quote:

---

Originally posted by originalhummus

I'm working with a multimedia (or transmedia) company at the moment as a junior production manager/production assistant. It's a pretty small company, only just starting up. My producer is about to go to a funding meeting later this week to try and convince the funding board that it will be more beneficial to the business if we can buy our own camera equipment rather than always hire it.

Since we are working with both photography and film, the camera she has decided on is the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.

I've been asked to do a bit of research to support her argument of buying rather than hiring, but everything I seem to find on the net supports the opposite. It would really help to back up the argument if we had some statistics in our favor.

Any suggestions on where I can find this sort of information?? Thanks in advance!

---

My suggestion is that you RENT/HIRE the camera and lighting on a per job basis. There are two excellent reasons why....

The first is that every job you do, will undoubtedly require different equipment, from the camera to lighting and virtually everything else. Purchasing a camera sort of forces you into jobs that use what you've bought A) because you're trying to pay for it and B) to justify to yourself why you bought it. So instead of concentrating on doing what's best for every project, you'll have a vested interested in paying for and justifying your equipment expenditures.

The second reason to NOT purchase equipment is that as soon as you do, you're effectively shutting out the possibility of hiring some very good Cameramen who already own cameras and lighting. Because they own their gear and DO already have an interest in paying it off, they won't be willing to work with YOUR gear while theirs sits at home.

Sure, you may feel like you're saving money in the long run by purchasing equipment, but once you've done that, you're cutting off your own access to some of the best PEOPLE who know how to light sets and people in front of the lens. Perhaps you can always find Cameramen who do not own cameras and lighting who will use your gear, but they may not be A) as good as you may need for some projects and B) may not always be available.

Also, once you purchase any gear at all (camera, lighting, grip, electric, SOUND?) now you're effectively a rental house and you must keep it all up to date and maintained, which is not necessarily cheap either. Not to mention insurance.

Speaking of sound...and lights...and grip....and electric.... have you budgeted any of that as well? What about a quality tripod and fluid head? Camera batteries? Lenses (those are $$$$ for a 7D)? Do you need a dolly? Or jib? Steadicam? (do you know how to use any of that stuff?)

There's a whole lot more to doing production and saving money than just buying a camera to avoid renting every time. Yes, the positive is that you're not spending money on the rental for every shoot, but the negatives are for more and really can outweigh any short-term financial gain you might think you're getting out of a purchase.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

One argument for buying would be your location. Example, we are in China, and renting here with cameras is not always easy. The rental houses sometimes only stock one of the desired camera, so if it is booked on another job then we either have to wait or rent from a different city (if that is even an option). Three weeks ago we tried to rent a Fisher dolly. It was only available for 1 day out of the 6 days we were shooting. In LA, and NYC, the situation is different. There are 8 million rental houses that have 200 of everything. So you might want to see if anyone in your area even stocks what you need for rental. In China, there are virtually no cameramen that have their own gear as well.

making low budget dreams come true

I'll throw out a point or two for each side.

Own - (1) You have the opportunity to catch pick-up shots far after the shoot is over knowing the shots will match your production. (2) You've absorbed the costs so your next film won't have to worry about that. (3) You can loan/rent your camera out to friends when you are done. This seems to be a better option if you expect to by Director/DP like Robert Rodriguez.

Rent - (1) Camera will suck up a chunk of your budget (2) Camera might be outdated in a few years (I ran into this myself when everything went hi-definition, probably won't happen often though). (3) Rental or using someone elses camera forces you to get things done rather than reshoot and reschedule forever. This is probably a better option if your going to get a DP to handle the camera as they will be familiar with their equipment or can guide your rental towards a camera they know.

RJSchwarz

I would say, it would depend on how much and what kind of work you plan on doing. If your camera ends up shooting much of the year (project, after project, after project), owning it will pay for rental fees rather quickly. In NYC, weekly rental of 5DmkII goes for about $300 (body only). I did a quick search for rates in NZ, and found a company in Auckland asking over $500 NZ per week. So, two months worth of rentals would easily cover the initial purchase price of the device.

The question is, how will your company work. If the cameraman will always be the same person (member of staff), (s)he will likely be most comfortable working with the camera he knows best. Under such circumstances, making an argument for buying vs. renting is a bit easier, since the same person is expected to operate the camera, which means that (s)he will be intimately familiar with it.

However, if you don't have a cameraman on staff and will always need to hire one for every project you do, you might not be saving much money by hiring a cameraman without equipment, vs. hiring one WITH equipment. Most freelancers tend to have their own kit (camera/support/lenses/filters, basic lights, accessories) and they include this in their rates.

Much like renting a car: if you plan on lot of driving in a year, it is better to buy. If you live in Manhattan, though, buying a car is a colossal waste of money, when you only use it once a month.

All great points for and against! But I would like to reiterate, as a professional Cameraman who has seen vendors who contend with this exact issue, the problem with a vendor owning gear is that it truly does knock out a huge portion of potential PEOPLE who are very good all because the company refuses to rent gear or rent from the Cameramen. This leaves a very small pool of Cameramen who are willing to work with the company's gear. Saving a few bucks on a camera rental may actually COST the company money if they are hiring a PERSON who isn't experienced and takes too long to light/setup.

Of course, the decision really depends on what the company is doing and how it is staffed. Something like a Canon 5D is really really inexpensive and the costs will be recouped almost immediately, assuming that the company is shooting anything worthwhile. But what a company must consider is their long-term reputation, so putting a few dollars of savings ahead of quality (by hiring PEOPLE instead of worrying about a camera rental) isn't likely to keep them in business very long.

And again, does this company also intend to purchase lighting and all the accessories that go with it? What about sound? They are saving money on the camera by purchasing, but most professional sound mixers DO own their own kit and won't work without it.

There are a lot of elements to weigh for a company when deciding where to allocate their operating funds and it's important to consider that purchasing something to save money on rentals is not always the best LONG TERM solution. The company can actually grow and make MORE money by hiring qualified PEOPLE even if it means renting gear for every project. Usually, the client doesn't care if the vendor is renting or owns the gear...all the client cares about is the final product so the priority has to be doing whatever it takes to ensure that the final product is as great as it can be. THEN, the company will be recognized for the great work it does and will be hired for more and bigger and better projects even if it has to take a perceived hit on equipment costs.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Do net present value analysis (npv) on that purchase. Unless you guys are very very busy and or in a very remote location (they unlikely you will be this busy) and you will have hard numbers towards renting.

But you will not have a cool toy. Maybe you guys just need a toy? They it will come from education budget. Do you have an education/party budget?

Serge Kozak
http://producerproducer.net