My big question

Zack Birlew

Zack Birlew

Veteran
When it comes to RED, I've started to believe that the price of the camera may be $4,000-$10,000, sure. But the lens choices are pretty high up there.

Forgive my inexperience with camera lenses, but I'm assuming PL-mount lenses are 35mm film lenses? Like Carl Zeiss, Cooke, ect.? Looking at www.zgc.com, the pricing list for Cooke lenses is way out of my budget for just a lense. I can't even get a price list for Zeiss lenses, so I assume they're around the same or more. Am I wrong here? Am I missing something?

If this is true, then here's my big question, what do you guys think would be the best long-term financial choice:

A) Rent the RED, buy a lense or two

or

B) Buy the RED (even up to $20,000 if necessary), rent the lenses

I'm aiming towards the future here and this is assuming I even go with the RED, I could just get an HVX200 with an M2 and be on my merry way. But, I'm very interested in the RED since I plan on doing a wide variety of films that could use the 4:4:4 color space and 4K resolution. Any help would be appreciated.
 
From a logical but uneducated point of view, I'd say buy the RED and rent the lenses. Lens will probably be easier to rent and cheaper, and what would you do with the lenses without the camera body? Maybe a friend can lend you lenses or some stuff. Then you'd have the camera body to use those lenses with.
 
What give you the idea it will be $4-$10K? JJ has already said it is unrealistic to expect it to be in the price range of 1/3" CCD cams


ash =o)
 
Well, I'm just saying, Ash, I don't know. That's why I mentioned "up to $20,000 if necessary". Plus, I was talking about the camera on its own and the rest of the dough to bump it up in price would be the lenses and accessories. I should edit that and make it more like $8,000-$15,000 for the camera alone, my bad.

Any more input would be appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top