What to buy... Glidecam vs. Arri Lights

I usually just rent lights when I need them. I don't have enough space to store them in because they're so bulky and heavy. And ask yourself...how often do you really shoot movies? You can use lights when you need them but then you have to store them.

A steadicam isn't that bulky and you can use it for other things than movies. I've used it for weddings in the past too.

Personally I think renting the light kit for cheap and owning a steadicam are worth it because if you need a steadicam for future stuff, atleast you'll know how to use it because you'll have it for whenever you need it.
 
Get the Lights, then get a handheld glide cam unit.

The vest is too restrictive motion wise for my tastes and while it relieves pressure, the shots aren't as interesting since you can't boom as much and maneuvering in close quarters is a PITA (plus new vest models are coming out).

I'd get a glidecam 4000 which is not even $400 (hell maybe not even 300 on ebay), then spend the 1200 bucks you saved on lights - best of both worlds

1200 bucks may not get you an arri starter kit as posted, but will get you plenty to get by. In all honestly I think both are luxuries. As said before great lighting with static shots is better then poor lighting with glidecam shots.

On the other hand, I've gotten by pretty well with a little common sense, cheap lights, and just knowing how to use natural light to your advantage.

IMO - I'd say get a 3 point kit - perhaps two totas and an Omni for about $600, then spend the rest on completing your kit with all the grips, clamps, DIMMERS, umbrellas, reflectors, diffusers, gels, flags, silks that you can find, and throw in a few cheap par can/construction lights for back up. (I really do like having a lot of accessories moreso than fancy lights as it allows to you control the light and natural light much more than buying the most expensive 3point kit out there sans accessories.
 
Last edited:
We can all give you our opinions based on our personal goals or assumptions, but what it really comes down to is what you want to do. If you want to become a DP on film sets, go for the lights, learn the core of the trade, and meet people. DPs don't op steadicam shots on most film sets anyway. It takes months of practice to become a professional operator on a steadicam, and many people make a good living doing just that.

If you want to be a cam op or steadicam op, then the choice is obvious.

Of course, then comes the inevitable argument "But cam ops often work their way up to DP status". That's true. Most DPs come from the camera side of the fence. Few DPs come from the lighting side, which can be a major problem.

Having lights will get you more jobs, as every job needs lights, and not every job needs a steadicam. Accordingly, having lights could eventually fund your buying a steadicam later down the road.

It's up to you. Personally, if I am DPing a film that requires a shot to be done with a steadicam, I will find and hire a professional operator. It means less money than buying a rig and all the time spent trying to learn it, and I can focus on what the DP SHOULD focus on: the big picture (pun intended).
 
Thanks for all the opinions guys! I think I'll go with the lights for right now, but I'll definitely keep the Glidecam in mind when I have the money.

Thanks again,
Colin Worley
 
I always rent lights. For a start I wouldnt want to output all the cash to have a complete light set up that would cover me. I do have 3 lights I have on hand for interviews etc. But apart from those, other jobs call for far more than I can pack in my car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top