Cinematography : Camera Choice by Nathan Blair

And I'll start... My most recent short film was shot on my Canon 7D. We originally toyed with trying to rent a Red Scarlet, but due to the severely low budget, and lack of support in post-production, we chose a less expensive option. The 7D was still excellent, and slightly easier to manage for on-the-fly, guerrilla style shooting.

I shot in Canon T2i. Very limited but worked. I am interested in moving away from DLSR to something else but not sure where to go.

I knew someone that used the T2i and they felt the same way :) I like to think that there's no one answer to what camera should be used... I think cameras are expressive in their own ways, so it's worth considering a number of them and trying to rent whenever budget allows.

I used a T3i on two features, multiple shorts and a TV pilot. For the price it is very good. But held up against better cameras, you can easily see lack of definition, saturation, etc. So I've sold one T3i and bought a used 5D II, which should arrive this week. That should give me better images, but I will say that lens selection is another enormous aspect. Currently I rent good lenses for big shoots, and will keep doing that til I have money to buy them. If I were to upgrade at this point, I'd consider the BMCC, since head to head against the Mk III it kicks butt. Anything above this is way out of my price range, even to rent (arri, red, etc).

Agreed on the F55, wow.

Been using the 5D and T3i a lot. Now a days there are just so many options, it seems like a new camera comes out every week. The fact is that most cameras you can choose from are good enough for most jobs, it comes down to the little things that give it an edge for a particular project. Its also way more about the person behind the camera. I shot a feature on an HVX200 and because my crew and I knew how to work with the cameras strengths and weaknesses we were able to achieve a look that rivaled a much more expensive camera and budget. Honestly, more important above all this is the story, the emotion and the cast and crew behind the project. Unfortunately with the explosion of cameras and tech, the by product is people get so overly concerned about the gear, they pixel peep and spend so much time praising or bashing a certain system when its really about the art and the content. Sometimes I find myself getting caught up in this, and I have to take a step back and remember that the most important thing is the emotion of cinema. It doesn't mean picking the right camera and gear are not important, but everything has a place.

Well, as a guy trying to make things happen with no budget whatsoever I haven't had much of a choice. I have a very old Sony Cybershot. Which has a very low 3 Mpixels on it's best quality photos and quite a bit less then that for mpeg and lets not even talk about the mono condenser mic. I dream about all those wonderful camera's listed up there. :)

I have an old black berry pearl that formats .3pg stock cleans up nice with MOV format, I understand james the pain lol.

Hey, well if the story fits a lo-fi feel then smaller cameras are just as appropriate. It's definitely fun shooting with cool gear but movies can be made on anything really! This is exactly what I was hoping to hear-- filmmakers doing what they can with what they have. Keep it up!

I'm happy to see some low-to-no budget choices listed. I'm still in the planning stages of making my first short and am a bit worried about the quality of equipment, with no budget to upgrade. I plan to use whatever I can get my hands on, which, at the moment is an old digital camera with limited video capabilities. I'm hoping the actors (ie. friends) can pull off the story with emotion and bring it to life, despite the poor quality of the video equipment. My thought is that a good story can transcend poor quality video.

The key then is to work within your means. Don't plan to shoot Transformers if all you have is some friends and an old camera. Create a project tailored to your limitations. You can do a lot with very little if you plan wisely.

Thanks for the advise Evan, and I agree. I've written some fairly elaborate scripts, but for my first attempts at filming, I'm writing something more low-key. I can only give it a try and see where it goes from there.

I've seen horrible crap on the RED and Alexa, and great films on sub five hundred dollar camcorders. The camera model is the least of your worries.

I think it's less about the camera and more about the person behind the camera. A poorly thought out shot still looks bad even if it's shot on Panavision. I own an HMC-40. Not the fanciest or newest camera but it works for I do.

I choose DSLRs ( Canon 7d) , i'm a music video director. so i don't expect my work will be shown in HD 4k cinema screens. Another reason why, it saves me spending tons of money into pre-production and post-production, ( cheap lenses, etc. ) one wise man told me:. "it is not the tool, but the person behind it." Rachael Saltzman is right. you can create amazing stuff with a cheap cellphone camera. it all depends on your creativity

Assuming you DID the creative steps, rewrote and rewrote the script until it was perfect, have a great production designer and art department, have invested in wardrobe props and makeup, storyboarded and shot logged to perfection -- all infused with creative genius , have cast the ideal talents who have rehearsed well and shared the director's vision... are you really going to skimp on the glass through which you capture this all onto the media?

I had to preface this with the above comment or I will be called an artless gear head and told that they have seen utter garbage shot on Alexa or film even... But there is lots of garbage shot on DSLR and cheap lenses can give you limited results.

I have to disagree somewhat with the argument of story/characters over technical merit. I've entered a ton of festivals and watch who wins and who doesn't. People nearly drool over good-looking footage. Even if there are deficiencies in the acting and writing, I see all too often judges and audiences willing to overlook these things if the movie appears pro. Not to say having lesser quality equipment is a valid excuse not to strive for the best film you can make, but the truth (ime) is many people are biased. Fortunately, great cameras and lenses are affordable to rent, and experienced technical people can be easily found in big cities.

Well prefaced,. I shot on RED for my last production with an award-winning DOP so he knew how to get the best out of the RED and a great set of glass. The large sensor chip on a DSLR looks great in still video but the razor thin focus that looks so good in MTV video is sometimes quite impossible for good cinematic movement... it depends on the project and budget...

Evan marlowe, I agree that when I see a decent script and good creativity film amateurish with a low quality camera , It reduces its impact , we all love good image... now as long as the sound it not bad, I can watch a good cell-phone movie. but it ain't pretty. and the bad movies with bad gear tend to go together... you will only film a movie once .... so why not assemble the best you can in all the aspects of your production... If everything is bootstrapped then use what you got or can use the 3 Bs Beg Borrow and Steal um I mean Borrow indefinitely .... but if you are spending on other things, why not a good camera ...

I shot one story with a panasonic DVX100 -- in 2008 and that was done to give its low production value solid look... but I made darned sure in that case that the sound and the foley and the music score was good.

I use a Panasonic GH2 (hacked) with some ultra primes, great results, best "bang for buck" out there that I've seen so far.

Thats the thing richard, Most of us "Dslr Users" DON'T have team of people assigned to every job that takes to make a good film., i dont consider myself a gear head,.... shit... Lol i cant afford none those whistles and flutes in the first place. I would love to shoot everything in RED and my argument might be invalid since i dont produce movies, im nowhere near that level in my career, i shoot fun, mid to low budget music videos and doing great with that. Have a nice day.

Samuel Richards,The GH2 and a box of Ultraprimes is the ultimate bang for buck package and that or Canon are awesome choices for music video, industrial shooting , events and anything else where you don't have more budget. And for those application without the cinematic movement those DSLR are great. Amazing image quality. And As Angel wisely points out. It is the people that matter not the gear. But unless you have a scene where the camera just sits on a tripod, the video camera offers some advantages.

Angel it is not about cost. In some cases I would prefer a Sony ex-1 over a Canon D5 or D7. For one thing it requires a hollywood size camera department to keep a DSLR in proper focus and other smooth movement. And usually folk are not endowed with huge crews. Just with everything else going into and actual film production... use the best you can afford. If you are bootstrapping a no-budget production, then DSLR are a huge boon for folks like us that do not have large scale productions and financing .

geeze, I gave 2 posts to preference my post and even owned up to using a nominally broadcast news quality DV camera and I was still jumped on for using RED on my last production . I would say "gee I am sorry I used RED" except , I am not . The image is rewarding ... I wish my poor abilities in script and directing were able to match the talent of the actors and crew.and cinematographer that brought it all to life and captured high quality images using the film equipment and lenses to do justice to the actors and crew spending their time working on it......

Again I will say... you only shoot a movie once. If the movie is worth shooting, isn't it worth waiting until you can buy beg borrow or steal all the stuff you need to make it great? Why the rush. People will surely respect you more for slowly cranking out one TRULY GOOD short film then the guy who hacks out 4 or 5 dubious quality youtube videos.

Yes! Great points all around. Just another opinion to throw in the hat-- I feel like there is no one camera that should be used by all, and that's sort of my reason for this post. I feel that the camera is a "brush", figuratively speaking, that you use to paint your masterpiece. I saw a film once, Julian Donkey Boy, that was shot on mini-DV tape, transferred to 16mm, and then blown up to 35mm to purposefully induce this absolutely amazing grain that worked so well for the story! But if someone were to do this to a beautifully pristine and saturated film like Amelie for example... oh gosh it would be totally different. Point being... I think there are films which are perfect for DSLRs, there are films that are perfect for film, there are films that are perfect for more expensive cinema cameras, and I think there are even films that are perfect for VHS cameras. As long as it's used as a means to tie the audience closer to your characters, you can't lose.

I know DOPs that do not ever own a camera as part of their kit... just a box of totally awesome lenses. The camera is of little matter compared to the glass and that pales in comparison to the talents behind it all...

The right brush for the job... I never wanted to spend my own cash on a camera because you alway regret spent too much for how little it gets used or did not get a good enough one with the featurs you want.... atleast until they got super cheap.... now personally I own a sony NEX vg 10 with several lenses and that works when the budget is zero ... quite nicely in fact.... when there is a budget, I do want a camera that is not going to outweigh what is spent elsewhere ,but when at least 30 people are involved in a tiny production, I will try hard to not make their efforts wasted by bad camera work...

exactly , add the camera cost to the budget and let the client make the choice. few folks work shooting enough to own their own camera , really. and if you do, clients are always driving you down on cost.... you are a package with your gear... unbundling the costs helps an artist maintain their value.... the cost of the camera is transparent.

I knew I was going to get slammed by the DSLR crowd for admitting using a RED and investing in it as part of the entire value of my product. but I think whether I am manufacturing a chair, the R&D, the DESIGN, the procurement of raw material and the manufacturing talent and up to the final delivery of the production is important. when folks tell you its great BECAUSE it was shot on FILM or RED, doubt it ... the same with the ones that tell you the camera does not matter ... it is like saying the chair is great because the DESIGNER was top notch ( but it was manufactured with cheap quality nylon that is not fire-retardent in a chinese factory)

shooting a r fun experimental film with professional actor friends that I had for only 4 hours it was not gonna be a masterpiece ... ,I shot it on a HANDICAM DV mixed with a non-video DSLR shooting the 1500 pictures that fit on the mini hard drive (no SD card yet) and animating stop action... picture quality did not matter . https://vimeo.com/19649928.... Here is the one I did purposefully on a non- HD camera.. it was not a money choice ... I was looking to mimic certain asian style and we also did not have dolly and track or any other big gear so why get more expensive in the camera. https://vimeo.com/2535068 while this one , i wanted to beautify and If I had shot this on low quality camera , it might have looked like low quality soft porn instead of have textures and colors and other visually sensual elements to match the sensual story..... i invested in a good DOP and good camera for this one https://vimeo.com/2635886

I think a lot of the time small productions fall over when they sacrifice hiring a decent sound recordist to afford a better camera. I am a Director/Sound Recordist which is rare, but so often people think a better camera will improve the look. Often ironically, better sound will make the pictures better than any camera will. :-)

@Samuel Richards I commented similarly above. With Top-notch sound, I will happily watch an iPad shot movie. Bad sound is the hallmark of amateurs and student films. A really good sound mixer/recordist is essential.

a movie with bad sound , shot on ANY media , is unwatchable

Indeed. If you gonna invest money on gear. Let sound be one of your priorities.

I love the distinctive look of a DVX100 even in this age of HD. I have to say that film is never a bad choice when budget allows. The biggest issue is to master your medium. For me, though, I would only choose it when the cinematography is pushing the bounds of the visual image and lighting or in panoramic applications... something that needs film. But that is just me. For films less about the amazing cinematography and more about the action and dialog there is a scrap heap somewhere of all the films whose directors demanded that their vision required film and then they used up their film stock mid-shooting... rarely do those assembled rushes demand higher investment... If you are not a director that can keep schedule and film use rate, the production may also not be a masterpiece demanding additional investment,.....

The trend is towards digital acquisition; but your question is too broad. Obviously; the major studio backed productions are opting for 35mm, 65mm and Alexa/Red acquisitions. Most of your low-end things are going on vDSLRs, S16mm is always a niche, and the C300s, F3s, and the like, are more and more so finding their ways into b-cameras, slightly funded shorts/features, and a lot of broadcast applications (low light especially). The trend, however, is back-asswards, as it's a trend of picking the camera first and then deciding on a style. In truth, one should work the opposite way, style first and then the tool to get there as efficiently as possible. As for investments, don't ever buy a camera. It is in almost all but the exceptionally rare case, a loosing investment-- and a huge one-- once you factor in even the most rudimentary of ancillary needs (tripod/batter/mattebox/lenses/filters/follow focus ect).

most of the indie features i've done are red one or canon.

You're welcome to disagree. But, that has not been my experience. Once you factor in all the costs, upkeep, insurance for your camera, and the fact that digital gets envogue and out of vogue so quickly, it becomes very difficult to make an economic argument for owning. Also, if you're a shooter, you just add in the rental rate to your own day-rate and it comes up a wash. Unless you're undercutting everyone on rates anyway by owning your own camera, in which case, you're really doing a disservice to the industry, by driving rates down. Now, if you have a long term project, or a client who is repeat all the time who only wants camera "X" as was the case with my XDCam, before I sold it, then there is a bit more logic in it. However, just purchasing a camera package for the 30k+ you'll spend to get it up to production spec-- aside from vDSLRs which are a bit of a different beast, as well as the soon to be released BMD camera becomes very hard to pay for, or so has been my experience as well as the experience of pretty much every (non steadycam) owner/op I know. Now, granted, much of the equipment layout for your first camera in gear will translate into the next camera, but that is a lot of a gamble on what may effectively not be the primary thing you are shooting with. It'd tragic for me to see, in the case of Red for example, so many owners just selling that camera to every shoot at a great disservice to the client when it isn't the right tool for the job just to make back their investment. Maybe I'm spoiled in being able to get production-- for the most part-- to get the right tools for the job, but I can't in good conscience ever recommend to a new person to purchase any camera package without the knowledge and wisdom and experience to make an informed choice-- as I think you an I both have Sam (hope you don't mind me calling you Sam) though we obviously are of different minds thereon. In any case, that's my advice/opinion, take it or leave it as I am sure I am wrong as often as I am right ;)

The problem with owning is when it comes to either feeling the need to own six different bodies, or having producers limit the kind of work you do with the stupidest question of 'what do you own'. Pick the artist first, and let them choose the right tool for the job.

It happens on every 'race to the bottom' job. I have a 7d and assorted glass, because I also shoot stills and stop motion. And it's also there for those nifty jobs with almost no budget, so I can just grab and go. Other than that, I see no reason to become a rental company.

Canon 7d is my choice.

Producers will always try to "bundle" you and your gear. your value and or the camera value will get squeezed. and it is hard to be clear . I know a few DOP that only travel on their lenses. then the value of their DOP work and the cost of the camera body are distinct and match the scale and intent of the film.

When I first went back to school I purchased a Sony PB 150 I figured it was good enough for QT it will be good enough for me... so far it has done its job and then some.

I've been using a combination of the RED EPIC, AND CANNON 5D mark III's on my Sports show "Get 2 the Game"

I rent out a RED Epic so am lucky enough to be able to shoot on it for many of my projects. When I can't manage that I shoot on the 5D mark II. I have a lot of fun the with RED and am still learning all its tricks (especially on the post side of things). The 5D had super crisp images but it definitely lacks some character. I love the Epic and I've seen it turn out great shots even to the inexperienced. Ideally though, I'd be shooting film. I've only ever shot 16mm but for me it makes a better experience and hold people to a higher standard.