is then making a profit. Only by keeping a spreadsheet on it can you keep from fooling yourself. Then when you hit the break even point the most important investment you can make is to take right off the top, pay yourself first by putting a LOT into your retirement savings. Not gear.
Trust me on this. Gear is a tool. If you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s the money you sock away now has a chance to grow, just a chance. When you're my age and you look back you'll think of your gear habit just like a drug addict looks back at his, assuming he's been rehabbed. It's a haze of gear buying binges where you talked yourself into really needing that particular camera's set of features.
And do not get in front of your clients in terms of tech. In the creative services sector which video is a subsection of, there is no such thing as "Build It and They Will Come", I have seen many shooters lose money like that including going out of business. Anyone buy into 3D here? There was a large rental company in Chicago that bet the farm on 3D. Rent until it looks like there is a trend strong enough to make money on it. 4K is just the new flavor, propelled by manufacturers needing to sell hardware. I keep notes as to 4K requests just as I keep notes as to other model requests so I can spot a trend. Do not try to keep up with the Jonses if your client base is presently happy with your output. Plus, you can't keep up with rich kids.
If your work is not for projection or broadcast TV you do not have to go 4K just yet. Clients aren't pixel peepers like the folks who troll this website. I am shooting for my clients' objectives and not for which image the editor likes better. I presently see, after having witnessed many trends over the decades, the only reason to buy 4K right now is if you are losing business to competitors that have gone 4K and have proof of it. Look at Willie Nelson's guitar. Your camera is just a tool and if you're good you can get a killer image from the less than most expensive model.
If anything, if you have money to burn in your pocket, which is a common problem among us shooters, beef up your lenses, audio, support, lighting and van part of your package because the camera models are now changing too fast. My age group of DPs made our money by getting the ONE most popular camera at the time, and the periods lasted 3-4 years, so our ONE camera had a chance to make extreme profits. The Sony D600 and Varicams had a crank on the side that printed money, put 2 kids through 5 years of college each, gave my generation of DPs a great lifestyle. Now one model won't cut it if you're freelance. These types of threads prove that everyone has scattered in terms of brand loyalty. Constant angst over what to get...Only buy a new camera when your clients put a gun to your head.
So in sum, wait until your particular client base is clamoring for 4K because the longer you hold out your present paid for camera is making a profit, which is the most important thing in having your own business: Profit! By waiting you will see what's most popular in terms of models. Uh oh...6K in 2018? And also, by making a clear profit you can send your checks to Vanguard or Fidelity instead of a new camera and then when you're my age you will see the difference, giving your nest egg a chance to grow, which takes decades.
Trust your elders...Print out this post, fold it up and put it in your sock drawer. In 35 years unfold it and re-read it. You will see that I am right...
Last edited:
I agree. There's going to be an inevitable point (and I think we're pretty close to it) where the image simply stops looking much better to the human eye than what current cameras in this discussion can offer. I think you can equate it to audio technology. While new mics will continue to come out, the tech really hit a certain peak decades ago, to the point that same usual suspects (Sennheiser) have been used as kind of an industry standard now for nearly 50 years. I'm fine with that.
Very wise words! Thanks, Ned.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Just a goldmine of a post. Very nicely said. Don't worry about being 'behind the tech'.
I was shooting with a PD150 until after the FS100 came out .
According to lots of folks on here, I was sunk because I was 'behind the tech' and
clients could 'shoot HD on their cell phones so I better be able to do it.' Like
Ned says, that cam had paid for itself, so I'd upgrade to HD when clients (not
video enthusiasts on here) thought I should. Bonus benefit for gear heads...
by doing this, my $ bought me a much better HD camera (I have the FS 700)
than if I would have 'bought in' when small chip HDV cams were 'all the rage'.
Ned knows what he is talking about. By the way Ned, I took $5,500
(maximum amount allowed) and put it in my IRA last year instead of spending
that money on gear......I think you are 100% right on the money here.
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
The C100 MKII image quality is more than exceeds almost 95% of all video applications, it looks gorgeous even for the large screen. It's perfectly detailed (4K to HD), it has excellent colour tones, High DR, absolutely no video artefacts (aliasing/moire/pixelation, macroblocking) and it can produce professional quality sound. And on usage side, it has almost no limiations, no huge files, huge battery life, EVF and an excellent articulating monitor, lovely grip and top handle, XLRs, ND filters no need for a matte box, 15 buttons for everything, excellent image stabilization with Canon Lenses, even excellent video AF, all the exposure and focus assist tool one could find, it has it all.
Should you upgrade just because the specs say 1080p? What does that mean? Low resolution? Soft image? no. Make sure of this, if you're going to be upgrading because of 4K do it only when the resolution on the C100 MKII is low for you and your clients, not because you're told to. Only upgrade when you, yourself, find a LIMITATION, something the camera is not allowing you to do. But remember, you will lose a few C100II benefits to get that extra feature, there's no camera with all the C100 advantages with 4K and raw and super slowmotion, only the C300 MKII, so unless you NEED these, work and produce with the C100, make money and pay it off, and at that moment you pay it off, if you sell it at that point, you made zero profit of the camera, so then keep working after you paid it off and make profit for a long time, until the camera is not enough for your clients anymore and is causing you to lose jobs, don't upgrade for gear lust (easier said than done I know but it's the right thing to do)
If one can't produce a high-end product and make it look a million-dollars with a C100 MKII, it's not the camera's fault.
Should you upgrade just because the specs say 1080p? What does that mean? Low resolution? Soft image? no. Make sure of this, if you're going to be upgrading because of 4K do it only when the resolution on the C100 MKII is low for you and your clients, not because you're told to. Only upgrade when you, yourself, find a LIMITATION, something the camera is not allowing you to do. But remember, you will lose a few C100II benefits to get that extra feature, there's no camera with all the C100 advantages with 4K and raw and super slowmotion, only the C300 MKII, so unless you NEED these, work and produce with the C100, make money and pay it off, and at that moment you pay it off, if you sell it at that point, you made zero profit of the camera, so then keep working after you paid it off and make profit for a long time, until the camera is not enough for your clients anymore and is causing you to lose jobs, don't upgrade for gear lust (easier said than done I know but it's the right thing to do)
If one can't produce a high-end product and make it look a million-dollars with a C100 MKII, it's not the camera's fault.
As someone with a sales/marketing background, I'd have to differ a bit with Ned. If you can charge more for 4K, you should pitch it. If you can't, you shut up and pretend it doesn't exist. And, yes, a good salesman can work both sides of the issue and both sides were presented here - "do you want your product to be on the cutting edge?" vs. "they don't even show 4K in the multiplexes". Ned's right in that you want to be in the thick of the market. If 4K is, at this point, too esoteric for your area and your usual client base, then rent it when requested. Be warned, however, that the market now moves much faster than in the Betacam days and that you need to stay on top of things because "4K is for tomorrow" can quickly become "4K is for today and 8K is for tomorrow" in a hurry. And, if you miss a hot trend, your long term reputation will also suffer.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
See I don't get this. How do you 'miss a hot trend?' It's not like if
you don't do 4k productions now, (because your current clients won't
pay for it or whatever) that you somehow 'miss out' on going to 4k
later if you do get client demand. Like I said, a lot of (now out of
business) competitors told me I was 'missing a hot trend' with HD.
Yet I didn't miss out....I moved to HD when there was actual demand
for it in my market. And now that I have client demand I do HD productions
all the time.....I didn't miss out somehow.
Same with 4k....I'd have no problem going 4k.....if there is actually
a business case for it. If it would make me more money than sure I'd
jump on it. That currently is not the case for me (and a significant
number of other people). Sure, keep up with the knowledgebase.
Rent 4k when needed and get used to the workflow so that when
you do have client demand you are ready. But jumping into it just
because of buzzwords is a bad idea. Jump into it for a good reason,
not because you fear being 'left behind'. Because you may be
left behind today....and tomorrow you may leapfrog all the 4k
early adopters when you buy a shiny new 8k camera. Then you
can tell them they are being left behind....
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Ned nailed it and I agree with everything he said. I used to own Betacams that cost me $75k and Avids that cost me over $100k. Thank God those days are gone. The democratization of high end video is a good thing because it weeds out the technogeeks from the storytellers when everyone is carrying a cell phone that makes decent looking video, much less a pro or prosumer video camera. I know that my ability to light, compose, tell stories, write and pull the best out of actors and talent trump any technology. I work in LA where we still shoot a lot of content on expensive cameras like the Alexa, Amira, Red and F55 but I shoot even more on my C100 MKI which can now be bought for $3,500.00. I bought it last October knowing that the C100 MKII was coming out just a few weeks later but I had booked a project in South Africa that paid for the C100 MKI so I pulled the trigger. I don't regret it even though my camera "lost" 45% of it's value a month after I bought it because it "made" me money, fourteen days of rental charges. I don't buy expensive cameras anymore and I shoot in the middle of the industry mostly, not on high end TV shows and films but on the more bread and butter series, behind the scenes, documentaries and corporate work. The C100 is perfect for me and for my clients. I did shoot a big project for LA Metro last month and the editor was telling me that she wished I had shot some of it in 60p so as to reduce the strobing on fast moving train and bus shots but the editor knew that we would have had to have rented the C100 MKII to gain that capability. The C100 MKI fit her budget for this project so we edited around the lack of slow motion.
I bought in on the Panasonic GH4, I had one of the first ones and while I love Panasonic cameras in general, I never warmed to the GH4. M43 is a huge compromise coming from the DSLR FF and S35 world, M43 is noisy and I didn't like the DOF control. The skin tones and the way the GH4 made people look was very unappealing to both me and to my clients at the studios. 4K was a no go, the clients didn't like the extra bandwidth and storage space, editing with 4k on a 1080p timeline, etc. I can see how if you shoot for certain outlets, 4K is a must, like Amazon, Hulu or Netflix but the studios, for what I mostly shoot which is BTS, EPK and "making of" pieces, does not want or require 4k delivery or origination so for me, at this time, 4K is more of a hindrance than an advantage. The GH4 has much higher resolution than the C100 or C300 MKI but the way it renders people in comparison is no contest. The Canons make my lighting and the people I photograph look their best while the GH4 did not. The look and colorimetry of a camera trump resolution every time for me. I think we are already at the level where the camera you use doesn't matter too much, they are all at least "good" and some are exceptional. I can see NO reason to ever spend more than $7-8k on a camera again, unless you are an owner/operator and shoot a LOT. But cameras like Amiras and Reds, why not just rent when you need them and the budget justifies them and own a camera like a C100 MKII for the next few years? 4K is coming, is here in a way but if your clients aren't demanding and willing to pay for it, why should you? Low budget jobs you shoot and make your camera rental on the project, higher end jobs you rent the high end, state of the art gear and use it. I can't see buying a C300 MKII even though it is an amazing camera. But by the end of next year, Canon will have already chopped the price and something new and better will be out or coming soon.
Ned also nailed it, buying video gear is a disease. While my expensive Betacam and AVIDs made us money, I could have done better in the long run by buying another house with the money. I would still own it, the rent would still be coming in. Or investing in your 401k or stock market would always have better returns than stupid video gear. Last year, I finally GAVE AWAY my Betcam SP decks. Back in the day, they cost me what a new Lexus cost. Sure I made money with them but it killed me to just give away something that I paid so much money for. Today's C300 MKII is tomorrow's Betacam SP deck. Real estate, 401k, precious metals, guns/ammo, food and water are all good investments. Video gear is a huge, necessary waste of money that loses value faster than anything else we buy other than computers. Buy low cost, rent the high end stuff when needed and invest your money wisely.
I bought in on the Panasonic GH4, I had one of the first ones and while I love Panasonic cameras in general, I never warmed to the GH4. M43 is a huge compromise coming from the DSLR FF and S35 world, M43 is noisy and I didn't like the DOF control. The skin tones and the way the GH4 made people look was very unappealing to both me and to my clients at the studios. 4K was a no go, the clients didn't like the extra bandwidth and storage space, editing with 4k on a 1080p timeline, etc. I can see how if you shoot for certain outlets, 4K is a must, like Amazon, Hulu or Netflix but the studios, for what I mostly shoot which is BTS, EPK and "making of" pieces, does not want or require 4k delivery or origination so for me, at this time, 4K is more of a hindrance than an advantage. The GH4 has much higher resolution than the C100 or C300 MKI but the way it renders people in comparison is no contest. The Canons make my lighting and the people I photograph look their best while the GH4 did not. The look and colorimetry of a camera trump resolution every time for me. I think we are already at the level where the camera you use doesn't matter too much, they are all at least "good" and some are exceptional. I can see NO reason to ever spend more than $7-8k on a camera again, unless you are an owner/operator and shoot a LOT. But cameras like Amiras and Reds, why not just rent when you need them and the budget justifies them and own a camera like a C100 MKII for the next few years? 4K is coming, is here in a way but if your clients aren't demanding and willing to pay for it, why should you? Low budget jobs you shoot and make your camera rental on the project, higher end jobs you rent the high end, state of the art gear and use it. I can't see buying a C300 MKII even though it is an amazing camera. But by the end of next year, Canon will have already chopped the price and something new and better will be out or coming soon.
Ned also nailed it, buying video gear is a disease. While my expensive Betacam and AVIDs made us money, I could have done better in the long run by buying another house with the money. I would still own it, the rent would still be coming in. Or investing in your 401k or stock market would always have better returns than stupid video gear. Last year, I finally GAVE AWAY my Betcam SP decks. Back in the day, they cost me what a new Lexus cost. Sure I made money with them but it killed me to just give away something that I paid so much money for. Today's C300 MKII is tomorrow's Betacam SP deck. Real estate, 401k, precious metals, guns/ammo, food and water are all good investments. Video gear is a huge, necessary waste of money that loses value faster than anything else we buy other than computers. Buy low cost, rent the high end stuff when needed and invest your money wisely.
Last edited:
