Should I buy a Bolex or save up for an Arri?

[Shion]

I'm no expert, but I would guess that Arris are trickier and more expensive to maintain, and a "decent" one would cost a fair bit more than what you're looking at spending.

How about starting small, and then thinking about upgrading/renting later, once you're more experienced and producing work of a high enough standard to need something better?

Perhaps a low-end Bolex, as Steven has suggested, would be a good starting point. Do your research, as there are many H16 variants out there, and many lenses available. Other models to consider are the Krasnogorsk-3 and the Canon Scoopic-16.

-Bon

[mattias]

I am a 17-year-old kid with a part time job, and let me tell you that renting is out of the question.

the point is that it's cheaper to rent. for the $800 you're willing to spend you can get a much better camera, and a complete package too, for several weeks. again, how much do you plan to shoot? if it's more than a couple of days per year i really must question whether you'll be able to afford the film stock and processing. see what i'm saying?

I can own my own camera, not worry about it being someone elses and being responsible for it

huh? you got it completely backwards, but suit yourself. nothing wrong with your reasoning but just take the points made above, in this post and the previous ones, into consideration.

/matt

[flyingsquirrelsnake]

Thank you all for your comments. I realize filmshooting is an expensive hobby/profession, and I think I budget my income to suit a comfortable and steady relationship with it.

[monobath]

I'm not a pro, and I'm not considering buying or renting or even using any high-end super 16 camera gear any time soon. I don't consider any of my reasoning or suppositions or questions on the subject to be authoritative or deeply insightful because I completely lack experience in this area.

Still, I find the subject vrey interesting. Why? Because those of you who are pros have managed to come to a conclusion about the economy of renting versus buying the tools of your trade that is the complete opposite of the conclusion reached by the majority of people in just about any other trade, profession, or artistic endevor I can think of.

The majority of still photographers buy their gear and only rent when something breaks or they're in a jam. Mechanics buy their own tools. Artists buy their brushes and easels. Sculptors buy their chisels, hammers, and hoists. Draftsmen, carpenters, welders, private practice doctors, dentists, and restaurant chefs own their own most important tools. And on and on.

Why do only filmmakers conclude that their most important tool should always be rented?

mattias, I first gave an example of renting an Arri SR2 with one good zoom lens and a couple of 400 foot mags. Price came to $500 per day according to the lowest-cost advertised rates I could find. You or someone said you get a break when renting by the week and no one really pays that theoretical $500 per day.

OK, then you tell flyingsquirrelsnake that for $800, he could rent for several weeks a much better package than he can buy. Really? If the advertised price for that gear comes to $500 per day rental, you are saying that it can really be rented for several weeks for a mere $800? If that's true, then the advertised rental prices are completely useless. I seriously doubt the differential could possibly be as broad as you say.

What is the real cost per day for a high-end rental like my example if you are going to keep the camera and use it for three weeks? Whatever the real cost is, that neets to be factored in to the rent/buy decision. I still think it'll come out favorable toward buying rather than renting for anyone whose business involves shooting film.

[Evan Kubota]

To do 16mm on the cheap, a K3 or non-reflex H16 is probably your best bet. Getting into the Arris will end up costing a lot more... I went with a non-reflex H16.

[mattias]

mattias, I first gave an example of renting an Arri SR2 with one good zoom lens and a couple of 400 foot mags. Price came to $500 per day ... OK, then you tell flyingsquirrelsnake that for $800, he could rent for several weeks a much better package than he can buy.

well, $500 was your example. sorry if it sounded like i confirmed it when i used it for my math. i would never pay that much for a basic package.

as for renting, that's because we use the cameras less often and they're more expensive to buy. the other professions you mention rent the parts of their toolbox that fall into that category too. i do own my light meter, go figure.

/matt

[flyingsquirrelsnake]

I think that is a good point, monobath. Oh, and Mike is the name. I really don't like that aweful screename I gave myself.

[Nigel]

I know some top end still photographers and they rent gear all the time.

The reason that it makes more sense to rent high end cine gear is because of the costs involved. We are talking about cameras that cost more than homes in some parts of this country...

If you want a junk 16 to play with then go for it.

Good Luck

[christoph]

Still, I find the subject vrey interesting. Why? Because those of you who are pros have managed to come to a conclusion about the economy of renting versus buying the tools of your trade that is the complete opposite of the conclusion reached by the majority of people in just about any other trade, profession, or artistic endevor I can think of.
[...]
Why do only filmmakers conclude that their most important tool should always be rented?

you've got a very valid point here:
if you really want to get comfortable to one camera and all it's strenght and weaknesses, then buying is the right thing (if you can afford it). however, the main difference to the arts you mention above is sheer cost. a set of brushes can be had pretty cheap, sculpting tools are affordable, you can buy a Nikon kit with top lenses for less than 1000 EUR used, even a professional medium camara set is less than 2-3000 EUR these days...
a film camera that can be used for sync sound filming will easily set you back 10'000 EUR, a new Arri SRIII Advanced with good glas is more like 100'000 - it's just not something a lot of people can afford and let it lie around 300 days of the year.
on top of that, there's the cost of film, processing and printing/telecine... that's another 200-300EUR/10mins of 16mm. this alone makes low end 16mm cameras less attractive, what good is a 800EUR camera with old soft lenses if you pay twice as much for 1 hour of footage.

and there's another reason: most filming requires a crew (be it only 2 actors and a sound guy, but 10ppl for a fiction film is prolly what is considered the minimum), which wont be available 24h/7/365, so you have to plan which days you want to film anyway.

there are exceptions to that:
buying make sense if you want to make a diary film, or if you're into animations, or documentaries.. basically stuff where you need the camera with you all the time and not a lot of people are involved.. and if you're sure that your next projects can be done with the same equipment. it makes sense if you like old vintage gear and dont mind their quirks, and if you want to get emotionally attached to your gear.

film is really more an industry than an art. somebody once said that he would like film to become like painting, so that every kid could afford to get a camera and make a new masterpiece. well, video and cheap NLEs have come and the films are no better (or personally i'm tempted to say much worse) than they were 40 years ago.

mattias, I first gave an example of renting an Arri SR2 with one good zoom lens and a couple of 400 foot mags. Price came to $500 per day according to the lowest-cost advertised rates I could find. You or someone said you get a break when renting by the week and no one really pays that theoretical $500 per day.

as said, list price here is less than 200 EUR for a SRII kit with a good canon zoom. if you are low-budget, you could get a 3days week.
make a step down and rent a Arri ST with lens kit for less than 100EUR. that's 300EUR a week or about as much as 10min of footage a week... if you cant afford that, then you're better off with super8 ;)

++ christoph ++

[mattias]

If you want a junk 16 to play with then go for it.

for sure. i got three myself.

/matt

[Nigel]

Yeah and your keystone or whatever is perfect for just kicking around.

Good Luck

[ccortez]

Thank you all for your comments. I realize filmshooting is an expensive hobby/profession, and I think I budget my income to suit a comfortable and steady relationship with it.

I have a few relatively inexpensive, functional 16mm cameras. Before I did some shooting with them, I wouldn't have been prepared to properly use a rented camera. So I'm not sure how one is supposed to get enough experience shooting/handling a good 16mm camera w/o some "seat time" as they say...

But I do agree that for "real projects", renting holds many, many advantages; now that I (barely, sort of, not really) know what I'm doing, I'd rent for a 16mm shoot where I was spending real money, especially somebody else's money.

[Nigel]

CCortez

The way you get "Seat Time" without owning is easy. Go to the rental house with a roll of film and ask them to shoot a test in house. They have test charts and you can run a very simple test. Why will they let you do this?? Because you are a potential customer...

The other way is to volunteer. Work as a loader for free, Work as a 2nd for free. Play with the camera as you build it. Play with it as you break it down. Talk with the DP or 1st and see if you can have it for a dry run after the shoot for 15 minutes.

Good Luck

[chachi]

well I'll second the idea that bolex's are easy to repair, I have had mine in pieces to fix a few things and managed to put it back together in perfect working order. Mind you I haven't had to repair an Arri yet, so I really can't say one is easier to repair then the other, just that the bolex was easy.

I still think the ARRI is sexier and I will one day buy one even if its just for the showcase, but i will own one! :twisted: