Cinematography : Hiring Cameras and Buying by Kris Monroe

I'm pretty much a Sony guy but I know that a lot of people that only hire people with RED camera's because it's a hot item. I've lost a few jobs because I didn't have a RED even though I can produce RED quality with Sony. If the client want's a RED camera, I put the rental cost in their package price.

Ditto, Tony - I recently had talks with a director and producer about a shoot. We'd been chatting about looks, lenses, shot lists, and the whole nine yards. Then they asked which model of RED I owned. In my first email to them, I mentioned what I owned, so it came as a bit of a surprise when they were basically offended I didn't own a RED. So I sent rental info, and they just dropped me like nothing ever happened. Just found it interesting!

I cannot begin to tell you the jobs I lost because I didn't own a RED. It's nothing more than a brand name. It does the job but there are cameras that are cheaper and produce the same quality. I feel there's too many gizmos you have to buy with a RED anyway.

What you shoot on is sooo overrated. Script and casting are about 4,000 times more important.

I can't agree more, Dave! Have you had past experiences where that conversation came up?

All the time. Look I love cameras, gadgets are cool, technology etc. but: "My movie didn't set the world on fire. I should have used a better script or cast better actors" - said a lot of people. "My movie didn't set the world on fire. Awesome script and acting, but I shouldn't have shot it in only 1080/on a 5D/on a 70D/Sony A7" - said no one ever... It doesn't take talent to own a Red, just good credit. Also someone with more expensive gear is going to charge you a higher rate so they can pay back their gear. Now some people have shot a movie on an iPhone. I wouldn't go that far... But a 5D or A7? let's shoot

The way I see it, the director is hiring a cinematographer to shoot the project based on their reel. If they are a talented DP/cinematographer then what they use shouldn't matter. The way I see it, the DP/cinematographer should be picking the camera that best suits the project. Different cameras have different pros/cons and who knows them better than a DP with experience? But then again, I've never directed a short film that I didn't also shoot.

I love cool gear. But after seeing what has been done on the Canon T2i, I came to understand that as cool as it is, the person behind it is more important. There are feature films shot on iPhones. I will say that the paid jobs I have done, no one blinked or had any concern when I said I was using a Canon Cinema camera. It is a C100 with an Atomos shooting 1080. Of course I haven't dealt with anyone requiring 4k yet.

If owning a particular camera is getting you hired or not, you need to work on your work. Cameras are incidental to cinematography and just a tool. Smart producers hire DP not the camera. Buy lights and grip if you own anything; they will pay for themselves and can work any job, unlike a camera.

Royce, that sounds really nice. But where I am there are a number of people that hire based only on gear. Why? Because they have enough knowledge to know nothing about what any of it really means. Of course we also have people that will not hire a company that drives Ford trucks. But you also have to take into account the type of work that you will find in this part of the country. Which is often web based commercials and rap videos.

I am in Hollywood and the same challenge exists here... probably more so due to the current depth of competition and market saturation with crew and toys. One job of the DP is to protect their own interests as well as that of the client. Time was a DP could own one model ( film) camera for 15 years and be quite busy and profitable. That is gone until such time as camera choices return to 3 instead of 50. I would suggest you should not be in the business of keeping up with peers who are racing to the bottom in price and keeping up with camera releases - even if your clients demand that. Instead strive for unique and better work that gets attention and reputation so much so the client will either trust your choices or rent what they want for you to use. I would suggest a dispassionate and objective view of the business side of cinematography- something almost no one entering the business is doing today. In Hollywood today a good number of the young, busy and talented Dragon owner DPs who very busy also appear by all counts to be trust funders... and trust fund is an unworkable business model, although it does drive the rates down. I do fine shooting... not the same kinds of things I used to... and while I have lights grip and glass... I own no camera. I won't lease one. It's just a terrible time for a DP to worry about buzz. It really is a waste of focus ( pun intended).

As a low budget writer producer, I ditto the comments above, particularly Mr. McCrea's. I'd add that if I were looking at hiring a DP, I want to hear how the film would be shot in terms of what the DP would be bringing to the overall story telling, what camera or cameras we might need to rent and what they might cost, etc. Yes, I've seen very nice work with the Red camera. But I also recently watched a short video in which cinematographers evaluated three lenses, purchase prices $500, 7500, and 15K, by shooting the same shots with all three and ('double blind') they were barely better than random chance at picking out which lens was used for which shot. Equipment is important but that importance depends on how that equipment serves the story telling. Not hiring somebody because they don't a particular piece of equipment strikes me as bassackwards.

The low buck bottom feeders are more interested in how cheaply they can get their project completed than how it will look. They are hiring the camera not the experienced person behind it. Sad, the ruination of the film industry.