Comments on: Gear Lust – Does it Ever Make Sense to Buy?

By: Hasta La Vista Baby (Until September) « The Art & Business of Filmmaking & Photography

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:03:18 +0000

[…] Gear lust – does it ever make sense to buy? […]

By: Ron Dawson

Ron Dawson — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:26:13 +0000

In reply to Bruce Patterson. That's actually a very good point Bruce. When looking at the cost of renting gear, pick up time (or shipping costs if you use a company like BorrowLenses or LensRentals) should also be factored. In this example you site, if you're doing that many gigs, I would say that falls under that very first parameter I mentioned: you have enough paying gigs to justify the investment. If someone is shooting 40 weddings a year let's say, that could easily amount to $4000 or more in rental fees on a 5D Mark II. That's a clear case where it would make sense to buy.

By: Bruce Patterson

Bruce Patterson — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:22:36 +0000

Another thing to factor in would be the cost of your time to keep picking up and returning rental gear. If you shoot lots of weddings in the summer on Saturdays, for example, you have to factor in time on Friday and Monday to get your items to and from the rental house. So many people don’t factor in their time and it can really eat into your week in the summer. When you buy, it just sits on your shelf waiting to be used 🙂

By: Lara Luz

Lara Luz — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:40:46 +0000

your right.

I’d much rather rent the latest greatest thing that suits my current project than buy something only to find that I’m not actually using it enough.
Each project required a different tool set.

By: Ron Dawson

Ron Dawson — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:50:10 +0000

In reply to Bill Vincent. Great quote Bill. I just tweeted it. :)

By: Bill Vincent

Bill Vincent — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:42:45 +0000

Great post, Ron. Something else that fits along the lines of what you wrote is the myth perpetuated by the manufacturers (and consumers) of video gear that you can “buy” your way to a hit independent film. I remember (in the 90’s) all the initial obsession with 24p from video people who were just desperately thirsty for something resembling a film look (pre-DSLR). It really didn’t make people’s films any better, and probably made them worse in the wrong hands – but it was a huge boon for the manufacturers who touted it.

Buying a $5000 guitar doesn’t make you Jimi Hendrix, and buying a $5K, 10K, or even 100K camera doesn’t make you Kubrick. The Sgt. Pepper’s album and the bulk of music from Motown’s glory days were recorded on a 4-track. Obsess over the quality of your work, not the quality of your gear! 😉

By: Ron Dawson

Ron Dawson — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:49:27 +0000

In reply to Mark. Great comment Mark. Absolutely. The trick is believing that you can do the job with a less expensive camera.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:41:16 +0000

The lure of new shiny is great, but I too take a step back and really analyse what I need, rather than what I want.

We know what it’s like when we men are out with family. We want to be leader of the pack by pulling out some enormous over the top camera with a massive lens, designed (like a flash sports car) to illicit looks of envy from other lesser mortals. I’ve done it, but am now completely past that time. I regularly go to and report from trade shows, and indeed have lugged around a 7D, 3 lenses, field recorders, flash units and the associated gubbins that go with such things. This year, I left all that at home, grabbed a Sony NEX-5 and did a better and more responsive job – photos and HD video were of a standard that my readers are more than happy with, and I didn’t have to lug a camera shop around.

It’s all about the right tools for the job. And you almost certainly don’t have to sell a kidney to do it either. Well… not every time anyway.